Beto

[Wake-up!]

Beto O'Rourke recently said. "Can an empire like ours with military presence in over 170 countries around the globe, with trading relationships...and security agreements in every continent, can it still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago?"

[BTW, depending on who is counting, there are 193, 197, or 215 countries in the world. Beto's 170 contention equates to military presence in 79% to 88% of the world's countries. It might be an interesting question to ask your Congressperson how the safety and welfare of American Citizens is being protected by military presence in half, or more, of those countries. His/her answer might be even more interesting.]

Beto is the Socialist that nearly defeated ultra-right winger Ted Cruz for a Senate seat, in Texas of all places! Beto admits it, the USA is an Empire. And he apparently wants to void the Constitution, inferring its outdated principles cannot manage the Empire.

Here's the full story;  https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-16/beto-orourke-suggests-america-should-ditch-constitution

Beto's public education has apparently short-changed him. And others, by the way. Hey Beto, the Constitution has been increasingly ignored in the USA for better than 150 years, ever since the 'Great Emancipator' sat in the Oval Office and trumped the Union over all else. Today, we are an Empire instead of fifty nation-states, we have dying industries, we have a dying middle class, we have sky high National Debt, and our society's fabric is tattered and torn, because we have ignored the Constitution and its old principles. Because we are already Socialist. I know Beto, the USA just isn't Socialist enough for you. You and your ilk want the USSA.

Beto is entirely wrong, IMO. But when he is elected to some office (and he will be, eventually) he may just advocate for a Constitutional Convention as a means of voiding the Constitution. I would support his call for such a Convention. On the floor of such a convention the 'merits' of socialism, the single dictate of one rule for all via State supremacy, would be argued. So would the merits of the old principles, the right of individuals and families to choose for themselves rather than be ruled by the State. And States rights versus the domain of Washington DC would be argued.

It would be a dynamic time in America's history. The outcome would be positive for all Americans. Go gett'em Beto. Good boy.

[redcliffsw]

A constitutional convention would give a great advantage to the Republicans and modern Democrats to compromise for changes to the Constitution.

It would be better to go by the Constitution that was given to us by the Founders and defended by the Confederates. 

Just saying . . . . I'm opposed to such constitutional convention.

[Wake-up!]

As if they do NOT have great advantage now, Redcliff . . . . hah!

The first Constitutional Convention was held over four months in the summer of 1787 to address bickering among the States regarding interstate commerce. States were imposing different taxe rates and other restrictions on the various States they traded among. The impetus for the first constitutional convention was to make commerce between the States regular, just a small change to the existing Articles of Confederation that outlined the federal government's minimal authority.

Unfortunately, IMO, what occurred was much much more than addressing interstate trade. Here are the changes that occurred:
- The Articles said Congress could only request States to pay taxes (and there was no personal income tax), while the Constitution gave Congress the power to levy taxes on Individuals.
- The Articles established a single-body Congress with each State having one vote, while the Constitution established the two-body Congress we pretty much see today.
- The Articles provided for no federal court system (relying instead on a system of arbitration), while the Constitution established what we have today.
- The Articles did not have any provision to regulate interstate trade while the Constitution established the severely misused Interstate Commerce Clause.
- The Articles relied on the States to provide troops, when needed, while the Constitution authorized Congress to draft residents for military service.
- The Articles allowed the States to mint currency, the Constitution placed the control of money in the hands of the new federal government.
- The Articles provided the President to preside over Congress while the Constitution gave the President the Executive branch of government with a Cabinet and checks on the powers of Congress and on the new judicial system.

Do you favor those changes to the Articles of Confederation? Look at the big government that has evolved. Relative to the Articles, the Constitution is a blueprint for a Socialist, centralized government. And many of those who attended the constitutional convention felt that same as I. They felt so strongly that the Constitution would form a central authority with too much power that they demanded a Bill of Rights to go with the Constitution, a Bill that clearly restricted the power of the new federal government. So we ended up with the fist ten Amendments. And we ended up with a judicial system that in the subsequent 235 years has effectively neutralized the Bill of Rights and made literal Constitutional authority unrecognizable.

Obviously, I want a Constitutional Convention. It will not be controlled by bipartisan committees of Congress, it will be formed by newly elected representatives from the States (yes, some States may select Congress folks to represent them). I acknowledge your worry about control by our defacto one-party system. But I think we have so much division in this country that the divisions within the political parties will manifest and once again there will be little agreement on what to do. That's what I hope to see, a lot of bickering. That division will show exactly how little support either major party has as a whole. And the floor of the convention will become open to ALL possibilities, exactly as the first convention became open to an entirely new form of government.

Texas will be the first to say 'good riddance, USofA', we are restoring the old Texas Republic. And if Oklahoma and New Mexico have an ounce of intelligence between them, they will join Texas in re-forming the original boundaries of the old Republic. Other States will follow the leader. We will also end up with a New Old South, A Northern Atlantic Seaboard Socialist Union, a very far Left Coast Socialist Federation, with many of the other States reorganizing among themselves, some of them sticking with the current Washington DC. We may end up with a handful of Free States. And we may end up with a Conservative Republic in the west where the very large LDS community controls the land ownership and its resources. A few northern border States may even petition to join Socialist Canada. The beauty to me is that the possibilities become diverse to nearly limitless. Society would no longer be subject to One Rule for All. The diverse and opposing political groups within our society would be able to live and work under governments closer to their liking. And folks like Redcliff and Wake-up would not be concerned about the mad ravings of folks like Beto and Ocasio-Cortez.

The question remains, where will you choose to land? I'm headed to the Texas Republic, or a Free State if Missouri or Tennessee choose to go that way.

I'll end this fairy-tale-to-come-true by saying it needs to happen. At this point in our society, our options appear to be the evolving Police State with penal colonies, er detainment centers, just like the Gestapo (Trump starts filling them this year if Qanons are correct), or a dissolution into a very long and painful anarchistic, domestic war. Or just maybe a combination of both of those, for several generations. It needs to happen, it is the least painful, most optimistic future for our society's children and grandchildren. And, in spite of the complaining and fear that some readers will endlessly feel, it is optimistic.

[redcliffsw]

The Constitution we have is all we have to go by.  If the Republicans had honored the Constitution in 1861, things would have went smoother much longer into the future.  The Republicans were the earlier Obama types and what liberty we have left in America, we can thank the Confederates.  If the Confederates hadn't stood for the principles of the u.S. Constitution, things would have been worse much sooner than now. 

It's the Republicans and modern Democrats who have participated in removing Confederate monuments and flags which represent liberty and are worldwide symbols against tyranny.  And they don't see the old Constitution as any better - it's not modern enough for them because they prefer socialism.   

There's not enough Jeffersonians left in America to make much of a stand for the truths.  The Lincolnians rule by and thru the Republican and modern Democrat parties.  We've all been indoctrinated in the government schools over the past 150 years - so go figure.  The majority say they prefer freedom but votes for socialism.