Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

510

Credits to the advocate from my area who originally posted this:

The John Birch Society State calls for a constitutional convention or con-con are getting dangerously close to the 34 states that are required to force Congress to call such a convention. For those unaware, a constitutional convention is a method of amending the Constitution. In fact, it’s one of two methods the Founding Fathers put in Article V of the Constitution. Simply put, the convention method originates in the states, while the other method originates in Congress. Read more on what a con-con is here.

While some may think a constitutional convention sounds good, it is actually very dangerous for America. Especially considering the present state of the nation, there are many dangers to consider before taking such a risky step as convening an Article V convention.

The danger starts with the convention delegates. How would the delegates be chosen? The Constitution is silent on this and with the current conditions of today, what special interest agendas would be represented? We have politicians who have helped create this mess, so the delegate selection process could easily be manipulated to ensure that special interests were well represented.

Another question we have to ponder is, is the Constitution the problem, or is it the politicians who are not obeying the Constitution? Congress has a horrible approval rating with the American people, largely because of the influence of special interests, and yet this is the body that would “call a Convention.”

Article V also allows Congress to send proposed amendments for ratification to either state legislatures or special state conventions. Therefore Congress has the option to bypass state legislatures completely during the ratification process for proposed amendments.

Lastly, out of all the previously listed dangers of a constitutional convention, a “runaway” convention poses the greatest danger. There is no exact definition for a “runaway” convention; however, most refer to it as a convention that acts beyond its intended scope, much like the first Constitutional Convention.

Such a convention may greatly alter any proposed single amendment, propose an unlimited number of additional amendments, or draft a totally new constitution with a new ratification procedure. That’s why it would be so dangerous and unwise to hold an Article V constitutional convention at this time of great political turmoil.

Rather than trying to rein in Big Government by altering the Constitution with Article V, citizens and lawmakers should be reining in Big Government by enforcing the Constitution with Article VI. Whenever the federal government passes unconstitutional acts, it is up to the states to intervene and defend the Constitution. State and local officials, in keeping with their oath to the Constitution, are to ignore such acts and only enforce those that are actually made in pursuance of the Constitution.

Article VI requires that both federal and state government officials take an oath to support the Constitution. That oath requires them to safeguard the Constitution, the states, and the people they serve by declaring unconstitutional laws null and void in their specific area of responsibility.

To ensure that Article VI is applied, elected officials must be held accountable by we the people. They must take their oath of office seriously and abide by it. If they do not, the electorate has a duty to replace them. This is why we recommend Article VI, rather than Article V in order to rein in the federal government. What You Can Do To Help! Visit out ACT NOW section at JBS.org to see current Con-Con legislation in your state. Work with individuals to stop new Article V convention applications and to rescind already passed applications. Use Article VI to hold your elected officials accountable to the Constitution.

Credits to the advocate from my area who originally posted this: The John Birch Society State calls for a constitutional convention or con-con are getting dangerously close to the 34 states that are required to force Congress to call such a convention. For those unaware, a constitutional convention is a method of amending the Constitution. In fact, it’s one of two methods the Founding Fathers put in Article V of the Constitution. Simply put, the convention method originates in the states, while the other method originates in Congress. Read more on what a con-con is here. While some may think a constitutional convention sounds good, it is actually very dangerous for America. Especially considering the present state of the nation, there are many dangers to consider before taking such a risky step as convening an Article V convention. The danger starts with the convention delegates. How would the delegates be chosen? The Constitution is silent on this and with the current conditions of today, what special interest agendas would be represented? We have politicians who have helped create this mess, so the delegate selection process could easily be manipulated to ensure that special interests were well represented. Another question we have to ponder is, is the Constitution the problem, or is it the politicians who are not obeying the Constitution? Congress has a horrible approval rating with the American people, largely because of the influence of special interests, and yet this is the body that would “call a Convention.” Article V also allows Congress to send proposed amendments for ratification to either state legislatures or special state conventions. Therefore Congress has the option to bypass state legislatures completely during the ratification process for proposed amendments. Lastly, out of all the previously listed dangers of a constitutional convention, a “runaway” convention poses the greatest danger. There is no exact definition for a “runaway” convention; however, most refer to it as a convention that acts beyond its intended scope, much like the first Constitutional Convention. Such a convention may greatly alter any proposed single amendment, propose an unlimited number of additional amendments, or draft a totally new constitution with a new ratification procedure. That’s why it would be so dangerous and unwise to hold an Article V constitutional convention at this time of great political turmoil. Rather than trying to rein in Big Government by altering the Constitution with Article V, citizens and lawmakers should be reining in Big Government by enforcing the Constitution with Article VI. Whenever the federal government passes unconstitutional acts, it is up to the states to intervene and defend the Constitution. State and local officials, in keeping with their oath to the Constitution, are to ignore such acts and only enforce those that are actually made in pursuance of the Constitution. Article VI requires that both federal and state government officials take an oath to support the Constitution. That oath requires them to safeguard the Constitution, the states, and the people they serve by declaring unconstitutional laws null and void in their specific area of responsibility. To ensure that Article VI is applied, elected officials must be held accountable by we the people. They must take their oath of office seriously and abide by it. If they do not, the electorate has a duty to replace them. This is why we recommend Article VI, rather than Article V in order to rein in the federal government. What You Can Do To Help! Visit out ACT NOW section at JBS.org to see current Con-Con legislation in your state. Work with individuals to stop new Article V convention applications and to rescind already passed applications. Use Article VI to hold your elected officials accountable to the Constitution.

(post is archived)

[–] • 3 pts

Under the right circumstances, a conventional congress would be great.

Unfortunately, the current circumstances are about the opposite of that.

[–] • 1 pt

I, for one, welcome this convention. The convention of states is really popular with the older generations, and currently is the 'last strand of hope' they are grasping on to. The convention must happen, and either:

  • good will come of it, and our enemies will continue to fight a hot war while we sit on our ass 'making white babies', or
  • it will be a disaster, and we can finally get this fucking boogaloo started, with the blessings of the crowd who keeps telling us 'don't go straight to the ammo box! There is still the ballot and jury box first!'.

They are running out of 'boxes' to placate them, it seems. And this is a good thing. If our country has been infected with zionists, I see no use in trying to keep it running.

 

Actually, thinking further: none of us have any interest in perpetuating a government that actually hates us. So why do we defend it with our actions, which denouncing it with our words?

I think the answer to this question will reveal the power of the Huxlean 'Brave New World' - we've become addicted to comfort.

[–] • -1 pt (edited )

'The older generations'

You mean boomers. The indoctrinated pieces of shit who destroyed the western world with their 'we know better' approach to life.

Check your perceptions of what is real, and I don't mean in the 'check yo privilege' sort of way. I mean literally calibrate yourself to America when boomers were still just young children. Watch 'Father Knows Best' and see for yourself the type of society that existed pre-semite, pre-boomer social orthodoxy. It's actually a really good show, you just have to accept that it is from the decade it is.

We stumbled across it after having to stop watching the propagand that is on offer today, started watching old shows, pre-boomer, and after I got past myself, found that I really liked them. They felt good, and I found myself wanting THAT America.

This world has already been decided. Whatever happens from here does so with under the following condition: Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis, which then becomes the new thesis, which in time will give rise to a new antithesis, and so on. It's the Hegelian dialectic and it is the one concept of his worth considering.

The point is, there is nothing left to conserve - America and most of Europe has been lost, in totality. what can be done now is to attempt to destroy what cancer has risen in it's place - just know that the artificial scarcity that is being imposed on us is not going away - ever again.

Either they are imposing it, or a breakdown in social order is going to cause it. Either way, we waited far, far, too long to start giving a shit about America. The time for action was no later than 20 years ago... Right about when we surrendered to Islam.

[–] • -1 pt

You mean boomers.

Yes, and gen X.

The indoctrinated pieces of shit [...]

This applies to every generation, and theirs was provably less indoctrinated.

[...] who destroyed the western world with their 'we know better' approach to life.

That isn't what destroyed the western world. Have you a minute to talk about the jews?

Check your perceptions of what is real

Been there, done that, wrote the book on it. I've documented the environment, both domestic and abroad, in fine detail, and (((the actions that led to the environment))), as well as (((the actions taken subsequently))). This is also known as history.

Watch 'Father Knows Best'

I read. It is a much faster method of digesting information for those of higher intellect. 'Media' was invented for the rest of the population.

In any case, I've read enough on the topic.

The point is, there is nothing left to conserve - America and most of Europe has been lost, in totality. [...]

Then we agree. Time to let it burn down and get this game started.

The time for action was no later than 20 years ago

False - the time to *save* America possibly, though that more realistically would have been 80 years ago. The time to let it burn is right now, every day.

Right about when we surrendered to Islam.

But really, sir: have you a moment to talk about the jews?

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

Boomers are provably less indoctrinated?

They are the torchbearers of modern leftist orthodoxy as a mainstream political platform in the United States, starting in the 1960's.

No shit about the Jews. We fought the wrong war and were conquered as a result. They introduced and encouraged the concepts embraced by the activist boomer generation.

Yes, yes, I have degrees too. Plural, I'm sure just like you. There's a difference seeing something and visually experiencing the dissonance with your modern experience. There's a reason the medium is as successful as it's been in the dissemination of propaganda. The Donna Reed Show was dripping with 1960's American propaganda - probably as a weak response to the social forces of the time. It does not imply that no content is worth internalizing.

The Abrahamic treo are all shit religions exalting the weak, the incapable, and the ignorant - that's why they spread and were accepted so readily. I'm fine with the eradication of all three.

[–] • 1 pt

This is about ten steps ahead of where we are right now. Action can and should be taken, make no mistake, but it requires a ramp up to this point.

The only plausible “peaceful” path that seems to remain:

First, localities must be secured: townships, cities, counties, then states - from school boards to sheriffs, to city councils, state legislatures, and eventually governorships. This will take a couple of smaller election cycles at minimum. Simultaneously, there must be an effort to educate and “propagandize” about the urgency of the situation.

Once the localities are secured and the populations properly ideologically aligned within those localities, another two-pronged approach will be to move higher up the food chain: nullification and a “leapfrog” of locals into the US House and Senate. State laws would need changed via state constitutions to grant the governors and legislatures the power to immediately remove and replace their members of Congress at will. Nullification would mean the active rejection of federal mandates and guidelines on a state by state basis, as called for by both Jefferson and James Madison. And the “leapfrog” approach would mean that once the localities are ideologically sound and elections are properly secured against fraud and interference (meaning harsh penalties up to and including death for the treasonous act of election fraud), then those at the local level (below the Governor and other statewide offices), would jump from the state legislatures to US Congress.

At this point, securing 2/3 of Congress and the necessary 34 states for the constitutional convention would also have the benefit of likely holding enough electoral votes to virtually guarantee the White House. However, acquiring the White House is not an end, only a triage, a means of stopping the bleeding while the constitutional convention drastically alters the nation’s political landscape permanently to force: sound currency, enshrinement of rights to life, liberty and property, officially broadening the legal terms of treason to include immigration flooding, election tampering, and foreign control of the economy, among others, and the hardline establishment of homosexuality and other perversions as mental illness which would result in becoming ineligible for holding office, government jobs, or any unsupervised access to minors, at minimum - and possible institutionalization until cured.

This is only a basic outline, and I’m sure has some flaws, but it is the only remaining path I can see forward without open war.