No, I really think they fell off a couple miles back....

WHY has this video of Ginsburg not been shown on national tv??? it is apparently available here on the internet. Is it a question of having the balls to do it? Maybe save it till just before or during the hearings on Kavanaugh. It would sure put the liberals in a tough spot

Ginsburg is just one of the four liberals on the Supreme Court who is against anything in the Constitution.

Remember when the "wise Latina" was confirmed? Hussein loved her because she declared to be "flexible" in interpreting the Constitution.

Hussein's greatest pain was that he was unable to outlaw it. But he did everything in his power to bypass it.

I gave it to you having trust in the "wheels of Justice".

Where I sit, they are not turning at all.

And you may well be right. I do believe their agenda is a balanced budget and term limits, 2 of the biggest fixes we need.

Uh, maybe. Remember, Obama was caught with his slits vertical...

Egads! She is one one of those "Ancient Aliens". She must be a Reptiod with faux human flesh covering. Maybe she is from an alternate reality where everything is different. Somebody rip her face off and if there is an Alien there.

I must say this.
An Article 5 convention is 1) for a stated purpose or purposes, 2) proposes amendments to the Constitution, and 3) the amendments this proposed must still be ratified by 3/4 of the separate states.
The representatives to such a convention are chosen by the states. The federal government has no role.
I believe it is possible to have an Article 5 convention for the purpose of writing a Balanced Budget Amendment, and having such an amendment ratified. I also believe that any proposed amendment that infringes or revokes the Rights enumerated in the Constitution (think 2nd Amendment) will fail to get 3/4 of the States to ratify it.

Storo, no need to apologize for a well composed pertinent post. Thank you for taking the time to put it up.

Yup, thus the Storm coming...

She is the perfect example of a Jewish Idol. a loyal leftie in a high office, and an example to point out to the youngsters. A situation that will never happen to Ben Shapiro.

And they got all that power by ignoring the restraints of the Constitution!

Indeed, true. They need to go, but the real lesson is power corrupts, so do not give more power to any part than the rest, that was the weapon they used from the 30's on. Look at history and you see how it bounced around, and the Federal government grew like a weed, they control the currency, the law, the judges, the rules. That is the evil today. It also was, I think, Ayn Rands big issue, that no one wanted to admit to.

Ah, the pedo trail runs deep on the left, a lot of things all point to them doing some very bad things. She is probably involved at some point or may have been...

True, there are risks and there is a lot of corruption and money on the left to bend things their way, more the reason to be careful who you vote for to send there if and when. No politicians should be allowed in the door.

Because it was all part of their Plan. The same one Q is fighting. Hope the good guys win and all this crap is unmasked so even the UI cannot deny it.

How did we get to this point where one side accepts anti-American objectives (Commie Socialist frauds) . Let's see the Media is 1st and next pop culture (break-up families) and 3rd education. The media is gasping for air, pop culture has reverted to canibalism and education is still a huge issue.
BTW President Clinton announced Ruth Bader Ginsburg as White's replacement on June 15, 1993, and she was confirmed by the United States Senate on August 3, 1993.[2]

Ginsburg is the same one who said that pedophilia is good fro children. She has apparently no repect for the Constitution, the innocence of children, nor our American way of life. the Storm may not have broken yet, but Stormi is raging after this week and all the idiots on TV and DC!

An Art V convention with a swamp full of marxists could make things worse....

First, let me apologize for this tome. In his book “The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates“ (Mentor, 1986) author Ralph Ketchum wrote the following in his introduction:

“As the federal convention assembled in May 1787, its members did agree, though, on some basic principles and use of terms. All believed in government by consent, which in 18th-century understanding included (1) constitutional monarchy, where the monarchs powers were limited and where the government included an assembly elected by the people; (2) a republic, meaning some forms of representative government without a hereditary executive; and (3) democracy which meant either town meeting style democracy or simply the direct voice of the people within a government. The revolutionary struggle against the government of George III left the constitutional monarchy in ill-repute in America.….Equally discredited was “mere democracy“ which still meant, as Aristotle had taught, rule by the passionate, ignorant, demagogue-dominated “voice of the people“. This was sure to produce first injustice, then anarchy, and finally tyranny. Hence virtually all shades of opinion reviled monarchy and democracy, and, publicly at least, affirmed republicanism.”

One need only revisit The Federalist Papers, or The Anti-Federalist Papers and read some of the writings of the Founding Fathers, or the transcripts of the debates during the Constitutional Convention, to realize just how far away from the government of the Constitution we really are. That realization is exceptionally distressing.
We have come so far away from the Founders’ intent, not by Amendment of the Constitution, not by Law, not by vote, or any other legitimate means, but by (1) an Executive Branch that has ignored the Constitution in proposing and enforcing the laws of the United States; (2) a Congress that likewise ignored the Constitution and assumed far more power than the Constitution allows; (3) a Judicial Branch which has likewise ignored the Constitution and its meaning in favor of creating “constitutional rights” that don’t exist in the Constitution, legislating from the bench, and deciding cases on the basis of personal opinion rather than constitutional principle; (4) any number of politicians, state, federal or local, who have taken the position, often publicly, that the Constitution is out of date and should be revised or replaced for their own ends; and, finally, (5) a populace that knows little or nothing about the Constitution, and which, as the prophet predicted, vote for those who promise them the greatest largess at public expense.

As Ginsburg notes, we have the oldest, still in force Constitution in the world. It has served us well over the last 240 years. And that fact should be a badge of honor that we wear for the world. And if you read it and understand it, you know that the principles and functions of the government it describes are timeless and basic to self government by the people, the right of the people to Liberty, the right of the people to pursue life, liberty and happiness on their own terms, and limited government that assures protection of the rights listed therein. Ginsburg would have us look to Socialist/Globalist/egalitarian documents to write a Constitution. That tells us a lot about where her 86-year old addled head is. That’s why we need to get rid or her and her ilk. And we as a populace need to stand up and throw out the lying politicians, the activist judges, and the corrupt government officials. Now.

How can one be on SCOTUS yet doesn't believe in the constitution she swore to uphold.

This should be no surprise. Ginsberg has been an anti-American activist her whole life. To her, everything and everybody that's pro USA is evil. But even though she's now a withered old lady, her mind is as sharp as ever. Do appearances deceive? In this case, Yes! But, thanks to Obama she has been rewarded by being on the Supreme Court. Yet they criticise Trump for his selections. Hah! If it was up to them, SCOTUS would be all socialists and the Constitution be damned.

Not surprising.

Hence, the ArtV Convention call, support it, it is needed.

Why are Feminists always so concerned with "rights" and never with "responsibilities"?