edgecombe

I love the idea Conservatives have now that when people post a link to prove a point, it's "not having an original thought."

You righties sure do like to dumb down the conversation.

This one also. What happened to original thought?

http://www.thenewamerican.c...convention
This could doom our freedoms :'(

You asked the danger. I thought this article illustrated a good example of it, especially from a historical standpoint. I'm sorry that you didn't find it interesting.

Here's a question:

If we can never use Article V, why don't we amend the constitution to remove it?

I HAVE ALREADY STATED MY CONCERNS. RESEARCH THISBTHREAD AND YOU WILL FIND THEM.

http://www.thenewamerican.c...-loyalties

What, exactly, is the danger?

So, with several states that have rescinded their motions for a convention, let's hope we never get enough to call one if these dangerous conventions.

WELL YOU HAD BETTER GET STARTED. THE MAJORITY OF THE PETITIONS ARE ONLY FOR A BALANCED BUDGET. AND SEVERAL OF THOSE ARE THIRTY YEARS OLD.

So....

The states are going to assemble in Glorious Convention for the purpose of effecting an even perfecter Union.

We're gonna propose really thoughtful and needed amendments that are going to correct current abuses and misapplications of the law.

Then those amendments will go to the states where 38 of 50 will ratify and things will look up for us all.

Yep, that's the plan.

I removed several more posts that were off topic and/or trolling.

I don't know why umpire is so struck on the Articles of Confederation. He seems really bothered that the Convention changed things. Wonder which of the branches of government he finds distasteful. Or maybe it was one or more of those amendments.

Anyway, time to leave that 18th century behind, umpire. Join the modern world.

"Change can be our friend."
------William J Clinton

Ump. I'm the one saying you misrepresented your argument. Congress could only give an opinion because they didn't have the authority to call the states into a convention.

SPARKLING, SHOW WHERE YOU WERE ELECTED CHAIRMAN OF THIS COMMITTEE.

"The application of parliamentary law is the best method yet devised to enable assemblies of any size, with due regard for every member's opinion, to arrive at the general will on the maximum number of questions of varying complexity in a minimum amount of time and under all kinds of internal climate ranging from total harmony to hardened or impassioned division of opinion."
[Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised [RONR (11th ed.), Introduction, p. liii]

This may help concerning Roberts Rules of Order:

The book is designed for use in ordinary societies rather than legislative assemblies, and it is the most commonly adopted parliamentary authority among societies in the United States.[2] The book claims to be a "codification of the present-day general parliamentary law (omitting provisions having no application outside legislative bodies)".[3] This statement does not imply any approbation on the part of the courts, and the "general parliamentary law" is related neither to statutory legal requirements nor to common-law precedent derived from court judgments. As it is widely accepted and based for the most part on long-standing traditions of parliamentary procedure, the current edition of the book is considered a reliable reference[citation needed]. Nevertheless, the provisions of any particular manual are not, as a general matter, legally binding upon an assembly that has not formally adopted it as its parliamentary authority; any such manual can at best be cited as "persuasive".[4] In addition, a number of changes have been made to recent editions, such as provisions dealing with videoconferences, teleconferences, and email, which now makes these editions more than merely codifications of the "present-day general parliamentary law" as existed at the time Robert was originally writing. Governmental institutions such as states and the US Senate and House of Representatives have written and approved their own "rules", most notably "Mason's" rules for California. Each institution has to consider local customs, right to speak laws, etc in adopting their codes.

Your so called parliamentary procedure is not sacred, nor binding.

I DIDN'T MAKE THE RULES.

THOSE RULES COME FROM ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER.

Sorry, fool, you don't get to make the rules on this thread.