As West Virginia Governor Jumps Ship, GOP Can Call Constitutional Convention

AAAAAAAAH

departmentofmemes.com/article/west-virginia-gov-switches-parties-gop-can-now-call-constitutional-convention/

Other urls found in this thread:

strawpoll.me/13624940
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Am I reading correctly here that Republicans can bring changes/Amendments to the Constitution if they get their shit together???

Yep. Be careful what you wish for though. They could throw the whole thing out and start a new. However if they outlawed political parties and imposed term limits, then it would be great.

Slavery becomes legal again if two thirds of the congress vote it in and 38 state legislatures agree.

>The administration of every level of government in America is now 100% at odds with its people
Oh this should end well.

A constitutional convention can be called by the states, yes. It's in Article 5 of the constitution. I think it's 2/3 of the states.

>imposed term limits,
nobody would benefit more than republicans, 1 term and you're out who can fill the slots better a bunch of faggots who only have sex with children or relatively straight people who have sex with each other to produce children normally like you find in the republican party

Warlord Trudeau might invade at that point
not worth the risk

Yes but imsure the supreme court would have to OK anything they pass

Trump should tweet about the possibility of amending the Constitution so that sitting Presidents can't be impeached or replaced.

Can you imagine the liberal explosion that would take place?

Seriously, what the fuck are you on?

U sure? Even so Republicans have the majority there.

Great, now being anti-Israel will become illegal

Not in the slightest. They can be written out of the new constitution altogether.

2/3 to ratify

Donkeys on suicide watch!

Liberal? it's the prime principle of our nation you imbecile.

Actually they wouldn't, they interpret the constitution so if the constitution changes they have to uphold it. Otherwise the supreme court could have nullified previous amendments. Once an amendment is added it's just as much a part of the constitution as the bill of rights.

No. their job is to uphold the constitution and interpret it, not to decide what parts of the constitution is ok and not ok. They could in fact have an amendment that trumps freedom of speech and the Supreme court could do nothing about it.

liberal = classical liberal, wants liberty, rule of law, self preservation, freedom to pursue their own goals.

Liberal = wants government to control every aspect of everyone's lives. Want to rob peter to pay Paul. Hates freedom, thinks everyone should pay for their pursuits.

Stop using a capital L, it has a different meaning.

I think it's 3/4 to ratify.

You guys may forget that they need the state legislatures, not just the governors.
They control 32. nearly there

Oh please... there is not enough opioids on earth to sooth the liberals if a constitutional convention is called...

Do It!

You are correct. I stand corrected.

HAHAHA Republicans cant even pass a healthcare bill.

What will the new amendments be?

What will they change in the constitution?

>Republicans

You're a fool if you actually believe them to be republicans

People would die, but hot damn that would be a good kek

Gotta say, not sure I fully trust a source called, "Department of Memes."
I can't put my finger on the reason that is making me feel like that's an unreliable source, but it just seems like it might not be very good.

That's exactly what this means

Congressional term limits is a necessary change to the constitution. In my opinion it should be 1 term for senators, 3 terms for representatives (both 6 years).

Also repealing the 19th amendment would be great but that ain't gonna happen.

Comrades aren't real people

>reliable

>CNN
>MSNBC
>ABC
>Huffing and puffing post
>Salon
>Fox

Reliable, right?

Don't worry. The 9th circuit will get around to declaring the Constitution unconstitutional eventually.

...

Did I mention any of those? Oh right, you're just trying to defend a news source with "memes" in its name. You have no brain.

TRUMP PRESIDENT FOR LIFE

You still need 75% to do anything

The republican party is too much of a fucking mess to make any good use of this ability though.

DO IT
>They could throw the whole thing out and start a new.
They may as well. The government wipes its ass on just about every single amendment everyday.
>imposed term limits
Make it happen. People like McCain and Feinstein should never be allowed in congress for a bazillion years.

Blog =/= News site. However it's probably just as legitimate. You're cognitively challenged.

This, legislatures are the key, we'd need to get to 38 to make this thing stick and that's going to be hard as fuck

after the calling of conventions, only need 34, and the proposed amendment has been drafted it is then submitted back the the states where 3/4 (38) must agree

It's 3/4 of States, not congress to ratify.

So it won't happen

wow this is just like in Harry Potter when Voldemart summons his league of deatheaters and attacks Hogwarts

drumpf has gone too far

Unfortunately there isn't a one to one match between states with Republican governors and those with a Republican legislature. But I'm not sure it matters since the Constitution if I remember correctly requires two thirds of the state legislatures to agree to a convention. Don't think the governor can veto the legislature's approval of the convention.

I weep for The Ten

plenty of the states in could flip.
If not in control then at least in the votes of democrats, just because of a conservative/independent mindset in those states

>he thinks the Democratic party represents true liberalism

The governor doesn't have a role in the process, it's only the state legislatures.

I think we could take Iowa and Kentucky.

I wasn't trying to imply that the governors had any role in the process really, only the part about needing the legislatures

It still wouldn't be wise to call a convention yet. It seems good on paper, but the GOP is still full of cucks and people who just want to talk tough but not do shit. It'd be better to wait until after 2018, where we'll vote out more democrats and cuckservatives and replace them with /ourguys/, before calling a convention.

The GOP establishment's model is to be an opposition party. They like standing against others, without actually doing anything themselves. They don't actually want to DO anything, because if people get what they want, then they might stop voting for the GOP.

Perfect example? Gun rights. The GOP loves to talk about gun rights. And right now we have both houses under GOP control with Trump as president. Where's the pro-gun legislation? Where's national CCW reciprocity? Where's an outlaw on state-level gun bans? Where's a repeal of things like the NFA?
Why don't they do any of this? Simple: many people vote for these cucks because they're pro-gun. But if they actually write some laws that actually protect gun rights, then the pro-gun crowd will have no more reason to vote GOP after they fulfilled this wish. Therefore, the GOP sits around and doesn't do shit, forcing you to vote for them again and again to prevent any further damage to the 2nd amendment.

It's also why (until Trump) tons of GOP politicians have ran on an anti-illegal-immigration platform without actually doing jack shit.

>Blog =/= News site.
>However it's probably just as legitimate.
Do you even read what you type?

Holy fuck, this is big.

I don't want to live in a world where you can't trust memes.

>probably legitimate
>calling others cognitively challenged when you yourself dont even fully trust the source youre so valiantly defending
no better than the lefties who swear by CNN desu

Oh God drumpf could make 2 scoops of ice cream constitutionally protected
We have to stop this monster

So what would 38 states even agree on in terms of an amendment?

this is only half true - they can call a constitutional convention at two-thirds, but new amendments must be approved by three-quarters of the states (38 states) so the GOP still needs to flip more

Liberal only has that retarded definition in the US

Everywhere else it means libertarian/classic

Call them socialist scum

underrates

In theory the convention of states wouldn't rely on congressmen at all. State legislatures in general are more conservative and less prone to opposition party politics since they actually have to do shit every day. I'm sure that some prominent mini-McCains will surface here and there, but they won't be able to pull the kind of shit the GOPe does in DC.

There should be an addition to freedom of the press turning it non-profit by law.

Poll on Trump/Meuller
strawpoll.me/13624940

They don't. It's a one party, it's just rats abandoning ship before "democratic party" brand implodes.

What would they even change at this point? All government does is grow the state/ their power.

>Governor of a state notices that it's overwhelmingly red
>Notices Democrats don't give a shit about west Virgina, not enough trannies and Mexicans
>Brings his politics more in line with his constituents

No matter what the convention comes up with, it still must be ratified by 38 states.

Hopefully something that repeals the 1965 imigration act permanently

What if they repealed the NFA?

>Eliminate birth right citizenship
>Congressional term limits
>Temporary judicial reform (remove activist judges)
>Constitutional spending limits
>Blacks are 3/5ths of a person (Missouri compromise)

Lol!
This is actually perfectly worded, and all things will boil down to in a couple years time

I can see how it might be that state legislatures are less establishment, simply because they're lower on the totem pole. Still, I don't know enough about the opinions and views of each state legislature in all 50 states. They're probably less cucky than the GOP faggots in the senate like McCain and Graham, but it's hard to say by how much in general.

That said, my point still stands. In democracies, change is slow and generally bubbles up from the bottom. We're experiencing a paradigm shift, with the GOP becoming more nationalist-populist following in Trump's footsteps. The state legislatures will probably change and realign to the new paradigm before the shift occurs in higher-level federal bodies like the house and senate. So my point still stands that we should still probably wait until 2018, where we'll probably see a complete blowout, with tons of democrats and liberals and cuckservatives getting BTFO and replaced by nationalist republicans.

THEN, I say we call a convention and get this shit going. Personally the things that I think are reasonable to get passed are:
1) end to birthright citizenship and anchor babies
2) term limits
3) amendments to hamper giant lobbying groups and superpacs and such
4) additonal amendment enshrining 2A and making it so no gun regulations are allowed at any level of government, period.
5) mandatory strict nationwide-level voter ID requirement
6) process for naturalized immigrants to lose citizenship status if they commit crimes.
Obviously, I'd love to see things like women's suffrage and equal protection get repealed, but that's still a long way off.

IIUC, they can submit changes to the states, but they won't become part of the constitution unless 3/4th of them accept them.
The alternative is a 2/3rd senate and house vote.

>Constitution unconstitutional
That subtle dead-pan.

Reminder to disregard all posts from troll flags.

He's at least smart enough to see what's coming and doesn't want to lose his job.

Democrats have no money and will have to run on their policy in 2018 and that's not going to end well. Dems are fucked, this whole notion that they will gain seats in 2018 is a fucking fantasy.

Also forgot to mention some sort of "balance of powers" amendment to limit this judicial activism bullshit. There should be greater checks and balances against the judicial branch, so that we don't just have to rely on marxist SCOTUS judges to watch over lower court judges. That whole system is broken because they can make up any excuse for the way they interpret the constitution.

We all know that the GOP doesn't have the balls to do something like that.
Even if they did, it could very well end in civil war

LOL
He'll just add more pride parades to his schedule between his government donations to Saudi Arabia , do whatever you have to do.

>they can make up any excuse for the way they interpret the constitution.
I don't speak legalese but I think a good check on this would be to explicitly denounce the "living document" interpretation of constitutional law because that's just an excuse to make shit up as you go along. Enshrine the original intent doctrine of interpretation and that should chain judges more closely to the law.

>Wants to rob peter to pay Paul

Paultavius*

To be fair, it's not quite right to say that dems have no money.

It's TRUE that the democratic party itself is not getting lots of money. But that's because people are instead donating to more specific liberal/progressive/whatever organizations and PACs, because they don't trust the DNC itself to actually do the right thing. This is a good example of how the democrats are tearing each other apart, with a cold war happening between the white-working-class-union-member types that are still in the party, the economic socialist wing ala bernie sanders voters, the SJW progressive wing, the neoliberal hilldog shill wing, the various shitskin tribal groups, etc.

The 17th amendment is kill.

>republicans enacting republicanism
Logically, it makes sense...

>trannies and mexicans
Please don't lump us with these fucking degenerates

That would be good, but still not enough on its own. You know about the talmud and pilpul that jews do, right? They'll find a way to argue that left is right and up is down, regardless of a "living document" excuse or not. They'll find some other way.

The issue is that the only checks in the judicial branch are higher courts. And it causes this "who watches the watchmen" scenario that we have today. Look at the shit with Trump's travel ban being struck down despite US Code CLEARLY SAYING HE HAS THIS RIGHT. The fact that we even had to wait this long for SCOTUS to finally allow it until a final ruling is settled is ridiculous.

I'm not sure what the proper way to change this would be though. SCOTUS rulings must be accepted by a majority of state legislatures to "ratify" the decisions? I really don't know. Some way for a large body of the public to look at the excuse they give for a ruling and being able to respond by saying "yeah, that's fucking bullshit and you know it"

>(1)
Get lost.

>they don't trust the DNC itself to actually do the right thing.
although I agree with your assessment, I think there are so many competing far left ideological sub-organizations that they don't even know what 'the right thing' is anymore.

How about an amendment that introduces a process for federal-level referendums? We all know how bullshit it is when a position can be widely popular among the vast majority of the population (ie, muslim ban, trade tariffs, anti-trust laws, etc) but still receive no support from anyone in congress, because both sides are establishment ZOG shills? Perhaps something like what Switzerland has. Or perhaps if that's too "direct", an ability for state legislatures to introduce federal legislation and have a say too. I don't know.

There just needs to be a way for something like this, where people can have a say in singular issues without needing to take "package deals". Like how mexicans and niggers just go along with democrats for the gibs, even though they hate all this fag marriage tranny bathroom bullshit, but they still vote for the people who support that shit, because that's the only way to get their gibs.

>They're probably less cucky than the GOP faggots in the senate like McCain and Graham, but it's hard to say by how much in general.
Party matters less at the state level as what your constituents want is more important. Most people don't vote in state elections which means the ones that do tend to have their ears to the ground and betraying them can get you F U C K E D over come re-election time. Often people will just pick whichever party is dominant in their area and run as that, not that it really matters at that level.

A general trend however is the Democrats being ruthlessly corrupt and Republicans being scared shitless of doing anything lest they disrupt the system and they get called racist/sexist/homophobic/islamaphobic, and for good reason. Look what happened to Flint in Michigan: The Democrat city council ruins the cities water for tens of thousands of people and pollutes an entire fucking river and it's all (White) (Republican) Governo Snyder's fault for being Governor, White, and a Republican.

>You know about the talmud and pilpul that jews do, right?
Yep, they do this constantly.
>And it causes this "who watches the watchmen" scenario that we have today.
We could look towards making more judges either electable and thus replacable or institute a method for them to be voted off the bench by citizens at the very least. A signature drive that could lead to a recall election might make them think twice. The only problem is who has jurisdiction to do so on a federal level. Hawaiians are giant fags so I don't think they'd get rid of that judge. Hmmmm.

You're most probably right. I'm just saying that it's not the whole picture to ONLY look at the money raised by the democratic party fund itself. At the same time, the fact that people are purposefully not giving money to the democrats are putting it into their own little factions and splinter groups is a good sign of the democratic collapse and schism.

That flint shit really pisses me off. The niggers we left in charge of Flint and Detroit completely fuck things up, but somehow it's racist evil whitey who's at fault for keeping the good water away from the blacks?

That's the sort of thinking I like. Some way of removing judges that are BLATANTLY not following the rules. tbqh, there might already be an impeachment process for SCOTUS judges, but clearly it's not utilized properly if we still have Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan on the bench.

But if he defeats his enemy, then they win.

We cant lose

I'm pretty sure that's the EXACT debate that the Founders had when they wrote the original document. I think it's actually in the Federalist Papers. It would be worth looking into the Federalist Papers (And the Anti-Federalist Papers, at that) for an answer.

That being said, the problem with not having a Supreme Court is that if the Democrats ever gain power again then it's game over forever. The Supreme Court, much like Freedom of Speech, should be neutral. The question isn't one of "what to do without it" but rather "how do we make it so it can't be misused". In the case of Freedom of Speech we have anti-cartel laws (Which go unenforced) to keep a media oligarchy from forming (It formed though).

Simply streamlining and making the Judicial Branch more efficient (And hanging traitors for inefficiency) might be the answer, user. We don't need to get a new engine if the current one would work fine after cleaning the gunk out after all.

This is one of Mark Levin's "Liberty Amendments" he would propose in a convention of states

>3) Restoring the Judiciary to its proper role: The Judiciary was never meant to be an all-powerful institution in which five men in robes have the final say over every major policy battle in the country. In order to end judicial tyranny, Levin proposes limiting service to one 12-year term, and granting both Congress and the state legislatures the authority to overturn court decisions with the vote of three-fifths of both houses of Congress or state legislative bodies.

Term limits. Once you knock that one out, the resistance will dry up over night. It's like firing a shot across their bow.