Article Five Constitutional Convention

Apparently the left and their (((leaders))) are shitting their pants at the possibility that six more states will sign on to the 28 existing ones calling for a concon.

So Zig Forums, want to fix the (((problems))) in our government? Bring on the concon!

Attached: 30B15310-5ADC-4FB6-A3E5-1999C36A3BD7.png (1200x632, 17.75K)

Other urls found in this thread:

dw.com/en/australia-five-more-lawmakers-forced-from-office-over-dual-nationality-ban/a-43713707
archive.is/nkZxY
edward.fish/index.php/2016/06/18/constitutional-amendment-booklet/
edward.fish/index.php/2016/04/12/treason-by-the-senate-of-the-united-states/
petition2congress.com/ctas/petition-to-amend-constitution-to-set-limits-on-income-tax-incurrence-debt-commerce-clause-us
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

The media says a constitutional convention is a complete rewrite. The actual point of a constitutional convention is to add new amendments, presented by the states rather than by the federal government (which would never allow certain amendments). Either way, this isn’t something that can end well for us, except insofar as it could end in civil (read: race) war.

How about a ban on dual citizenship for public office holding, plus bringing into law that mysterious 13th amendment that went (((missing)))?

I’d add a mechanism for Canadians to join as well, but they can always join by treaty.

(((Levin))) has been pushing for this for years. I suspect they'll open it for one purpose (cutting funding) and end up changing other things (free speech and guns) to fuck everyone.

I'd love a ban on dual citizenship for public office but it needs to be done for everyone. No more dual citizenship. Then treat anybody here illegally as a spy or invader. See how fast the immigration problem sorts itself out.

Stupid commies. BTDT. We did it this morning. It’s why I spotted her out of the girls sitting at that table.

There is no way on Earth this can end well. And beside what is the point of adding stuff to the Constitution? The Left and Kikes will literally just choose to interpret it and ignore it at whim - like they do already extensively with freedom of association, the right to bear arms, freedom of speech etc.

Amendment 28: Bill Content Amendment
All bills submitted to Congress shall pertain to one matter and one matter alone, as outlined in the title of the bill. All bills must be read, in full, vocally, within the chamber, before presentation to either the House or the Senate for a vote. All bills must be voted on by all members of Congress. In the event that a member is indisposed, a proxy must be sent. The method by which this proxy is chosen is delegated to the state legislatures of the respective member of Congress.

Amendment 29: Foreign Powers Amendment
No treaty or executive agreement shall be made abridging or prohibiting the free exercise of the rights of citizens of the United States protected by this Constitution. No treaty or executive agreement shall vest in any international organization or in any foreign power any of the legislative, executive, or judicial powers vested by this Constitution in the Congress, the President, and in the courts of the United States, respectively. No treaty or executive agreement shall alter or abridge the laws of the United States or the Constitution of laws of the several unless, and then only to the extent that, Congress shall so provide by joint resolution.
Executive agreements shall not be made in lieu of treaties. Executive agreements shall, if not sooner terminated, expire automatically one year after the end of the term of office for which the President making the agreement shall have been elected, but the Congress may, at the request of any President, extend for the duration of the term of such President the life of any such agreement made or extended during the next preceding Presidential term. The President shall publish all executive agreements except that those which in his judgment require secrecy shall be submitted to appropriate committees of the Congress in lieu of publication.

Amendment 30: Congressional District Amendment
No longer shall Congressional districts be redrawn by sitting state representatives, nor shall they be redrawn under any circumstance other than an official change in population–as defined by the United States Census–of the corresponding districts in the respective states. Congressional districts shall henceforth be redrawn in a manner according to the mathematical Golden Ratio, where physically applicable within the bounds of state geometry.
The center of the smallest district shall be situated in the center of the most populous city in the state at time of ratification and henceforth from the time of finalization of the most recent census. Expansion outward from the first district follows the mathematical Golden Ratio accordingly. New districts formed due to a change in population shall be created by halving the size of the district in which said population has changed.

Amendment 31: Senate Restoration Amendment
The Seventeenth Amendment is hereby repealed. All Senators shall be chosen by their state legislatures as prescribed by Article I. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the term of any Senator elected before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution. When vacancies occur in the representation of any State in the Senate for more than ninety days, the governor of the State shall appoint an individual to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the term. A Senator may be removed from office by a two-thirds vote of the state legislature.

Amendment 32: Federal Spending Amendment
The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed. Congress shall adopt a preliminary fiscal year budget no later than the first Monday in May for the following fiscal year, and submit said budget to the President for consideration. Shall Congress fail to adopt a final fiscal year budget prior to the start of each fiscal year, which shall commence on October 1 of each year, and shall the President fail to sign said budget into law, an automatic, across-the-board, 5 percent reduction in expenditures from the prior year’s fiscal budget, as well as the revocation of the wages of all Congressmen, shall be imposed for the fiscal year in which a budget has not been adopted.
Total outlays of the federal government for any fiscal year shall not exceed its receipts for the fiscal year. Total outlays of the federal government for each fiscal year shall not exceed 17.5 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product for the previous calendar year. Congress may provide for a one-year suspension of one or more of the preceding sections in this Article by a three-fifths vote of both Houses of Congress, provided the vote is conducted by roll call, in the full body of the Congress. In the event that a member is indisposed, a proxy must be sent. The vote sets forth the specific excess of outlays over receipts or outlays over 17.5 percent of the Nation’s gross domestic product. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased unless three-fifths of both Houses of Congress shall provide for such an increase by roll call vote, in the full body of the Congress. In the event that a member is indisposed, a proxy must be sent. This Amendment shall take effect in the fourth fiscal year after its ratification.

Amendment 33: Financial Institution Amendment
In the elucidation of Constitution Article 1, Section 8, regarding the power of the United States Congress to coin money, regulate its value, and standardize this valuation against foreign coin, the United States Congress’ power to perform the aforementioned tasks is to be understood as being indelegable. No institution save for the United States federal government is to be tasked with the coinage and supply of the money of the United States, nor with the setting of interest rates.

Amendment 34: Regulation of Federal Powers Amendment
Section I: The Legislative Branch
Article I: Congress may not regulate–nor have authority over, save where actions run in contradiction to existing federal law or the Constitution–activities that occur wholly within one state.
Article II: A two-thirds majority of the states may override any federal law or regulation.

Section II: The Executive Branch
Article I: Federal administrative agencies of may not act in such a way that preempts the laws of a state where such action is not already federal law.

Section III: The Judicial Branch
Article I: A decision made by the Supreme Court of the United States may be overruled with a two-thirds majority vote held by the people–or congresses–of the states.
Article II: In order to overturn a law enacted through a plebiscite, the Supreme Court of the United States must vote with a seven justice supermajority.

Amendment 35: Citizenship Amendment
Only genetic Europeans may hold citizenship.

Careful with this one. Even civic cucks argue Ashkenazis are European. Needs more precise wording.

Of course, of course. I threw it on there because I didn’t have one for citizenship yet. The rest are already done up in legalese.

Checked
Hear here
Fuck canada

tfw these aren't real

Also if you repeal a constitutional amendment does it get removed, and all amendments behind it move up one, or does it just stay there to show that it was repealed?

With how fucked the people are running all the levers of the government. At this time any constitutional convention would not be beneficial to whites. In fact it would be the complete opposite. Fuck a convention just kill the people breaking the constitution right now. On the spot extra-judiciary punishment.

i.e. whoevers loyal within the government obvious

Numbering doesn’t change. The 21st amendment repealed the 18th (prohibition), yet we still have 27 total. The 13th amendment ended slavery, but the portions of the original Constitution which state how slavery is to be handled (The 3/5ths Compromise and all that) is still present in the document.

The repeal of an amendment doesn’t remove the text (because, hell, it’s important to know where we came from), nor does it change the numbering. After all, “amendment” inherently means “change”, as in not only additions to the Constitution, but changes to the text of the original document (which, again, is still all there).

It stays there to show it's repealed. You'll still find the 18th in there, but it's crossed off.

That's an easily defeated argument.

This constitutional convention they're pushing for already has a tight and specific agenda. Any good idea in this thread is not going to happen. I'm trying to find what they were planning on doing; I just remember it was a balanced budget amendment.
Republicans are going to fuck it up if they even manage to get the states required.

It's not the 13th Amendment that's a problem, it's the 14th. For all of you talking about dual citizenship, take the case of Afroyim v. Rusk (1967), in which a Jew voted in an Israeli election. Naturally the law has to be interpreted differently for a Jew and now the federal govt can't strip someone of their citizenship involuntarily.

An Article V ConCon has never been convened before. I can't say that it'll be a good thing since the kikes could take control of the Constitutional Convention, and wholly replace the Constitution with some kiked-up modern abortion with no free speech and firearms (say goodbye to sites like this). The legal precedent for this was that this Constitution replaces the Articles of Confederation which served as the USA's first constitution.

Shays' Rebellion helped bring about the 1787 Convention as well. Apparently, the central (federal) government under the Articles of Confederation was not powerful enough to call in troops to repel the revolt.

Getting rid of the Fourteenth would be a bad idea. It's the Fourteenth and the doctrine of incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states that compels the individual states to abide by the Bill of Rights and not just the federal government. This is why free speech is not (legally) curtailed in any state, and most states recognize right to bear arms (except for the handful of kiked-up blue states with kike judges that refuse to follow the Fourteenth when it comes to the Second Amendment).

Repeal everything that interferes with the 2nd.

Already in the Constitution. No one was ever punished.

Attached: Right To Bear Arms.gif (827x628, 43.83K)

By constitutional law, everything that restricts any form of gun ownership (including gun licenses) are unconstitutional. No one will ever be punished and no one will fight back against this, though.

You stupid fucking nigger see:

how about an amendment on property rights

BACKGROUND CHECKS VIOLATE 2A
Permission is the violation.

Why, user?

You don’t have the right to own property. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. But we could do with a law that makes property tax illegal, instead having a land tax.

The original wording of that was Life, liberty, and property, user.

Article 6 is understood to reinforce that the Articles of Confederation still hold, under which article 11 grants open invitation to Canadian provinces to become states.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I can’t imagine it being correct. Never mind anyway, since it isn’t the actual wording.

>So Zig Forums, want to fix the (((problems))) in our government?

Attached is a booklet of proposed amendments that I think would go a long way to fixing things:

That’s erection-worthy. It will never be enacted except through civil war.
THIS CAN NEVER BE ALLOWED. NO INCOME TAX IN ANY FORM ON ANY INDIVIDUAL.
But the rest of this? Hoo boy, that’s delicious. Who wrote this? Where’s it from?

I'd tend to agree, the problem is the other taxation alternatives are *worse* –
(1) Sales tax: congratulations, now you've cemented Wickard v. Filburn and that ridiculous "congress can regulate intrastate commerce because somewhere, somehow there's some impact on interstate commerce" BS,
(2) Property Tax: congratulations, now a Citizen can never own his land but merely rent from the government.

The best way to fund federal government would be tariffs, not taxing the citizens. Forbidding the income-tax on citizens is simply too far to be accepted politically, sadly.

A guy by the name Edward Fish; had an unsuccessful run at the US Senate senate [for New Mexico]. / He put a copy of it up here:
edward.fish/index.php/2016/06/18/constitutional-amendment-booklet/

There's also this gem, detailing how the Iran Deal is Treason:
edward.fish/index.php/2016/04/12/treason-by-the-senate-of-the-united-states/

JUDAICAL REFORM

It appear someone's copied a few of these amendments to a petition on Congress:
> petition2congress.com/ctas/petition-to-amend-constitution-to-set-limits-on-income-tax-incurrence-debt-commerce-clause-us

Looks like it's:
(1) TAX REFORM;
(2) FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY;
(3) COMMERCE CLAUSE; and
(4) SENATE REFORM.
So no Judicial reform on that one; what did you like in particular about that one? I rather like making the judge/attorneys have to pay the jurors wages after a certain time.

THIS! x ∞

>something worse than (((income tax))), created expressly to funnel wealth to the jewish federal reserve
user, please.
Sales tax is perfectly fine. Congress has NO ability to regulate intrastate commerce, and so sales tax can grow (or shrink) a state’s economy and incentivize building and moving.
No, we’re repealing that, too. We’ll replace it with a land tax–a flat tax on the amount of land owned, regardless of location or structures (and their quality) thereon. None of this shit is needed, user. We’re getting rid of all of it.
And we’re going to go back to that, absolutely.
What kind of pussy attitude is that? You know you can get leftists to fight for us if you say that personal income tax should be fully repealed “except for corporations, which aren’t people”, right? They’ll CHEER FOR THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION if you use their own delusions against them.
Thanks, I’ll take a look.

What's the penalty if a congress critter doesn't show up? Oops, you didn't think of that, did you. You just created a mechanism for any single person to stop any bill from being passed.

I know, I know, you're going to say something like "hang em!!" but that's not what you're stupid amendment says, so therefore no judge is going to all you to do that.

That Edward Fish guy said something on 4-chan while running, IIRC, to the effect that the way to handle the big corporations is to enforce the Constitution as written; his argument went like this:
(1) A1, S8, Clause 8 only gives Congress the power to reserve exclusive rights to authors and inventors for their works,
(2) Just because someone is a person, doesn't make him an author or inventor,
(3) the legal person of a corporation cannot invent or write, they may only commission employees to do so,
(4) Those employees are the actual authors/inventors.
[Implied: So the President could issue an EO, or the head of the patent/copyright office, direct that all the copyright/patents assigned to someone not the original author/inventor are invalid.]

So, with that simple logic, he fixes the patent-trolls, the Disney's ever-elongated copyrights, and the ever increasingly common "everything you make belongs to us"-clauses in contracts.

The entire left column is great, but doesn’t he contradict it here?
It CANNOT be the right of the jury to decide if the presented interpretation is correct, because the jury, then, could NULLIFY THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION simply because “they decided.” If the courts can’t do that (meaning, say, judges–local or the SCOTUS), then juries can’t do it.
While… this statement is technically correct, doesn’t that open up a box that makes Pandora shrivel in fear? “[STATE A] LOWERED YOUR TAXES TO DRAW [STATE B]’S CITIZENS AWAY! STATE B IS SUING STATE A FOR TREASON AGAINST ITSELF!” Never mind that a state could then sue any INDIVIDUAL which leaves it, at any time, for any reason. Even if we apply the constitutional definition of ‘treason’ to this particular clause, an “act of malice” against a state is a very vague thing.
As long as this doesn’t mean that my taxes go to it, sure.
I don’t like this…
…unless it’s implying that the next step up from “10 year sentence” is “execution”.
THIS EVEN NEEDS TO BE SAID?!
I don’t like the idea of felons being able to vote again, ever.
Oh baby. Here’s another point that makes any of these amendments impossible to pass without ciivl war.
Leftypol is this way: >>>/suicide/

I don't think so; the Constitution becomes useless the more the Citizens rely upon the High Priests… er, Supreme Court (and inferior courts) to simply tell them what it means.

It seems to me like fully enshrining the concept of nullification; something today's courts will toss you out for even mentioning.

If you have a better wording, then I can pass it along.

Hm, maybe – I think he was getting at the fact that most states define Treason (eg: NM Const, Art 2, Sec 16), and IIUC the federal courts said "Nope! States can't do this."

It means the judge and lawyers have to pay it; the judge is payed by the taxpayers.

Really? So you're fine with a Justice system that takes 20 years, a quarter of a man's life, enough time to have children grow up and get married… but doesn't inflect death?

That's exactly what that implies.

Yep; I can go to the local courthouse, under jury summons, and they'll bust me for trying to enter the courthouse with a weapon. (Nevermind that [in a capital case] I'd be deciding if the guy lives or dies anyway.) – It's especially egrigeous when you realize that the police have no duty to protect a private citizen: meaning that the government will disarm you and then refuse to provide for your security…. literally worse than we treat our POWs.

I disagree: the completion of the punishment should completely restore the citizen to good standing. Without this we live in a world where you or I could be charged with a felony and that used to deny our rights. – I actually thought that's what Obama would instruct for ACA violations: "Just let people off if they sign this confession to committing a felony." (Then when SHTF and you need to disarm a population, use those confessions to round up the felons.)

This is probably true; though Congress could remedy this situation by dissolving all inferior federal courts for a few years…

Federal balance budget amendment.

found the boomer

IF NIGGERS CAN REWRITE THE WHITE MANS CONSTITUTION TO STEAL WHITE LAND THE WHITE MAN CAN REWRITE HIS CONSTITUTION TO EXECUTE ALL JEWS AND NIGGERS!

bump

Bump*2

I like some of the ideas that (((Mark Levin))) has mentioned, including a judicial reform amendment that 2/3 of states legislatures can make null and void any supreme court decision within 2 years

source fag

A constitutional convention would not benefit us in any way.

Fucking skank roasters thinking I want to be with them after they watch faggot dogs come after me.

Seriously, shoot yourselves in the head.

In case I'm not banned for the last time I responded to this shitheap of a post: Am I considered "genetic" European? What with being like a quarter German, a quarter Czech, and the rest of it some intermixture of Mexican (hybrid of European Spaniards and native South Americans) and native North American. Is there a percentage of genetic "whiteness" one has to have to support a free country, or what?

Of course you realize this means war.

Attached: bb.jpg (480x360, 11.46K)

Yea, lets open up the constitution for amendments when everyone is censor happy and yelling about "hate speech". That can't end poorly.

Attached: 2a21007d00e9ba0b9b776c008aa6de140278f3246ca870f07bc3cfb3f5458ca4.png (312x560, 81K)

Here;
Voting is very expressly not a right. White men had to trade conscription for the privilege to vote.

Why not make federal legislator's salary be equal to but not greater than that of the average salary in the US of working people.

Mean, median, or mode?

I'm doing my part.

Attached: th.jpg (474x331, 32.47K)

sqrt((mean^2 + median^2)/2)

Amendment #: Unified Language
All citizens are required to be fluent in the American dialect of English.
All citizens must be able to clearly read and understand the Declaration of Independence, Constitution of The United States, and Bill of Rights using only English as defined in The Federalist Papers.
All business within any territory of The United States must be discussed using only American English.

Amendment #: Judicial Powers
The judicial branch cannot expand the delegated powers of any branch of government.
The judicial branch cannot limit, override, or otherwise restrict the rights of natural born citizens as defined by the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The judicial branch must interpret all legal statutes using only English as defined in The Federalist Papers.

Nope. fuck off beaner.

Attached: Proud Celt.jpg (400x400, 34.2K)

typical "destroy yourselves goyim" shill

At the least, you lose your job. At most, it's a felony. What else would it be when you openly violate the Constitution?

Amendments can't be debated and reworded before ink is put to paper? Even if they couldn't, a judge can set precedent that others follow. Probably not hanging, but certainly the loss of their job, followed by prison and/or a substantial fine.

Also,

Attached: 1531613290.png (500x372, 213.56K)

This is very important
Voting is a privilege and a responsibility, not just something that everyone and their dick can throw around meaninglessly. There's a goddamn good reason the founding fathers expressly stated only landowners were to vote.

Attached: amerimutt.webm (480x360, 348.63K)

It used to be. However, once the kikes started busing in illegals and the like it made me realize it means a lot less than it did.

We need a constitutional amendment for:

1) A one-time voluntary exchange of American and Canadian citizens (if Canada agrees, which they will forced to). They'd have to renounce their citizenship and immediately be given citizenship on the other side. The government could assist on relocation.

2) Clearly limiting the power a president has to unilaterally declare war. And banning pseudo-war words like "police action". (Yes it's technically on the books but people are retarded.)

3) Disallow judicial politics by not allowing one liberal judge invalidating the actions of the president while the case is reviewed. Something that could take months or even years.

Attached: 1526995174065.jpg (781x1000, 99.69K)

Yeah, sorry. Leave.

Zig Forums

Just remember, I'll kill all of you regardless of your political standing. You are no ally of mine.

They will just use it to abolish the amendments they don't like and give everyone citizenship.

That's why you're not invited, faggot. Your shitskin blood makes you an emotional, violent retard.

Banks technically own all the land. Kike landlords own massive tracts of land, the majority of property in any major city, and tons of houses the nation over. I agree with you entirely, and I would absolutely love to see a return to that, but in the country's current state, it's simply untenable.

I have mixed feelings about your suggestion.

Amendment 36: Repeal of the 12th Amendment
The VP should be appointed by the House of Representatives from within its ranks, and confirmed by the Senate, and Congress shall not adjourn until the position is filled.

Amendment 37: Repeal of the 23rd Amendment
Three less votes for the Democrats that they were not constitutionally entitled to in the first place.

Amendment 38: Repeal of the 25th Amendment
Section 1-3 are okay, but Trump pretty much proves that Section 4 carries no weight when he appoints all these positions with his own cronies.

Amendment 39: Repeal of the 19th Amendment

As much as I like the Anti-Sedition Act, you couldn't make it retroactive.

I'm assuming he meant amendment, not act. In which case, language could be included to make it retroactive.

The wrong people would be in charge of it if it happens. All a bunch of wimps they are.

this. its too late for a Constitutional Convention. There's literally nothing that can get done that would help whites at this point… should've done it while whites were still a super-majority

Congress (or the President) could have ended illegal immigration a long time ago by simply prosecuting employers ruthlessly. No yob; no beaner – its really that simple

Not really, what most people fail to understand that the majority of beaners cross the border and get on government handouts immediately. A lot of beaners never bother to get a job, that's only for extra tequila money.

However if you ban illegals from government assistance then it would be ogre.

Attached: 1506393830151.jpg (1024x781, 124.44K)

There are so many ways the government could start fixing this country, but don't forget, (((they're))) the ones who got us into this mess.

Attached: why not both.jpg (400x400, 20.01K)

would be good if not for the retarded (((stone tablets))). That's just kike v kike, puritanical twat v puritanical twat

correct… and it wouldn't need an Amendement, but rather just the political will to act

WRONG! there are, essentially, no such thing as "cash" handouts to non-pregnant women, or non-women with young children. i know; i've tried. SSI/SSDI takes years and you absolutely have to be a legal resident. They may get "in kind" benefits, tho, but most of that comes through (((non-profits))), rather than >muh gummint >muh welfare. Learn b4 you speak

big talk; no citations

>>>/liberty/
>>>/retard/

Balance budget.

Bill that restricts bills to one law per bill.

Bill that restricts the number of pages per bill.

Require Austerity to eliminate burdens on future generations.

Sound good?

Shit that isn’t real

The issue of dual citizen politicians really needs to be memed into the mainstream. It should be easy toy piggyback on the Russia hysteria.
For starters we need confirmation of who is a dual citizen. Internet lists are unreliable.

Any agency that currently has federal policy making authority shall immediately be disbanded and their powers returned to congress.

How about we require the citizenship of politicians to be listed next to their names on top of require all bills to have Nay and Yas?