Con Con??? OMG no!

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

Con Con??? OMG no!

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Con Con??? OMG no!

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Con Con??? OMG no! - 12/13/2008 8:11:58 AM

pahunkboy

Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline

http://blacklistednews.com/news-2611-0-15-15--.html

what is this? I dont want the government to fix any more problems. Abolish private property???

-----------------

if Ohio passes the law, only 1 more state would make a constitutional convention to rewrite the constitution? are these
people for real???

what does this mean? This is the 1st time I heard of this.

Profile

Post #: 1

RE: Con Con??? OMG no! - 12/13/2008 8:31:48 AM

thornhappy

Posts: 8596
Joined: 12/16/2006
Status: offline

When you see a disclaimer like this:

"Editors Note: I am not sure of the validity of this information, and there is a huge black out in the alternative media on this story."

And you see writing like this in the article:

"I apologize! This malignancy most foul remained undetected by our radar until a good friend brought it to our attention yesterday. The hour is late, but WE MUST TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION!"

I'd look a little deeper before citing that source.

Here's the complete text, from:
http://www.lbo.state.oh.us/fiscal/fiscalnotes/127ga/HJR0008IN.htm

State Fiscal Highlights

· No direct fiscal effect on the state.
Local Fiscal Highlights

· No direct fiscal effect on political subdivisions.

Detailed Fiscal Analysis
The resolution proposes to apply to the Congress of the United States to call a constitutional convention pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution for proposing amendments. This resolution has no direct fiscal impact to the state or local governments.

The resolution specifies that the state of Ohio requests the Congress to convene a constitutional convention within six months after the Congress receives the thirty-fourth application from the specified states. In addition, the resolution proposes the following amendments to the United States Constitution:

(1)      Require the President to submit and the Congress to adopt only balanced budgets for all federal programs and agencies, except in times of war;

(2)      Grant the President the authority to disapprove any item or items in any bill presented by the Congress to the President in addition to the President's authority to disapprove entire bills pursuant to Article I, Section 7 of the United States Constitution;

(3)      Require the President to submit and the Congress to adopt budgets for all federal programs and agencies on a biennial rather than annual basis.

Article V provides that a constitutional convention may be called by Congress on the application of two-thirds of the state legislatures of specified states including Ohio. If this resolution is approved, a constitutional convention may be called by the U.S. Congress. LSC staff are not certain how many states have outstanding applications for such constitutional convention.

[Economist's name removed by thornhappy]
HJR0008IN.doc/lb

< Message edited by thornhappy -- 12/13/2008 8:34:17 AM >

(in reply to pahunkboy)

Profile

Post #: 2

RE: Con Con??? OMG no! - 12/14/2008 6:24:30 AM

pahunkboy

Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel

no!

this is the real thing! it would be a re-write of the constitution!

(in reply to thornhappy)

Profile

Post #: 3

RE: Con Con??? OMG no! - 12/14/2008 9:42:44 AM

thornhappy

Posts: 8596
Joined: 12/16/2006
Status: offline

For crying out loud, pahunk. It proposes amendments to the Constitution (just like all the other amendments we have.) Balanced budget (except in times of war), line item veto, and biennial budgeting (which would be slicker than snot because a bunch of the year is spent getting the numbers together for the next year, and you wouldn't have the "use it or lose it" problem with unobligated funds from the first year.)

Like any other amendment to the Constitution, it requires 2/3 of the states to approve it.

Man, lately you've been spooling all sorts of stuff here with no common sense applied, or fact checking.

thornhappy

(in reply to pahunkboy)

Profile

Post #: 4

RE: Con Con??? OMG no! - 12/14/2008 10:31:37 AM

pahunkboy

Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline

Thorn, the precedent for this is 1787. Over 200 years ago.

So if a constitutional convention is called, whom do YOU think the delegates will be?    Lobbyests? Lawyers? Members of the Council of Foreign Relations? Do you think YOU would be a delegate? How about anyone on CM?

Would you want any of todays "leaders" to rewrite the constitution?

Many of the bill of rights have been weakened lately.

So you beleive a constitutional convention, which has not occurred in 200 years, is not of interest.   How then did 26 amendments happen? All before 1787?    No.

If the bill of rights is in sorry shape now.... then, think of how it will be after Pelosi and others get at it?   The Patriot act... that is ACTUALLY law now.   It did not "sunset".

Freedom cages for all!

(in reply to thornhappy)

Profile

Post #: 5

RE: Con Con??? OMG no! - 12/14/2008 3:08:52 PM

Dargrim

Posts: 14
Joined: 2/6/2008
Status: offline

Sorry to be English and there for not fully understanding your system. But I must ask, how the heck did you change things with out changing your constitution, I mean women and etnic minorities have all been given the vote since then.

Also why wouldn't you want problems solved, surely its better then letting them get worse?

Also common sense check. Your in the most rampantly capitalist country of them all.... no one is going to take away private property.

Still my originial question stands, I am curious about your system. Oh and what rights have been weakened? As far as I am awear all I have seen is some tabloid scare mongering, though please correct me if I am wrong. With facts though.

(in reply to pahunkboy)

Profile

Post #: 6

RE: Con Con??? OMG no! - 12/14/2008 3:18:58 PM

pahunkboy

Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline

...the way I understand it the further rights you mention happened with out a constitutional convention. The government is fraught with special interests....being that we are most ignorant of the mistakes of history, that we think we are immune from its fate, that the natural laws of the planets don't apply to the US, is cause for alarm.

The vid shows the testimony in Ohio. Official testimony. (the state legislature) that give the matter more weight then a tabloid.

technically the federal reserve is not allowed under the constitution. even as executive order 11110 still stands.... it would be like you paying me $20 a day to use your computer.
coinage of the money is a function of the government. not a private corporation, known as federal express. I mean federal reserve.

(in reply to Dargrim)

Profile

Post #: 7

RE: Con Con??? OMG no! - 12/14/2008 3:50:30 PM

Dargrim

Posts: 14
Joined: 2/6/2008
Status: offline

I grant you the first part, particularly with some of the parts from my uni course.

I am confused to where you stand I must admit, you appear to be against the constitutional changes, because you think the big corporations are going to remove your rights to private propery? Ah I am tired and slow. Under what reasoning, and what do you think they will do exactly, which scares you from a review and potential change to your partially backdated constitution.

Also how do you amend it with out changing it, that makes very little sense, as surely that would mean there is no need to call a Convention.

(in reply to pahunkboy)

Profile

Post #: 8

RE: Con Con??? OMG no! - 12/14/2008 4:28:59 PM

pahunkboy

Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dargrim

I grant you the first part, particularly with some of the parts from my uni course.

I am confused to where you stand I must admit, you appear to be against the constitutional changes, because you think the big corporations are going to remove your rights to private propery? Ah I am tired and slow. Under what reasoning, and what do you think they will do exactly, which scares you from a review and potential change to your partially backdated constitution.

Also how do you amend it with out changing it, that makes very little sense, as surely that would mean there is no need to call a Convention.

the constitution as written is fine. It does not need to be changed.   And yes- the globalists will gut the remaining vestage of the US.

With globalization, one can not have both it, and a nation state. It is not possible.

I dont mean this in a bad way... if you are currently in school, the paradigm has shifted. You might have a better future by learning a trade.

One sentence in a law can be huge. One letter can change the entire gist of the law. Congress votes on bills they do not read. They add extraneous items to it.. they cancel out maybe then the cancel gets canceled.

....there is hope.   things will go one of 2 ways.   toward a
1 world currency, all electronic, or the better way; which is where each country coins its own money, backed by gold.

There are now 12 bail outs for 2008. This is the warning shot. The problem is not a bunch of mortgages. It is gambling.

http://karmabanqueradio.com/2008/12/13/max-keiser-predicted-a-bernie-madoff/   <--- you can learn about some of it here.

if we go the way of the globalists, we enter an age akin to the dark ages of the 1400s... it is that bad.

http://larouchepac.com/news/2008/11/28/lpactv-american-system-3-mission-us.html   <-- watch this one first. It describes money and what we need to do now.

< Message edited by pahunkboy -- 12/14/2008 4:33:43 PM >

(in reply to Dargrim)

Profile

Post #: 9

RE: Con Con??? OMG no! - 12/14/2008 4:51:16 PM

thornhappy

Posts: 8596
Joined: 12/16/2006
Status: offline

What makes you think they could get 2/3 of the states to approve an amendment?

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

Thorn, the precedent for this is 1787. Over 200 years ago.

So if a constitutional convention is called, whom do YOU think the delegates will be?    Lobbyests? Lawyers? Members of the Council of Foreign Relations? Do you think YOU would be a delegate? How about anyone on CM?

Would you want any of todays "leaders" to rewrite the constitution?

Many of the bill of rights have been weakened lately.

So you beleive a constitutional convention, which has not occurred in 200 years, is not of interest.   How then did 26 amendments happen? All before 1787?    No.

If the bill of rights is in sorry shape now.... then, think of how it will be after Pelosi and others get at it?   The Patriot act... that is ACTUALLY law now.   It did not "sunset".

Freedom cages for all!