«12. . .2,3462,3472,3482,3492,3502,3512,352. . .2,5112,512»
I wish we had more transparency regarding how exactly this money is spent. While I realize that's a big task and poses some challenges (esp related to military/security matters), I feel like a lot of unnecessary spending and bloated budgets would be slashed if they knew anyone could see their day-to-day transactions.
After all, they aren't spending their money, they're spending our money. Either through tax or debt.
Just one more reason to favor an article 5 Convention of states. Congress isn't going to limit its own budget.
No, no, no. Another constitutional convention would put all our rights at risk. 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment... all of those and more could be on the chopping block. There is a growing authoritarian streak in our government which cannot be allowed such power.
And if you think limiting the scope of the convention would help, read up on the intended scope of the first Constitutional Convention.
Yet another sign that our democratic culture and republican traditions and spirit are dead or dying. We can't even gather an assembly to reform because things are already so bad.
I think we can see the virtues of a convention, but we properly fear the outcome given the state of things. Just look at the abomination of a constitution they wrote and will soon vote on in Chile.
A Convention of states is not a constitutional convention. In fact it is mandated with an article 5 of The Constitution. The convention can only propose amendments. 3/4 the states need to ratify each proposal in order for that proposal to be part of the Constitution. You'll never get 3/4 of the states to go against any of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights. The current Article 5 convention estates movement limits the convention they are pushing to matters of term limits fiscal limits and constraints on federal overreach. Each resolution passed by the states that have gotten on board with it have a mechanism for withdrawing their delegates should they step out of line by proposing anything other than that thin mandate listed in their resolutions. 19 states have signed on and it takes 34 to trigger it. There's an extraordinarily High bar to ratify.
You will also never get 3/4ths of the states to make any significant positive steps, which leaves an Article 5 convention as primarily just a big waste of resources better spent on actual practical efforts. Getting 38 states to approve any resolution requires the vote of places like Colorado and Oregon at minimum, and New Jersey and Illinois if a single light-blue state defects, pick your poison between epicenters of the wokest progressivism or the cores of Democrat machine politics-nothing good is coming out of a voting process with them as the gatekeepers.
The overwhelmingly most likely outcome of a convention of states would be a massive amount of Republican infighting and backbiting resulting in no results, voter discouragement, and subsequent losses in coming elections, the second most likely would be a pointless stalemate that gets absolutely nowhere, the third most likely is a collection of Romney/Cheney/Murkowski-style Republicans trying to score a PR win by 'compromising' and damaging the Constitution in the process. The outcome of actually getting multiple blue states to vote to significantly constrain governmental excesses has a probability measured in fractions of a percentage point.
Pretty much. Also, even if the convention didn't completely reform the Constitution, they could repeal and replace amendments. They could also pass new amendments to gut parts of the Constitution's main text, like the checks that prevent large states from having all the power. The Democratic Party would love that, since more densely populated areas tend to trend blue.
Hello everyone, I come from The Region That Has No Big Banks, due to some complications with their policies. This was a hard move for me to make, as I was deeply implemented into that region. But I hope to find new life in this region that more closely associates with my views.
Culture of Life, Phydios, The RCS, New Kiwis, and 5 othersForcee De Frappe, Steel Belt Empire, New-britannia, Chromacorp, and Sicario foreign ops dept
Welcome!
Culture of Life, The RCS, New Kiwis, Forcee De Frappe, and 1 otherPinevilla
The Chilean proposal is polling poorly and will hopefully fail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Chilean_national_plebiscite#Opinion_polls
It's an explicitly pro-abortion document. It seeks to replace actual reproduction with "social reproduction," "equitable growth," and "environmental rights." A tree would be afforded greater legal protection than a human child.
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/chile-abortion-debate-gets-key-place-constitution-redraft-2022-03-16/
https://fortune.com/2022/08/15/chile-new-millennial-leftist-president-new-constitution-boric/
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02069-0
Of course, all the usual suspects are lining up behind the proposed constitution.
I tend to agree with 
Phydios and 
Roborian. One possible, if improbable, outcome of a new constitutional convention could be the proposition of all sorts of objectionable amendments. For example, read through the "Progressive Constitution":
https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/The_Progressive_Constitution.pdf
It includes "reproductive rights" and a "reimagining of the First Amendment." It also "explicitly include[s] a limitations clause for the exercise of all rights . . . in order to promote other democratic values," as summarized by the drafters.
The three-fourths requirement is a barrier, but it could be overcome. A more mild approach would be to bypass state legislatures and require ratification by special state conventions instead (see Article V). A more radical approach -- the approach that the original framers used themselves -- would be to ignore the existing constitution's ratification rules and to create novel rules for ratification in their place. Why require three-fourths support? Why not majority support, or why not support from a minority of states representing a majority of the population?
Wow. Wow. I skipped over all the grand commentary and went straight to the actual text. I have rarely felt so validated in my beliefs.
Built in legislative bias towards populous states? Check. (All states are equal, but some are more equal than others.)
Overly lengthy replacement for the First Amendment which spends 8 of 14 lines talking about religion and allows religious exercise to be "reasonably" restricted? Check. ("Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.")
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms is subject to reasonable regulation by the United States and by the States?" Check. (At least they don't bury this one in legalese!)
A right to abortion slipped into the end of a legalese paragraph that otherwise makes no sense? Check.
And those are just a few snippets that I recognized as on the progressive wish list. This document has provided actual, credible evidence for my arguments that we should never call an Article 5 convention. Thank you for sharing it.
Earlier this week, I trimmed the offsite board. I merged, moved, or removed several forums.
https://nsrighttolife.proboards.com/
I'll try to update the citizenship roster later tonight. Then, I'll send a mass telegram that (1) lists current citizens and (2) encourages non-citizen residents to become citizens. After that, hopefully we can have an election on September 1st, as the regional constitution prescribes.
I have no illusions that the offsite board will be very active, but it is a more convenient place for regional government matters than using the regional message board or telegrams (see the treaty that 
The RCS has negotiated).
You can check out the offsite board for yourself. I aimed for minimalism in reorganizing it. The only forums that are not government-oriented are the General Discussion forum (self-explanatory) and the Circus Maximus forum (everything else). If you want to post something that's not about the regional government, make it fit in one or the other.
New Dolgaria, Phydios, The Catholic State of Eire, New Kiwis, and 3 othersKolaine, Steel Belt Empire, and Chromacorp
Your normal circumstances I would say you would be right about the chances, although these are not normal circumstances. This is a very high societal pressure time period. It is for the first time in quite a while possible to reach the number to trigger one.
Also in terms of mechanics Congress doesn't get a say in the proposals that come up in a Convention of States nor in the ratification process.
State legislatures operate in a different mindset than the Congress and although there is some corruption it's nowhere near the extent of the federal level and when spread out across an entire Union of States it's much harder for any damaging proposal to get through to ratification.
It also helps that the current movement actively restricts the scope to a select few topics. Amendments on morality are left out because they are not included in that scope. Rhino ties would in any other convention use moralism as wedge issues but the current movement excludes that.
You also have more America first mentality at the state level than the federal level and the state level will be the ones operating it.
Albeit not every proposal will get through and that's a near certainty, and not every proposal that does get the 2/3 of the convention needed to pass it along to the states will be ratified by the 3/4. However with the states as they are becoming increasingly red in swing States as well as several leans blue States which are quickly becoming swing States, it is possible for certain proposals to actually achieve ratification by a minimum of 38. The term limits will be the easiest one of those followed by some sort of balanced budget or deficit reduction Amendment. An amendment that would put more definition on the commerce clause would get most if not all red States plus the swing States and some of the more leans blue States (that will be made more achievable hard Economic times which we are going into and will remain in for sometime I'm afraid).
In terms of power Dynamics the states would absolutely love this to happen and that includes some of the blue States. If it means the state gets the federal government to butt out a little bit more or ease off on the pressure of burden it gives them they'll jump at the bit on certain proposals. We're looking at a situation right now where by 2025 anywhere from 30 to 35 state legislatures will more than likely be GOP controlled. That hasn't happened in a long long time. This will include most if not all of the swing States and even some of the only leans blue States (not solid blue).
Of course, for such a convention I have a cautious optimism about it being triggered, as it's becoming more and more likely. If triggered anything that gets through to ratification will almost certainly be not only popular on a broad scope with the public, but will almost certainly be in keeping with the ideals of American federalism set across by the founding fathers.
They put it in the Constitution for a reason as a sort of fail safe in times of dire need. It's never once actually been used although it has been close to it and I think it's time we use the tool given to us. If not now when? Just some food for thought.
There's no way they'd ever be able to ratify it much less pass it through a convention itself based on the threshold of 2/3 to pass convention and 3/4 to ratify. Any amendment that passes will have to be something that is broadly accepted at least by the average person on both sides of the citizens in the states. It is less likely that they will repeal something than add something in my opinion. Anything that makes States less equal than they already are over others would definitely fail without a doubt. Neither side will have a clear upper hand in what goes through. Any amendment that happens to get to the convention and ratified will need broad consensus and there are a select number of ideas that actually do have that that are being proposed (one of the reasons the resolutions have restricted the topics).
Don't underestimate people's willingness to approve short-sighted, government-empowering amendments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
I disagree on the first one and agree on the second. A term limits amendment would not be easy to pass because politicians would have to propose and ratify it, and it would go against their own self-interest. When's the last time politicians voluntarily limited themselves? On the other hand, a balanced budget amendment seems possible, albeit difficult. In 1995 and 1996, at the height of the Gingrich Revolution, the House of Representatives approved a balanced budget amendment, but it fell just short in the Senate. If Republicans stopped pushing moronic election theories, tied inflation to fiscal extravagance, and trounced Democrats in a general election, then they might be able to push a balanced budget amendment through Congress with the support of a few moderate Democrats. Then, bypass the state legislatures, and submit directly to popular conventions.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-joint-resolution/1/text
Balanced budget laws are widely popular. Almost all states have them for state legislatures.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/fiscal-policy/state-balanced-budget-requirements-provisions-and.aspx
--
Also, these might be good ideas for poll topics.
Citizenship Update & Upcoming Elections
Nations of Right to Life:
On the regional forums, I recently updated the citizenship roster. There are currently 18 active citizens:
aawia
billybobjoe
brennicus
cocles
Culture of Life
Distributist Republics
Eire
Friveria
Imperii Ecclesia
Kolaine
New Dolgaria
NewKiwis
newwaldensia
Phydios
Roborian
The Crixa
The RCS
The Tellurian Union; GOR
See the FAQ if you want to revise your forum name: https://nsrighttolife.proboards.com/page/faq
I updated the roster in anticipation of regional elections, starting on September 1st. These include:
Election for President
Duties: head of government, WA delegate, appoints ministers and justices
Mode of election: weighted voting (50% on forums, 50% on NationStates)
Special Election for 3 Senators
Duties: drafting regional laws, approving certain presidential actions
Mode of election: cumulative voting (3 votes, distributed how voter wants)
Special Election for Speaker
Duties: moderating debate in the Citizens' Assembly (lower house)
Mode of election: first-past-the-post voting (most votes wins)
At present, the region has two active political parties, including:
Christian Democratic Party (3 citizens) (leader: 
The Catholic State of Eire)
Conservative Federalist Party (7 citizens) (leader: 
Aawia)
The parties will be allowed to endorse up to one candidate for President, three candidates for Senate, and one candidate for Speaker. In addition, citizens may run for office as independents. There's no need to collect signatures. All you have to do is declare in early September.
If you're not yet a citizen but want to become a citizen, please follow these steps:
- 1. Join the forums: https://nsrighttolife.proboards.com/
2. Wait for seven days, as required by regional law.
3. Submit a citizenship application before September 1st.
Due to the mandatory seven-day waiting period, you must join the offsite forums by August 24th if you're interested in becoming a citizen (i.e., having voting rights in regional elections). The citizenship application is located in the first forum on the offsite board.
If you have any questions, please direct them to the regional message board.
I look forward to watching your campaigns and reading your ideas to improve the region!
Culture of Life
Founder of Right to Life
Well as John Lukacs perceptively said years ago, we are all national socialists now: almost every country has one party that's a bit more nationalist, and one that's a bit more socialist, or in multi-party parliaments a spectrum of being more nationalist or more socialist. I think this has become more and more the case in the United States recently.
Post self-deleted by Os Adoradores de Deus.
Os Adoradores de Deus, for your own good, I strongly suggest that you delete your most recent post. The NationStates moderators have cracked down on anti-vaccine posts. ProBoards, our forum host, has a similar policy. Don't post anti-vaccine links there either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_News
"According to rigorous analysis based on excess death data — summarized nicely by Steve Kirsh at Substack — there are currently around 10,000 people dying each day from covid vaccines. Anywhere from 5 to 12 million fatalities have likely occurred worldwide so far, and with these self-assembling clots continuing to gain size and mass inside the bodies of those who have received the mRNA experimental medicine injections, it is certain that many people who have not yet died from the vaccines will experience death in the coming months and years."
Yeah, no. Just saying something doesn't make it true. Every conspiracy theory is similar- ask them where they got their data, and they point you to "sources" that are no more founded than they are. Personally, I prefer the theory that the vaccines contain microscopic Yeerks raised to be loyal to the deep state.(https://animorphs.fandom.com/wiki/Yeerk)
That article explains how they did their study, and the scientific process behind it
They're talking about self-assembling clots killing at least 10,000 people a day. It fails the sniff test. It fails a basic reality check. This kookiness was never mainstream until the kooks were able to assemble over the Internet, and some politicians decided it was a convenient way to get power over them. And now barely half of my state, for instance, has any protection against a plague that has killed millions worldwide and infected hundreds of millions. All because twaddle like this is driving people to reject modern medicine and take horse dewormers when they fall prey to a plague that they've denied the existence of because people aren't dying in the streets.
"What are you, some kind of little fool? ... A rooster who is tied up that way means good luck. It means I'm going to be coming home with a pocket full of money! Anybody who knows anything knows that! Just like you know bright spiders cure the ague and wolf droppings cure the colic! Anybody who knows anything knows that!"
- "Little House on the Prairie", "Whisper Country", c. 23m0s
I don't think "alternative medicine" has gotten any better since the time period represented there. If it had, "the establishment" would be making money off it, and it wouldn't be "alternative". No, these are modern-day snake oil salesmen who can use modern scientific jargon and nice-looking images. If only those were the important parts of real science, rather than the scientific method and peer review.
P.S. By the way, I read their "Steve Kirsh at Substack" source. Practically every sentence in his blog entry is an unfounded assertion that he makes no attempt to explain. Practically every sentence. And he cites a comment at the beginning that mentions VAERS as a source of information on these deaths. That would make all this more credible if people hadn't submitted reports of turning into the Hulk there, to show that it's basically Yelp for vaccines.
On the same topic:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/08/anti-vaccine-activists-giddily-celebrate-as-poliovirus-spreads-in-ny/
I have no words to sufficiently describe my reaction to this article.
«12. . .2,3462,3472,3482,3492,3502,3512,352. . .2,5112,512»
Advertisement
