If we were to replace the COTUS:

[Aaron]

Lets suppose there was a movement to replace our COTUS

1) would it be constitutional to do so?

2) if a new one was to be written - what would be the approval?
A) Both houses of Congress and with signature of the POTUS
(just a simple majority- or would one House have to be a certian %?

B) same as "A" except no signature by POTUS needed

3) Approval of a certain amount of States/Commonwealths (what %)
if so - would the Gov also have to sign the legislation?

4) Combination of 2) & 3)

5) Popular vote? Simple majority or higher?

6) Other

After the massive fraud that installed Biden et al, a Convention of the States is the only peaceful means, barring an act of God, of restoring our Republic and turning back the tide of despotism.

Supreme Court Goes Full Nicaragua in PA Election Case


Aim of Impeachment Was to Criminalize Trump Voters


Not saying the Dems would be peaceful. There would be bloodshed anyway, because there's nothing the Dems won't do if they think they can get away with it, to keep their power.

They get to riot and mount insurrections and murder and pillage with impunity.

 

[Salty]

Not without ratification by three fourths of the state legislatures.

Not necessarily - it would be whatever the proposal was to say! (for a full revision)

 

[canadyjd]

Not necessarily - it would be whatever the proposal was to say! (for a full revision)

What you are hypothetically suggesting to be a possibility is so improbable, imo, to make it impossible.

As I’ve already said, should any political party attempt to do way with the constitution and replace it by majority vote in the US Congress and pres signature, the consequences would be immediate and, potentially, devastating. It would not stand. The states would rebel. The people would rebel. This country would be torn apart.

The states would recall every representative and Senator that voted for it and replace them. Once they were replaced, these new reps and senators would impeach and remove the pres.

Last word from me

peace to you

 

[Aaron]

Not necessarily - it would be whatever the proposal was to say! (for a full revision)

Yes, necessarily. There is no amendment to the Constitution that can take effect without the approval of the states.

 

[Salty]

1) I am a big what-iffer
2) before ssmething

Yes, necessarily. There is no amendment to the Constitution that can take effect without the approval of the states.

First - it doesent even need to be an amemdment - could be the orgianal COTUS.

But - lets stop and think - and research - if necessary- Did the Articles of Confederation have anything to say about getting rid of that in favor of a new compact?

If not that means we are still operating under the A o C!!!

 

[AustinC]

Lets suppose there was a movement to replace our COTUS

1) would it be constitutional to do so?

2) if a new one was to be written - what would be the approval?
A) Both houses of Congress and with signature of the POTUS
(just a simple majority- or would one House have to be a certian %?

B) same as "A" except no signature by POTUS needed

3) Approval of a certain amount of States/Commonwealths (what %)
if so - would the Gov also have to sign the legislation?

4) Combination of 2) & 3)

5) Popular vote? Simple majority or higher?

6) Other

Why would this be done?
Treason would be the only answer I can come up with. The desire to overthrow the elected regime.
This is an odd thread.

 

[Salty]

Why would this be done?
Treason would be the only answer I can come up with. The desire to overthrow the elected regime.
This is an odd thread.

There are people who would love to see a Pro-abortion "right
There are people who would love to see a Pro-birth right...
There are people who would love to see a right for individuals to own a gun
(currently some say only pertains to a militia )
There are people who want to end the electoral college.
and many more.

and it would NOT be treason to want to replace the Current Constitution.
There are those who say it is outdated -
Remember it was written by white men
In this day and age - it would have to be a diversity group of people.

and if vote on by Congress, ect - it would NOT be treason.

and with what I just wrote in this post- I doubt it would ever happen -..


Why this thread - just to get folks thinking ---
you never know what would happen.

When England gave charters for the New World - did they at time ever think that a group of people go to war and become a new nation. --- Normally - never say never!

 

[Reynolds]

If you abolish The Constitution, The individual states would revert back to sovereignty. You would have no central govt.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

1) I am a big what-iffer
2) before ssmething
First - it doesent even need to be an amemdment - could be the orgianal COTUS.

But - lets stop and think - and research - if necessary- Did the Articles of Confederation have anything to say about getting rid of that in favor of a new compact?

If not that means we are still operating under the A o C!!!

No, it wouldn’t mean that at all. And at least some of us are thinking quite clearly about these what ifs.

The states themselves, the people themselves, can enact a new form of government and did so after considerable debate and deliberation, yet more of the same, and the addition of a Bill of Rights.

Doing it any other way would indeed be high treason and would rightly prompt removing the traitors, by force if necessary.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

If you abolish The Constitution, The individual states would revert back to sovereignty. You would have no central govt.

Agreed. It is unlikely that COTUS would be merely abolished, unless we were overtaken by a foreign power.

The states might replace it after hammering out and ratifying another governing document much like they did when going from the AOC ( ) to the COTUS.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

...
Not saying the Dems would be peaceful. There would be bloodshed anyway, because there's nothing the Dems won't do if they think they can get away with it, to keep their power.

They get to riot and mount insurrections and murder and pillage with impunity.

Yes, they are a nefariouly violent lot. But Kyle was a ray of hope in this matter. It would be good for him to reap the spoils much like Sandman is doing.

 

[Aaron]

Convention of States gaining ground

That slow momentum that begun in 2014 has resulted in nineteen states passing the Convention in both state legislative branches. Four of those states passed it this year. Six states have had it pass in one house. Twenty-one states are considering resolutions this year.

That is forty-six states who have either passed it in both houses, one house or set to consider resolutions this year. More than enough for a Convention, should enough of those states vote for it in both houses.

...

The simple fact is, had it not been for the train wreck everyone paying attention to politics knew was coming with Biden and Harris, there would not be the momentum the Convention has gained this year.

There are those who fear a runaway Convention could destroy the Constitution or some part of the Bill of Rights. Those fears are unjustified. They could no more have a runaway Convention than the Founders did when creating a new form of government, since the states still had to pass the Constitution into existence; just as would happen following a Convention.

A Convention can only create the wording for proposed Amendments, not pass them. Any Amendment that comes out of a Convention will still need to be voted on by state legislatures, just as they do to have a Convention or pass other Amendments that have come out of Congress.​