Yup - that was pretty much what I had in mind. I'd still keep the threshold at 51% on the votes, however. If it isn't a necessity, the Federal Government shouldn't get involved. I do appreciate the revisions which specifically prohibit amendments. If you want to create or alter a bureaucracy's mandate, do it via a separate law.

Closer to your thoughts on the first: www.linkedin.com/pulse/amendment-limi...

The first is proposing amendments. The second is a call to the responsibility, attention, and morality espoused by the Founders.

Your assessment of where Hillary would have led is on target. She was taught at the feet of Alinsky, so I'm waiting for her to watch the current neophyte wannabe communists frantically trying to prove which is the most leftest presidential candidate, collect lots of campaign cash, and sweep in as the rescuer as the others flame out.

One of my ancestors rode with Confederate General J.E.B. Stuart, and his other three brothers served as artillerymen. Two died in Union prison camps (as brutal as any of the Confederate camps), and the surviving brother was my great great grandfather. At the war's end, my family gave their house in Appomattox to their two black house servants and resettled elsewhere. For those interested in puzzle solving, I've laid enough crumbs there for you to have a plausible chance to figure out my identity.

It's that "flaunting" part that scrams for examples to be made.

I like the first one. I actually proposed a similar law to one part of it being that Congress must specifically reauthorize and fund each executive agency by name in distinct bills. I think that would go a long way toward forcing greater accountability. If they are busy re-authorizing executive agencies, they can't be creating more of them ;) It also sets a specific budget for each agency and forces them to justify that budget - or at least that would be the hope.

The second one was meh. It's nowhere in my top 100 list of substantial changes to government.

Yeah, I live here. We have sanctuary COUNTIES. The wordplay on not having sanctuary cities is insane. Broward and Palm Beach County are both sanctuary counties.

NOW, the sheriffs will NOT admit it, but they have their orders from the county level.

==
I am VERY PROUD of Ron DeSantis. Almost losing a won election OPENED his eyes, and he is getting after it! KUDOS to him!

He will NOT win re-election if he does not address these issues.

For where being moral fits in the schema of the United States of America, consider http://www.linkedin.com/pulse/amendme... and www.linkedin.com/pulse/wrong-headedne...

Our new governor hit the ground running, he is doing great work. That said, as with Trump, it is the congress around him that are the problem, Ingoglia is as sketchy as they come, his election was pre ordained, bought and paid for by those that won`t concede power to someone like Trump - or DeSantis because they know they will be outed as the weasels they are. A recent town hall on this very subject produced this gem of a quote from the FL. rep. Gruters that was patting himself for standing against "sanctuary" - "Gruters told Kirschner that as long as illegal immigrants are not breaking the law they “have nothing to fear.” That is the root cause of our immigration policy as it now stands.

"change the laws until you eventually make everyone a lawbreaker" This is already happening in subverting the 2nd Amendment. States and municipalities are legislating more and more firearms hardware and accessories ownership, storage, and transport to the point a stroke of a bureaucrats pen can turn millions of innocent gun owners into felons in less than a second. Infringement to the max.

The Neo Communists (Ds) see the Constitution as an affront and are working diligently to destroy it.

"change the laws until you eventually make everyone a lawbreaker"

That's precisely the point. You see the insidiousness in this practice is actually two-fold. On the one hand those already committing immoral acts get to "justify" themselves in committing these (and more) morally reprehensible acts while claiming that they are "legal". On the other hand, they seek to place truly moral people into the conundrum you have just described: pitting morality against legality. Those who are naturally moral and seek to be consistent then find that they can not be both moral and legal at the same time. See Hank Reardon's dilemma in Atlas Shrugged for an example.

We can see examples of these moral vs legal conundrums in today's society as well.

Well, that DOES make me feel better, thank you. It's just that I rarely find myself in the position of trying to or encouraging others to subvert the law. Does make sense, though, that the Colorado sheriffs (for example - they are not the only ones) cannot morally enforce the red flag laws, because they are unconstitutional, and doing so would go against the oath they have sworn.

Editing to add that this seems to fall into the idea that if enough people aren't breaking the law, change the laws until you eventually make everyone a lawbreaker. Good way to hold people hostage, in their eyes.

It isn't actually an incongruity because the morality of your position is consistent. Remember that it isn't necessarily what is legal that one should operate on but rather what is moral. They should be one and the same but it is frequently those who seek to pervert morality who change the laws so as to pretend their actions are not immoral.

My thoughts are that these people were looking for an excuse to do this and got not only the excuse but approbation under Obama. Now that Trump has changed course entirely, they still want to hang onto their ideology and hoped to get at least a "wink-wink-nod-nod" arrangement. Because they are being utterly repudiated, they're still "bitterly clinging" - just not to God or guns. It's these kinds of people who need to be thrown in jail - not as much for breaking Federal law but for flaunting their lawbreaking.

Me dino would love to know why this law is not enforced by arresting law-breaking mayors and city councils. Hussein is no longer the POTUS.

Amen!

What you suggest would actually work in this Politically Correct world of today

The USA was wrong to stop the secession of the confederacy by engaging in war.

The confederacy just wanted to secede. The North was wrong to stand in the way and to destroy the economy of the south in the process.

they shouldnt get federal money anyway. States and cities should be on their own.

I say deport all the people who came here illegally, and not allow them to even apply in the future as "asylum seekers". I have had enough of this.

No city or State should feel so brazen as to ignore Federal immigration law. That many choose to do so - in many cases under the protection of leftist Court decisions - is an affront to the Constitution itself.

What concerns me is that I am AGAINST sanctuary cities for illegals, but FOR sanctuary sherrif’s departments that protect citizens against red flag laws. My own incongruity bothers me, but there it is.

All frant requests cary the certification line that (to the effect that) the cities will follow all federal laws and regulations of be rendered unable to receive $$$. They took it to the 9th circuit with the usual result. I belive the case is still pending review and escalation to the SCOTUS.