User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 3:28:41 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you agree that the Framers intended for the States to be able to propose amendments to the Constitution independent of Congress? Or is your issue the process is so vague that it can easily be stopped by the fed? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Unless there's another spot out there. I can only find this quote where Ayers supports a constitutional convention, not an Article V Convention of the States where the amendments are proposed by the States. Again, two different things. Please quote the language in the Constitution which: Labels a convention called pursuant to Article V a "Convention of the States". Empowers the states to propose amendments. Do you agree that the Framers intended for the States to be able to propose amendments to the Constitution independent of Congress? Or is your issue the process is so vague that it can easily be stopped by the fed? What is clear is that the Constitution empowers the states to apply to the Congress to have Congress call a convention. The purpose of the convention is to propose amendments. While it is not spelled out, one reasonably presumes that the delegates will propose amendments, debate the proposals, refine them and then vote on them. Nothing in the Constitution empowers the states to set out an agenda for the convention, to require the delegates from that state to put forth any proposed amendment once the convention begins, or to vote one way or another on any proposal. Nothing in the Constitution requires that the delegates organize themselves by states or to vote as a state block. If the men who drafted Article V had in mind that the states were to control such a convention, they utterly failed to express such intent. Probably, they did not believe such control by the states was necessary. They probably felt that the people who ran the government of a state could propose any amendment they thought necessary by means of the two Senators who were appointed to represent the state. Since that option is now gone, it might be a good idea to amend Article V to empower the states to organize and control the convention. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 3:29:29 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Look at who is already involved in the process at the state level I'd say. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And who do you think the States will choose to represent them at the convention? Seasoned politicians, or common joes? You think a political outsider will be selected by a state to amend or reform the Constitution? Do you think we'll send someone with no political savvy into the fray? Look at who is already involved in the process at the state level I'd say. The people who are currently involved are more likely to be ostracized than included. The political establishment didn't value your opinion on the topic before you forced the monumental task on them, why would they look to you for further advice? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 3:31:08 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can you give an example of a real solution? You've asked me to place the cart before the horse. As I posted, one needs to diagnose the problem correctly before one can find the correct solution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 3:32:35 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The people who are currently involved are more likely to be ostracized than included. The political establishment didn't value your opinion on the topic before you forced the monumental task on them, why would they look to you for further advice? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And who do you think the States will choose to represent them at the convention? Seasoned politicians, or common joes? You think a political outsider will be selected by a state to amend or reform the Constitution? Do you think we'll send someone with no political savvy into the fray? Look at who is already involved in the process at the state level I'd say. The people who are currently involved are more likely to be ostracized than included. The political establishment didn't value your opinion on the topic before you forced the monumental task on them, why would they look to you for further advice? Revolutionaries often find themselves to be expendable once the battle is won. Those who take charge are often not the ones who created the conditions for victory. You raise a good point that this could be the case here, with those who work to make this convention a reality may be shoved to the side once the convention becomes a reality. After all, it's the states who would pick their own delegates, not the folks working on this convention. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 3:41:41 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Revolutionaries often find themselves to be expendable once the battle is won. Those who take charge are often not the ones who created the conditions for victory. You raise a good point that this could be the case here, with those who work to make this convention a reality may be shoved to the side once the convention becomes a reality. After all, it's the states who would pick their own delegates, not the folks working on this convention. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And who do you think the States will choose to represent them at the convention? Seasoned politicians, or common joes? You think a political outsider will be selected by a state to amend or reform the Constitution? Do you think we'll send someone with no political savvy into the fray? Look at who is already involved in the process at the state level I'd say. The people who are currently involved are more likely to be ostracized than included. The political establishment didn't value your opinion on the topic before you forced the monumental task on them, why would they look to you for further advice? Revolutionaries often find themselves to be expendable once the battle is won. Those who take charge are often not the ones who created the conditions for victory. You raise a good point that this could be the case here, with those who work to make this convention a reality may be shoved to the side once the convention becomes a reality. After all, it's the states who would pick their own delegates, not the folks working on this convention. Exactly. Michael Farris, one of the COS leads, is really hoping to be a delegate from Virginia to any Art V convention. I think he is exactly the kind of person who should be at a convention. He can raise his hand, etc, but the selection will be made by others... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 3:46:47 PM EDT
[#6]
Here's what I don't understand.
Fact 1: The people of a state elect Representatives to the House. Fact 2: The people of a state elect Senators to the Senate. Fact 3: The people of a state elect representatives, senators, and the governor to serve in the state government. Conclusion 1: The makeup of the state legislature and the make up of the state's representation in Congress should be similar. This raises a question. Why would we expect a state government to send delegates to the convention whose views are radically different from those expressed by that state's representatives in Congress? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 4:10:20 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You've asked me to place the cart before the horse. As I posted, one needs to diagnose the problem correctly before one can find the correct solution. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Can you give an example of a real solution? You've asked me to place the cart before the horse. As I posted, one needs to diagnose the problem correctly before one can find the correct solution. Ok, how about this problem: In 1913, an amendment to the Constitution was ratified that provided for direct election of US Senators. While this action was no doubt considered appropriate at the time, it has contributed to the concentration of power at the federal level and has significantly reduced both the power and the voice of the state legislatures in determining federal policy. Assuming a super-majority of the states want to repeal this amendment as was done with Prohibition, what is the solution? Presumably you will tell me that the real problem is the people allowed this to happen via their elected representatives at both the state and federal level, the correct solution is to educate the masses and address this at the ballot box, and there should be no attempt to amend the Constitution until Congress is ready to do so. Yes? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 4:51:37 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here's what I don't understand. Fact 1: The people of a state elect Representatives to the House. Fact 2: The people of a state elect Senators to the Senate. Fact 3: The people of a state elect representatives, senators, and the governor to serve in the state government. Conclusion 1: The makeup of the state legislature and the make up of the state's representation in Congress should be similar. This raises a question. Why would we expect a state government to send delegates to the convention whose views are radically different from those expressed by that state's representatives in Congress? Exactly the point I've been raising concerning who would actually be selected by the state as delegates. You're going to choose someone that represents the State's views....same as congressional representatives. Disqualify Congressmen from being selected, and you know who's going to be selected? The second best guy for the job. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 4:57:43 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here's what I don't understand. Fact 1: The people of a state elect Representatives to the House. Fact 2: The people of a state elect Senators to the Senate. Fact 3: The people of a state elect representatives, senators, and the governor to serve in the state government. Conclusion 1: The makeup of the state legislature and the make up of the state's representation in Congress should be similar. This raises a question. Why would we expect a state government to send delegates to the convention whose views are radically different from those expressed by that state's representatives in Congress? There are some key differences between how state reps feel about certain issues, like an overbearing fed govt, and fed reps. That's true on both sides of the aisle. It's much worse in the Senate Those guys, with a very few exceptions, couldn't care less what their state thinks except for a few months every 6 years. DC is completely out of control, I think everyone on this thread would agree with that. There is no reason to expect them to do anything about it, so we'll go to the next guys in line. Many of them will be very enthusiastic to see dollars not sent to DC, but instead retained by the state, along with the power to make a huge range of decisions that are currently made by the fed. In addition, they spend their time in the state, and are much easier to contact in person and harass than the fed guys... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 6:40:59 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here's what I don't understand. Fact 1: The people of a state elect Representatives to the House. Fact 2: The people of a state elect Senators to the Senate. Fact 3: The people of a state elect representatives, senators, and the governor to serve in the state government. Conclusion 1: The makeup of the state legislature and the make up of the state's representation in Congress should be similar. This raises a question. Why would we expect a state government to send delegates to the convention whose views are radically different from those expressed by that state's representatives in Congress? Good question but we are dealing with politicians and as a bit of an off topic answer I give you, John Boner, who funded the government through September, 2015 when a clear mandate was sent to him saying amnesty and Obamacare should be on the chopping block. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 10:01:27 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok, how about this problem: In 1913, an amendment to the Constitution was ratified that provided for direct election of US Senators. While this action was no doubt considered appropriate at the time, it has contributed to the concentration of power at the federal level and has significantly reduced both the power and the voice of the state legislatures in determining federal policy. Assuming a super-majority of the states want to repeal this amendment as was done with Prohibition, what is the solution? Presumably you will tell me that the real problem is the people allowed this to happen via their elected representatives at both the state and federal level, the correct solution is to educate the masses and address this at the ballot box, and there should be no attempt to amend the Constitution until Congress is ready to do so. Yes? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can you give an example of a real solution? You've asked me to place the cart before the horse. As I posted, one needs to diagnose the problem correctly before one can find the correct solution. Ok, how about this problem: In 1913, an amendment to the Constitution was ratified that provided for direct election of US Senators. While this action was no doubt considered appropriate at the time, it has contributed to the concentration of power at the federal level and has significantly reduced both the power and the voice of the state legislatures in determining federal policy. Assuming a super-majority of the states want to repeal this amendment as was done with Prohibition, what is the solution? Presumably you will tell me that the real problem is the people allowed this to happen via their elected representatives at both the state and federal level, the correct solution is to educate the masses and address this at the ballot box, and there should be no attempt to amend the Constitution until Congress is ready to do so. Yes? You are trying to solve problems by addressing symptoms. That's like trying to cure an infection by lowering the patient's temperature. Until you correctly diagnose the real cause of the growth of government, you will never stop it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 10:03:30 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. No fucking way. Just no. FPNI. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 11:56:58 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are trying to solve problems by addressing symptoms. That's like trying to cure an infection by lowering the patient's temperature. Until you correctly diagnose the real cause of the growth of government, you will never stop it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can you give an example of a real solution? You've asked me to place the cart before the horse. As I posted, one needs to diagnose the problem correctly before one can find the correct solution. Ok, how about this problem: In 1913, an amendment to the Constitution was ratified that provided for direct election of US Senators. While this action was no doubt considered appropriate at the time, it has contributed to the concentration of power at the federal level and has significantly reduced both the power and the voice of the state legislatures in determining federal policy. Assuming a super-majority of the states want to repeal this amendment as was done with Prohibition, what is the solution? Presumably you will tell me that the real problem is the people allowed this to happen via their elected representatives at both the state and federal level, the correct solution is to educate the masses and address this at the ballot box, and there should be no attempt to amend the Constitution until Congress is ready to do so. Yes? You are trying to solve problems by addressing symptoms. That's like trying to cure an infection by lowering the patient's temperature. Until you correctly diagnose the real cause of the growth of government, you will never stop it. Actually the 17th IS a tremendous problem, especially related to government growth, and it's blatantly obvious when you start considering the checks and balances and how this fucked things up. OCG and I don't see eye-to-eye on much, but this is one case where I'd take a win no matter what it takes. The 17th needs to be repealed before any other Constitutional amendment is ever considered...primarily because of the role the 17th plays in how senators vote (and who they vote for) on amendments. And for that reason the repeal of the 17th needs to be independent of any other change. However! This is probably the SINGULAR change I would advocate happening "any way possible". Pretty sure that's why OCG teed it up. Everything else needs to happen through education of the masses and via Congress. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 12:33:28 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually the 17th IS a tremendous problem, especially related to government growth, and it's blatantly obvious when you start considering the checks and balances and how this fucked things up. OCG and I don't see eye-to-eye on much, but this is one case where I'd take a win no matter what it takes. The 17th needs to be repealed before any other Constitutional amendment is ever considered...primarily because of the role the 17th plays in how senators vote (and who they vote for) on amendments. And for that reason the repeal of the 17th needs to be independent of any other change. However! This is probably the SINGULAR change I would advocate happening "any way possible". Pretty sure that's why OCG teed it up. Everything else needs to happen through education of the masses and via Congress. I wonder if you have thought the problem all the way through. Fact number 1: Most legislators (local, state and Federal) love to spend money. Fact number 2: Most legislators hate having to raise revenue by raising taxes levied by the government entity of which they are part. Fact number 3: As a result of fact number 1 and number 2, the state governments are addicted to Federal money. State legislators get to spend money which they didn't have to raise. Given those three facts, what will happen if the people who run state governments are given back their representation in Congress and no other changes are made? Experience tells me (and should tell everyone else) that the people who run state governments would use their representation in Congress to help themselves to more Federal money. Like all addicts they will feed their addiction by whatever means are available. The Senators who would be beholden to them will cut deals among themselves and with the Representatives for more and more Federal money for state governments, financed by more and more Federal borrowing. That hardly sounds like a plan which will result in reducing the growth of government, let alone stopping it. Your proposal does not address the root cause of the growth of government. Until you figure what that cause is and then figure out how the Founders tried to prevent the government from growing (and what they failed to do but which would still have to be done if the effort is to be successful) your efforts are doomed to fail. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 12:58:38 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wonder if you have thought the problem all the way through. Fact number 1: Most legislators (local, state and Federal) love to spend money. Fact number 2: Most legislators hate having to raise revenue by raising taxes levied by the government entity of which they are part. Fact number 3: As a result of fact number 1 and number 2, the state governments are addicted to Federal money. State legislators get to spend money which they didn't have to raise. Given those three facts, what will happen if the people who run state governments are given back their representation in Congress and no other changes are made? Experience tells me (and should tell everyone else) that the people who run state governments would use their representation in Congress to help themselves to more Federal money. Like all addicts they will feed their addiction by whatever means are available. The Senators who would be beholden to them will cut deals among themselves and with the Representatives for more and more Federal money for state governments, financed by more and more Federal borrowing. That hardly sounds like a plan which will result in reducing the growth of government, let alone stopping it. Your proposal does not address the root cause of the growth of government. Until you figure what that cause is and then figure out how the Founders tried to prevent the government from growing (and what they failed to do but which would still have to be done if the effort is to be successful) your efforts are doomed to fail. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Actually the 17th IS a tremendous problem, especially related to government growth, and it's blatantly obvious when you start considering the checks and balances and how this fucked things up. OCG and I don't see eye-to-eye on much, but this is one case where I'd take a win no matter what it takes. The 17th needs to be repealed before any other Constitutional amendment is ever considered...primarily because of the role the 17th plays in how senators vote (and who they vote for) on amendments. And for that reason the repeal of the 17th needs to be independent of any other change. However! This is probably the SINGULAR change I would advocate happening "any way possible". Pretty sure that's why OCG teed it up. Everything else needs to happen through education of the masses and via Congress. I wonder if you have thought the problem all the way through. Fact number 1: Most legislators (local, state and Federal) love to spend money. Fact number 2: Most legislators hate having to raise revenue by raising taxes levied by the government entity of which they are part. Fact number 3: As a result of fact number 1 and number 2, the state governments are addicted to Federal money. State legislators get to spend money which they didn't have to raise. Given those three facts, what will happen if the people who run state governments are given back their representation in Congress and no other changes are made? Experience tells me (and should tell everyone else) that the people who run state governments would use their representation in Congress to help themselves to more Federal money. Like all addicts they will feed their addiction by whatever means are available. The Senators who would be beholden to them will cut deals among themselves and with the Representatives for more and more Federal money for state governments, financed by more and more Federal borrowing. That hardly sounds like a plan which will result in reducing the growth of government, let alone stopping it. Your proposal does not address the root cause of the growth of government. Until you figure what that cause is and then figure out how the Founders tried to prevent the government from growing (and what they failed to do but which would still have to be done if the effort is to be successful) your efforts are doomed to fail. 
You're making it harder than it needs to be. Federal money, as you call it, is protected by self interest. Texas and California simply aren't going to allow Rhode Island to somehow get the lion's share of the tax revenue. Congressmen like getting federal money because it let's them redistribute it to their constituents. It's called buying votes. And it's easier to buy the votes of uninformed voters, who are almost always lower class. When they can't spend any more money on those programs (fully funded), then the next election they have to invent a new program in order to buy more votes. That is why you see a growth in government service offerings beyond what can be accounted for by population growth and inflation. The counter to that is to have a separate, equal branch of Congress that represents the state, not the people in it. They can't buy votes, because the people don't vote for them. They're not supposed to allow legislation to pass if it is unconstitutional, and those bullshit vote-buying bills are supposed to die at the Senate, who doesn't care about pissing off voters. So, yeah, I HAVE thought it through. It isn't rocket science if you don't introduce a whole load of derp into the conversation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 2:41:05 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're making it harder than it needs to be. Federal money, as you call it, is protected by self interest. Texas and California simply aren't going to allow Rhode Island to somehow get the lion's share of the tax revenue. Congressmen like getting federal money because it let's them redistribute it to their constituents. It's called buying votes. And it's easier to buy the votes of uninformed voters, who are almost always lower class. When they can't spend any more money on those programs (fully funded), then the next election they have to invent a new program in order to buy more votes. That is why you see a growth in government service offerings beyond what can be accounted for by population growth and inflation. The counter to that is to have a separate, equal branch of Congress that represents the state, not the people in it. They can't buy votes, because the people don't vote for them. They're not supposed to allow legislation to pass if it is unconstitutional, and those bullshit vote-buying bills are supposed to die at the Senate, who doesn't care about pissing off voters. So, yeah, I HAVE thought it through. It isn't rocket science if you don't introduce a whole load of derp into the conversation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Actually the 17th IS a tremendous problem, especially related to government growth, and it's blatantly obvious when you start considering the checks and balances and how this fucked things up. OCG and I don't see eye-to-eye on much, but this is one case where I'd take a win no matter what it takes. The 17th needs to be repealed before any other Constitutional amendment is ever considered...primarily because of the role the 17th plays in how senators vote (and who they vote for) on amendments. And for that reason the repeal of the 17th needs to be independent of any other change. However! This is probably the SINGULAR change I would advocate happening "any way possible". Pretty sure that's why OCG teed it up. Everything else needs to happen through education of the masses and via Congress. I wonder if you have thought the problem all the way through. Fact number 1: Most legislators (local, state and Federal) love to spend money. Fact number 2: Most legislators hate having to raise revenue by raising taxes levied by the government entity of which they are part. Fact number 3: As a result of fact number 1 and number 2, the state governments are addicted to Federal money. State legislators get to spend money which they didn't have to raise. Given those three facts, what will happen if the people who run state governments are given back their representation in Congress and no other changes are made? Experience tells me (and should tell everyone else) that the people who run state governments would use their representation in Congress to help themselves to more Federal money. Like all addicts they will feed their addiction by whatever means are available. The Senators who would be beholden to them will cut deals among themselves and with the Representatives for more and more Federal money for state governments, financed by more and more Federal borrowing. That hardly sounds like a plan which will result in reducing the growth of government, let alone stopping it. Your proposal does not address the root cause of the growth of government. Until you figure what that cause is and then figure out how the Founders tried to prevent the government from growing (and what they failed to do but which would still have to be done if the effort is to be successful) your efforts are doomed to fail.
You're making it harder than it needs to be. Federal money, as you call it, is protected by self interest. Texas and California simply aren't going to allow Rhode Island to somehow get the lion's share of the tax revenue. Congressmen like getting federal money because it let's them redistribute it to their constituents. It's called buying votes. And it's easier to buy the votes of uninformed voters, who are almost always lower class. When they can't spend any more money on those programs (fully funded), then the next election they have to invent a new program in order to buy more votes. That is why you see a growth in government service offerings beyond what can be accounted for by population growth and inflation. The counter to that is to have a separate, equal branch of Congress that represents the state, not the people in it. They can't buy votes, because the people don't vote for them. They're not supposed to allow legislation to pass if it is unconstitutional, and those bullshit vote-buying bills are supposed to die at the Senate, who doesn't care about pissing off voters. So, yeah, I HAVE thought it through. It isn't rocket science if you don't introduce a whole load of derp into the conversation. He's saying that the States themselves like getting money from the Feds too. So their representatives (Senators) would logically be interested in getting money for their state in the form of free Federal tax dollars. It's just like buying votes from the populace for the House, only the voters you're trying to please are members of the State government. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 2:46:21 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Federal money, as you call it, is protected by self interest. Texas and California simply aren't going to allow Rhode Island to somehow get the lion's share of the tax revenue. Precisely. The state legislators in those states, and every other one, would make sure their governments got a piece of the pie too, which will ensure that the pie grows exponentially. That is no answer to the problem I posed and which, it is clear, you have never considered. ETA: It's now clear that you don't even understand how the process actually works. Does the term "logrolling" ring a bell? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 2:49:10 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He's saying that the States themselves like getting money from the Feds too. So their representatives (Senators) would logically be interested in getting money for their state in the form of free Federal tax dollars. It's just like buying votes from the populace for the House, only the voters you're trying to please are members of the State government. Like I said, that's addressed by competing self interests, and it's the reason the Senate has equal representation by each state. California can't drown out Alaska's voice in the Senate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 2:56:12 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like I said, that's addressed by competing self interests, and it's the reason the Senate has equal representation by each state. California can't drown out Alaska's voice in the Senate. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
He's saying that the States themselves like getting money from the Feds too. So their representatives (Senators) would logically be interested in getting money for their state in the form of free Federal tax dollars. It's just like buying votes from the populace for the House, only the voters you're trying to please are members of the State government. Like I said, that's addressed by competing self interests, and it's the reason the Senate has equal representation by each state. California can't drown out Alaska's voice in the Senate. Which is how it is now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 3:15:19 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which is how it is now. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He's saying that the States themselves like getting money from the Feds too. So their representatives (Senators) would logically be interested in getting money for their state in the form of free Federal tax dollars. It's just like buying votes from the populace for the House, only the voters you're trying to please are members of the State government. Like I said, that's addressed by competing self interests, and it's the reason the Senate has equal representation by each state. California can't drown out Alaska's voice in the Senate. Which is how it is now. No. The math is the same, the interests that are represented are not. Currently the Senate is interested in making sure their constituents get a fair slice of the pie. If they weren't elected by popular vote, they'd be more interested in whether the nation needed to be eating pie in the first place. Repeal the 17th, and the House could say "Hey, we tried our best!" while the Senate could point the blame at the House for sending bad legislation. It's the exact same finger pointing that goes on right now, except now the Senate can't leverage bad legislation to buy votes. Does shit like Obamacare get passed with the 17th repealed? No way in hell. Does this slow down the legislative process? Hell yes! And it should, one of the stated reasons for the bicameral Congress was to force thoughtful and thorough debate of every bill. You don't turn a battleship on a dime, and you shouldn't fastrack legislation EVER. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 3:21:38 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does shit like Obamacare get passed with the 17th repealed? No way in hell. 
25 states have already signed up to get the Federal money associated with expanded Medicaid, which is part of ObamaCare. Several more are awaiting approval of the application for certain waivers. When those are approved, they'll get on the expanded Federal gray train too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 3:39:38 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
25 states have already signed up to get the Federal money associated with expanded Medicaid, which is part of ObamaCare. Several more are awaiting approval of the application for certain waivers. When those are approved, they'll get on the expanded Federal gray train too. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Does shit like Obamacare get passed with the 17th repealed? No way in hell.
25 states have already signed up to get the Federal money associated with expanded Medicaid, which is part of ObamaCare. Several more are awaiting approval of the application for certain waivers. When those are approved, they'll get on the expanded Federal gray train too. Yeah, I guess the fact that they repealed the 17th Amendment when I wasn't looking sort of invalidates my reasoning. OH WAIT THEY DIDN'T.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 4:55:52 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. The math is the same, the interests that are represented are not. Currently the Senate is interested in making sure their constituents get a fair slice of the pie. If they weren't elected by popular vote, they'd be more interested in whether the nation needed to be eating pie in the first place. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He's saying that the States themselves like getting money from the Feds too. So their representatives (Senators) would logically be interested in getting money for their state in the form of free Federal tax dollars. It's just like buying votes from the populace for the House, only the voters you're trying to please are members of the State government. Like I said, that's addressed by competing self interests, and it's the reason the Senate has equal representation by each state. California can't drown out Alaska's voice in the Senate. Which is how it is now. No. The math is the same, the interests that are represented are not. Currently the Senate is interested in making sure their constituents get a fair slice of the pie. If they weren't elected by popular vote, they'd be more interested in whether the nation needed to be eating pie in the first place. Here's where you're missing polythenepam's point. He saying that the Senators now represent the individual state governments. Well guess what, those state governments have their own interest in money, just like the state citizens do. The incentive to make sure their constituents get a fair slice of the pie is still there. The constituents just shift from the people at large to the people who are running the state's government. Nothing at all suggests that if Senators were selected by states, they would suddenly start acting in the best interest of the nation as a whole instead of in the best interest of their state. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 10:35:11 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually the 17th IS a tremendous problem, especially related to government growth, and it's blatantly obvious when you start considering the checks and balances and how this fucked things up. OCG and I don't see eye-to-eye on much, but this is one case where I'd take a win no matter what it takes. The 17th needs to be repealed before any other Constitutional amendment is ever considered...primarily because of the role the 17th plays in how senators vote (and who they vote for) on amendments. And for that reason the repeal of the 17th needs to be independent of any other change. However! This is probably the SINGULAR change I would advocate happening "any way possible". Pretty sure that's why OCG teed it up. Everything else needs to happen through education of the masses and via Congress. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can you give an example of a real solution? You've asked me to place the cart before the horse. As I posted, one needs to diagnose the problem correctly before one can find the correct solution. Ok, how about this problem: In 1913, an amendment to the Constitution was ratified that provided for direct election of US Senators. While this action was no doubt considered appropriate at the time, it has contributed to the concentration of power at the federal level and has significantly reduced both the power and the voice of the state legislatures in determining federal policy. Assuming a super-majority of the states want to repeal this amendment as was done with Prohibition, what is the solution? Presumably you will tell me that the real problem is the people allowed this to happen via their elected representatives at both the state and federal level, the correct solution is to educate the masses and address this at the ballot box, and there should be no attempt to amend the Constitution until Congress is ready to do so. Yes? You are trying to solve problems by addressing symptoms. That's like trying to cure an infection by lowering the patient's temperature. Until you correctly diagnose the real cause of the growth of government, you will never stop it. Actually the 17th IS a tremendous problem, especially related to government growth, and it's blatantly obvious when you start considering the checks and balances and how this fucked things up. OCG and I don't see eye-to-eye on much, but this is one case where I'd take a win no matter what it takes. The 17th needs to be repealed before any other Constitutional amendment is ever considered...primarily because of the role the 17th plays in how senators vote (and who they vote for) on amendments. And for that reason the repeal of the 17th needs to be independent of any other change. However! This is probably the SINGULAR change I would advocate happening "any way possible". Pretty sure that's why OCG teed it up. Everything else needs to happen through education of the masses and via Congress. I teed it up to avoid the debate over whether something is a recognized problem or not. I think we all agree the direct election of Senators is something that needs to be reversed. So then the question is how do you fix it. I'm hearing 3 options: (1) educate the voters to elect enough right-thinking Reps and Senators to Congress to enable a 2/3rds majority vote from both chambers to get a repeal amendment voted out of Congress and then send it to the states for ratification, (2) educate the voters to elect the right kind of Senators, thus rendering the 17th amendment moot, or (3) hold an Article V convention, get the repeal amendment passed out of convention and sent to the states for ratification. I think it will take decades to get either (1) or (2) accomplished, if ever. But (3) can happen independent of what anyone in DC thinks about it, and could potentially be a done deal within 5 or so years. I simply do not understand the intense resistance to trying to do all three of these things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 11:26:21 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here's where you're missing polythenepam's point. He saying that the Senators now represent the individual state governments. Well guess what, those state governments have their own interest in money, just like the state citizens do. The incentive to make sure their constituents get a fair slice of the pie is still there. The constituents just shift from the people at large to the people who are running the state's government. Nothing at all suggests that if Senators were selected by states, they would suddenly start acting in the best interest of the nation as a whole instead of in the best interest of their state. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He's saying that the States themselves like getting money from the Feds too. So their representatives (Senators) would logically be interested in getting money for their state in the form of free Federal tax dollars. It's just like buying votes from the populace for the House, only the voters you're trying to please are members of the State government. Like I said, that's addressed by competing self interests, and it's the reason the Senate has equal representation by each state. California can't drown out Alaska's voice in the Senate. Which is how it is now. No. The math is the same, the interests that are represented are not. Currently the Senate is interested in making sure their constituents get a fair slice of the pie. If they weren't elected by popular vote, they'd be more interested in whether the nation needed to be eating pie in the first place. Here's where you're missing polythenepam's point. He saying that the Senators now represent the individual state governments. Well guess what, those state governments have their own interest in money, just like the state citizens do. The incentive to make sure their constituents get a fair slice of the pie is still there. The constituents just shift from the people at large to the people who are running the state's government. Nothing at all suggests that if Senators were selected by states, they would suddenly start acting in the best interest of the nation as a whole instead of in the best interest of their state. The Framers and the original States set up a federal government with certain limited powers, and they also split those powers between the 3 federal branches of government. The balance of power between the federal branches and between the fed and the states is completely screwed up. I believe Art V is the simplest, quickest and most direct way to at least start down the path of restoring those balances. That's why the Framers wrote the convention language into Art V. The money currently being spent by the feds on most domestic programs would stay in the states if federal jurisdiction for those programs can be eliminated. Then there would be no more federal pie, and the argument about money spent for those programs stays in the states (along with the money). The problems associated with greed, ambition, excessive power and all the other human condition failings will never change. But at least some states will get it right, and the rest will learn tough lessons. And the fed can't pull all of us down the same rat hole. The people we send to DC, from a domestic policy perspective, will have significantly less power and influence than those we send to the state house. As it should be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 9:27:27 AM EDT
[#26]
More confirmation that this process will be controlled by the states and not DC:
FEC sides with Convention of States: D.C. can’t control delegates Earlier this year, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) was petitioned to revise its definition of "federal office" to include delegates to a Convention of States. Such a measure would bring convention delegates under the control of Washington, D.C., and make them subject to FEC regulations. Obviously, such a measure goes against the Framers' intent for Article V, and runs counter to the implicit purpose of a Convention of States--namely, to provide a way to reform a government that will not reform itself. Over the last few months, our legal team has been crafting an airtight argument protecting the integrity of an Article V Amending Convention. We argued first, that the definition of "federal office" was established by Congress, and therefore not subject to change by the FEC’s initiative; and second, that it would be entirely inappropriate, as a constitutional matter, for either Congress or the agency to assert authority over the selection of Article V delegates. Today we learned the FEC sided with our arguments. This is a huge victory for the Convention of States movement, and we're thankful for the brilliant legal minds that helped make it happen. http://www.conventionofstates.com/fec_sides_with_convention_of_states_project |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 9:43:19 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, I guess the fact that they repealed the 17th Amendment when I wasn't looking sort of invalidates my reasoning. OH WAIT THEY DIDN'T. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Does shit like Obamacare get passed with the 17th repealed? No way in hell.
25 states have already signed up to get the Federal money associated with expanded Medicaid, which is part of ObamaCare. Several more are awaiting approval of the application for certain waivers. When those are approved, they'll get on the expanded Federal gray train too. Yeah, I guess the fact that they repealed the 17th Amendment when I wasn't looking sort of invalidates my reasoning. OH WAIT THEY DIDN'T. The fact that to date half of the state governments (with more waiting) have tied themselves more tightly to the Federal cash cow perfectly illustrates how those governments act in the real world. You simply choose to believe that if only your plan was enacted the men and women who run those governments would act in a substantially different manner. There is no reason to believe that. Those men and women will continue to act as they have in the past. The major difference between ObamaCare as it is and ObamaCare passed through a Senate composed of Senators who had been appointed is that in the latter case the Federal government's share of the cost of expanded Medicaid would have been closer to 100% and that share would have remained at that level, probably permanently. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 9:48:24 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I simply do not understand the intense resistance to trying to do all three of these things. Why not get Article V amended first? If drafted properly the amendment would remove all the uncertainty which surrounds the proceedings of a convention to propose amendments. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 9:57:57 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
More confirmation that this process will be controlled by the states and not DC: http://www.conventionofstates.com/fec_sides_with_convention_of_states_project Quote HistoryQuoted:
More confirmation that this process will be controlled by the states and not DC: FEC sides with Convention of States: D.C. can’t control delegates Earlier this year, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) was petitioned to revise its definition of "federal office" to include delegates to a Convention of States. Such a measure would bring convention delegates under the control of Washington, D.C., and make them subject to FEC regulations. Obviously, such a measure goes against the Framers' intent for Article V, and runs counter to the implicit purpose of a Convention of States--namely, to provide a way to reform a government that will not reform itself. Over the last few months, our legal team has been crafting an airtight argument protecting the integrity of an Article V Amending Convention. We argued first, that the definition of "federal office" was established by Congress, and therefore not subject to change by the FEC’s initiative; and second, that it would be entirely inappropriate, as a constitutional matter, for either Congress or the agency to assert authority over the selection of Article V delegates. Today we learned the FEC sided with our arguments. This is a huge victory for the Convention of States movement, and we're thankful for the brilliant legal minds that helped make it happen. http://www.conventionofstates.com/fec_sides_with_convention_of_states_project Have you bothered to read the notice instead of simply reading a website announcement? Do you understand what you are reading? The people running the website don't seem to understand the ramifications of their "victory". The notice clearly states that the petition should be denied because the position of delegate is not within the statutory definition of "federal office". That is no cause for celebration. That's an indication that Congress can change the statute, make the position of delegate a Federal office and exert control over how delegates are selected. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 10:09:58 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The fact that to date half of the state governments (with more waiting) have tied themselves more tightly to the Federal cash cow perfectly illustrates how those governments act in the real world. You simply choose to believe that if only your plan was enacted the men and women who run those governments would act in a substantially different manner. There is no reason to believe that. Those men and women will continue to act as they have in the past. The major difference between ObamaCare as it is and ObamaCare passed through a Senate composed of Senators who had been appointed is that in the latter case the Federal government's share of the cost of expanded Medicaid would have been closer to 100% and that share would have remained at that level, probably permanently. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Does shit like Obamacare get passed with the 17th repealed? No way in hell.
25 states have already signed up to get the Federal money associated with expanded Medicaid, which is part of ObamaCare. Several more are awaiting approval of the application for certain waivers. When those are approved, they'll get on the expanded Federal gray train too. Yeah, I guess the fact that they repealed the 17th Amendment when I wasn't looking sort of invalidates my reasoning. OH WAIT THEY DIDN'T. The fact that to date half of the state governments (with more waiting) have tied themselves more tightly to the Federal cash cow perfectly illustrates how those governments act in the real world. You simply choose to believe that if only your plan was enacted the men and women who run those governments would act in a substantially different manner. There is no reason to believe that. Those men and women will continue to act as they have in the past. The major difference between ObamaCare as it is and ObamaCare passed through a Senate composed of Senators who had been appointed is that in the latter case the Federal government's share of the cost of expanded Medicaid would have been closer to 100% and that share would have remained at that level, probably permanently. I agree. That's why the way to deal with federal entitlement programs is to simply eliminate them and the flow of money from the states to DC. Let the states figure out what they want to do about health care. If they all want to do what Mass did prior to ACA, fine. Drive the whole thing down as close to the voters as possible. Major game changers will prompt changes in behavior by both voters and politicians... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 10:21:27 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not get Article V amended first? If drafted properly the amendment would remove all the uncertainty which surrounds the proceedings of a convention to propose amendments. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I simply do not understand the intense resistance to trying to do all three of these things. Why not get Article V amended first? If drafted properly the amendment would remove all the uncertainty which surrounds the proceedings of a convention to propose amendments. Because asking Congress to adopt an amendment that will clarify and streamline the states' ability to strip powers away from Congress and the fed govt is a waste of time. They'll never do it. Same for repealing the 17th A. Why would 2/3rds of the Senate ever vote to do that? I would support modifications to Art V to do what you suggest if an Art V convention could be convened because at least 34 states wanted to address Art V. The Framers clearly had something specific in mind when they adopted the convention language in Art V. There is historical record of conventions that occurred in the decades leading up to 1787. That's how Art V conventions should be set up. There is a large group of state legislators who have been meeting to talk about how the convention would be managed, The Assembly of State Legislators. They met most recently last week in DC. http://theassemblyofstatelegislatures.org/ I realize this whole effort, as well as the language in Art V, is not as crystal clear as all of us wish it were. But it's what the Framers gave us, and we need to man up and figure it out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 10:24:08 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The people who are currently involved are more likely to be ostracized than included. The political establishment didn't value your opinion on the topic before you forced the monumental task on them, why would they look to you for further advice? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And who do you think the States will choose to represent them at the convention? Seasoned politicians, or common joes? You think a political outsider will be selected by a state to amend or reform the Constitution? Do you think we'll send someone with no political savvy into the fray? Look at who is already involved in the process at the state level I'd say. The people who are currently involved are more likely to be ostracized than included. The political establishment didn't value your opinion on the topic before you forced the monumental task on them, why would they look to you for further advice? The people I'm specifically referring to are those very state legislators who are leading the charge on calling for this effort. I get the skepticism but what other options do we have? Congress is not going to pass laws that limit itself, even if they are supposed to represent their respective districts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 10:28:46 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please quote the language in the Constitution which: Labels a convention called pursuant to Article V a "Convention of the States". Empowers the states to propose amendments. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Unless there's another spot out there. I can only find this quote where Ayers supports a constitutional convention, not an Article V Convention of the States where the amendments are proposed by the States. Again, two different things. Please quote the language in the Constitution which: Labels a convention called pursuant to Article V a "Convention of the States". Empowers the states to propose amendments. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. That is Article V of the Constitution itself. Highlighting the salient points to show you the language in the Constitution that says a Convention of the States is the alternative method for proposing amendments to the Constitution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 10:51:42 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is Article V of the Constitution itself. Highlighting the salient points to show you the language in the Constitution that says a Convention of the States is the alternative method for proposing amendments to the Constitution. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Unless there's another spot out there. I can only find this quote where Ayers supports a constitutional convention, not an Article V Convention of the States where the amendments are proposed by the States. Again, two different things. Please quote the language in the Constitution which: Labels a convention called pursuant to Article V a "Convention of the States". Empowers the states to propose amendments. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. That is Article V of the Constitution itself. Highlighting the salient points to show you the language in the Constitution that says a Convention of the States is the alternative method for proposing amendments to the Constitution. Alternative to Congress proposing. Not an alternative to a 'constitutional convention'. There doesn't seem to be a difference between a Con Con and a CoS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 11:00:18 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Alternative to Congress proposing. Not an alternative to a 'constitutional convention'. There doesn't seem to be a difference between a Con Con and a CoS. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Unless there's another spot out there. I can only find this quote where Ayers supports a constitutional convention, not an Article V Convention of the States where the amendments are proposed by the States. Again, two different things. Please quote the language in the Constitution which: Labels a convention called pursuant to Article V a "Convention of the States". Empowers the states to propose amendments. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. That is Article V of the Constitution itself. Highlighting the salient points to show you the language in the Constitution that says a Convention of the States is the alternative method for proposing amendments to the Constitution. Alternative to Congress proposing. Not an alternative to a 'constitutional convention'. There doesn't seem to be a difference between a Con Con and a CoS. A "ConCon" as people assume means Congress completely scrapping the Constitution without regard to state input beyond blindly voting to spite themselves. The CoS is a state-driven process that Congress, ideally, merely acknowledges. There is no comparison because the state driven process has never really been done before. Effectively they would be no different from the stand point that amendments are proposed and and require passage by majority of the states. Where we get into debates is over intentions and what happens in the mean time. People fearmonger when they hear "ConCon". |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 11:08:14 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here's where you're missing polythenepam's point. He saying that the Senators now represent the individual state governments. Well guess what, those state governments have their own interest in money, just like the state citizens do. The incentive to make sure their constituents get a fair slice of the pie is still there. The constituents just shift from the people at large to the people who are running the state's government. Nothing at all suggests that if Senators were selected by states, they would suddenly start acting in the best interest of the nation as a whole instead of in the best interest of their state. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He's saying that the States themselves like getting money from the Feds too. So their representatives (Senators) would logically be interested in getting money for their state in the form of free Federal tax dollars. It's just like buying votes from the populace for the House, only the voters you're trying to please are members of the State government. Like I said, that's addressed by competing self interests, and it's the reason the Senate has equal representation by each state. California can't drown out Alaska's voice in the Senate. Which is how it is now. No. The math is the same, the interests that are represented are not. Currently the Senate is interested in making sure their constituents get a fair slice of the pie. If they weren't elected by popular vote, they'd be more interested in whether the nation needed to be eating pie in the first place. Here's where you're missing polythenepam's point. He saying that the Senators now represent the individual state governments. Well guess what, those state governments have their own interest in money, just like the state citizens do. The incentive to make sure their constituents get a fair slice of the pie is still there. The constituents just shift from the people at large to the people who are running the state's government. Nothing at all suggests that if Senators were selected by states, they would suddenly start acting in the best interest of the nation as a whole instead of in the best interest of their state. I'm saying he's wrong, and you're missing MY point. Maybe I didn't say that outright, but I thought it was so obvious it wouldn't need pointing out. Senators DO NOT represent the State Governments. Senators are elected by popular vote, and represent the EXACT same interest as the House of Representatives. They have the EXACT same motivation to appease their voting constituents. The House has a huge vested interest in putting the right people in the Senate. The House is absolved of responsibility for shitty legislation, they get to pass happy feel-good crap that represents what the popular vote needs. Their voting record is pristine, and the Senate can shoot down the lame BS that comes to them, because they don't give a shit what the people want. Because that's what they're supposed to do. And everybody sleeps better at night. Only very well written and well-argued legislation should pass. Which is the fucking PURPOSE of such a contentious system. It is WHY we hold power in CHECK by BALANCING self interest against self interest. Taking a break from the thread. It's bad for my digestion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 11:08:48 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A "ConCon" as people assume means Congress completely scrapping the Constitution without regard to state input beyond blindly voting to spite themselves. The CoS is a state-driven process that Congress, ideally, merely acknowledges. There is no comparison because the state driven process has never really been done before. Effectively they would be no different from the stand point that amendments are proposed and and require passage by majority of the states. Where we get into debates is over intentions and what happens in the mean time. People fearmonger when they hear "ConCon". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. That is Article V of the Constitution itself. Highlighting the salient points to show you the language in the Constitution that says a Convention of the States is the alternative method for proposing amendments to the Constitution. Alternative to Congress proposing. Not an alternative to a 'constitutional convention'. There doesn't seem to be a difference between a Con Con and a CoS. A "ConCon" as people assume means Congress completely scrapping the Constitution without regard to state input beyond blindly voting to spite themselves. The CoS is a state-driven process that Congress, ideally, merely acknowledges. There is no comparison because the state driven process has never really been done before. Effectively they would be no different from the stand point that amendments are proposed and and require passage by majority of the states. Where we get into debates is over intentions and what happens in the mean time. People fearmonger when they hear "ConCon". The only Constitutional Convention I'm aware of is the one which created our current Constitution. It was a meeting of the states. Which sounds almost exactly like the Convention of the States outlined, but not named, in Article V. Talk about the states scrapping the Constitution in the near future s an unlikely worst case scenario, I will agree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 11:50:24 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A "ConCon" as people assume means Congress completely scrapping the Constitution without regard to state input beyond blindly voting to spite themselves. The CoS is a state-driven process that Congress, ideally, merely acknowledges. There is no comparison because the state driven process has never really been done before. Effectively they would be no different from the stand point that amendments are proposed and and require passage by majority of the states. Where we get into debates is over intentions and what happens in the mean time. People fearmonger when they hear "ConCon". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. That is Article V of the Constitution itself. Highlighting the salient points to show you the language in the Constitution that says a Convention of the States is the alternative method for proposing amendments to the Constitution. Alternative to Congress proposing. Not an alternative to a 'constitutional convention'. There doesn't seem to be a difference between a Con Con and a CoS. A "ConCon" as people assume means Congress completely scrapping the Constitution without regard to state input beyond blindly voting to spite themselves. The CoS is a state-driven process that Congress, ideally, merely acknowledges. There is no comparison because the state driven process has never really been done before. Effectively they would be no different from the stand point that amendments are proposed and and require passage by majority of the states. Where we get into debates is over intentions and what happens in the mean time. People fearmonger when they hear "ConCon". This is a huge issue for those of us working on the COS effort. Article V is about proposing amendments to the USC as set forth in the USC. If 34 states wanted to call a convention to propose amendments that would in effect gut all or part of the USC, the law says the convention gets called. If 38 states ratified those amendments, the law says they become part of the USC. In the meantime, if any or all of the states wanted to have a convention outside of the USC to propose a new Constitution, they're free to do so at any point. If a new document is drafted and "approved", I suppose we would be for another civil war to decide which constitution we're going to live under. So those who use the term "Con-Con" are either completely uninformed or are doing everything they can to prevent an Art V convention, no matter what the Framers were thinking or how many may favor it, from ever occurring. Which baffles me given where the republic is right now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 11:51:24 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is Article V of the Constitution itself. Highlighting the salient points to show you the language in the Constitution that says a Convention of the States is the alternative method for proposing amendments to the Constitution. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Unless there's another spot out there. I can only find this quote where Ayers supports a constitutional convention, not an Article V Convention of the States where the amendments are proposed by the States. Again, two different things. Please quote the language in the Constitution which: Labels a convention called pursuant to Article V a "Convention of the States". Empowers the states to propose amendments. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. That is Article V of the Constitution itself. Highlighting the salient points to show you the language in the Constitution that says a Convention of the States is the alternative method for proposing amendments to the Constitution. The words "convention of states" appears nowhere in Article V. It is a convention called by "... Congress ..." for the purpose of proposing amendments when a sufficient number of "...legislatures ... of the several states, ..." apply to "... Congress ...". A convention called by Congress for the purpose of proposing amendments is not the same thing as a convention of states. You're reading a meaning into words which they may not bear, especially once a Federal court is finished determining what they mean. One might argue that if the convention was to be simply a meeting of states, applications to Congress and a call by Congress would by unnecessary. The states could simply organize the convention without the involvement of Congress. 
Since you have not even tried and failed to point out any language which you believe empowers the states to propose amendments, I'll take that as an admission that no such language exists. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 11:54:27 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The words "convention of states" appears nowhere in Article V. It is a convention called by "... Congress ..." for the purpose of proposing amendments when a sufficient number of "...legislatures ... of the several states, ..." apply to "... Congress ...". A convention called by Congress for the purpose of proposing amendments is not the same thing as a convention of states. You're reading a meaning into words which they may not bear, especially once a Federal court is finished determining what they mean. One might argue that if the convention was to be simply a meeting of states, applications to Congress and a call by Congress would by unnecessary. The states could simply organize the convention without the involvement of Congress.
Since you have not even tried and failed to point out any language which you believe empowers the states to propose amendments, I'll take that as an admission that no such language exists. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Unless there's another spot out there. I can only find this quote where Ayers supports a constitutional convention, not an Article V Convention of the States where the amendments are proposed by the States. Again, two different things. Please quote the language in the Constitution which: Labels a convention called pursuant to Article V a "Convention of the States". Empowers the states to propose amendments. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. That is Article V of the Constitution itself. Highlighting the salient points to show you the language in the Constitution that says a Convention of the States is the alternative method for proposing amendments to the Constitution. The words "convention of states" appears nowhere in Article V. It is a convention called by "... Congress ..." for the purpose of proposing amendments when a sufficient number of "...legislatures ... of the several states, ..." apply to "... Congress ...". A convention called by Congress for the purpose of proposing amendments is not the same thing as a convention of states. You're reading a meaning into words which they may not bear, especially once a Federal court is finished determining what they mean. One might argue that if the convention was to be simply a meeting of states, applications to Congress and a call by Congress would by unnecessary. The states could simply organize the convention without the involvement of Congress.
Since you have not even tried and failed to point out any language which you believe empowers the states to propose amendments, I'll take that as an admission that no such language exists. By my reading, Congress is required to call such a convention when enough states petition for one. "shall call a convention". Congress is just the mechanism by which the convention is called, they wouldn't have any authority on whether to call one or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 11:59:59 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because asking Congress to adopt an amendment that will clarify and streamline the states' ability to strip powers away from Congress and the fed govt is a waste of time. They'll never do it. Same for repealing the 17th A. Why would 2/3rds of the Senate ever vote to do that? I would support modifications to Art V to do what you suggest if an Art V convention could be convened because at least 34 states wanted to address Art V. The Framers clearly had something specific in mind when they adopted the convention language in Art V. There is historical record of conventions that occurred in the decades leading up to 1787. That's how Art V conventions should be set up. There is a large group of state legislators who have been meeting to talk about how the convention would be managed, The Assembly of State Legislators. They met most recently last week in DC. http://theassemblyofstatelegislatures.org/ I realize this whole effort, as well as the language in Art V, is not as crystal clear as all of us wish it were. But it's what the Framers gave us, and we need to man up and figure it out. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I simply do not understand the intense resistance to trying to do all three of these things. Why not get Article V amended first? If drafted properly the amendment would remove all the uncertainty which surrounds the proceedings of a convention to propose amendments. Because asking Congress to adopt an amendment that will clarify and streamline the states' ability to strip powers away from Congress and the fed govt is a waste of time. They'll never do it. Same for repealing the 17th A. Why would 2/3rds of the Senate ever vote to do that? I would support modifications to Art V to do what you suggest if an Art V convention could be convened because at least 34 states wanted to address Art V. The Framers clearly had something specific in mind when they adopted the convention language in Art V. There is historical record of conventions that occurred in the decades leading up to 1787. That's how Art V conventions should be set up. There is a large group of state legislators who have been meeting to talk about how the convention would be managed, The Assembly of State Legislators. They met most recently last week in DC. http://theassemblyofstatelegislatures.org/ I realize this whole effort, as well as the language in Art V, is not as crystal clear as all of us wish it were. But it's what the Framers gave us, and we need to man up and figure it out. So your plan is to push ahead, expecting that Congress will exert authority over the process and engage in the fight with Congress AFTER the convention is called? What's your plan when the Federal courts decide that Congress has such authority? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 12:07:35 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The words "convention of states" appears nowhere in Article V. It is a convention called by "... Congress ..." for the purpose of proposing amendments when a sufficient number of "...legislatures ... of the several states, ..." apply to "... Congress ...". A convention called by Congress for the purpose of proposing amendments is not the same thing as a convention of states. You're reading a meaning into words which they may not bear, especially once a Federal court is finished determining what they mean. One might argue that if the convention was to be simply a meeting of states, applications to Congress and a call by Congress would by unnecessary. The states could simply organize the convention without the involvement of Congress.
Since you have not even tried and failed to point out any language which you believe empowers the states to propose amendments, I'll take that as an admission that no such language exists. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Unless there's another spot out there. I can only find this quote where Ayers supports a constitutional convention, not an Article V Convention of the States where the amendments are proposed by the States. Again, two different things. Please quote the language in the Constitution which: Labels a convention called pursuant to Article V a "Convention of the States". Empowers the states to propose amendments. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. That is Article V of the Constitution itself. Highlighting the salient points to show you the language in the Constitution that says a Convention of the States is the alternative method for proposing amendments to the Constitution. The words "convention of states" appears nowhere in Article V. It is a convention called by "... Congress ..." for the purpose of proposing amendments when a sufficient number of "...legislatures ... of the several states, ..." apply to "... Congress ...". A convention called by Congress for the purpose of proposing amendments is not the same thing as a convention of states. You're reading a meaning into words which they may not bear, especially once a Federal court is finished determining what they mean. One might argue that if the convention was to be simply a meeting of states, applications to Congress and a call by Congress would by unnecessary. The states could simply organize the convention without the involvement of Congress.
Since you have not even tried and failed to point out any language which you believe empowers the states to propose amendments, I'll take that as an admission that no such language exists. You're being intentionally obtuse. The words "right to privacy" also don't appear in the Fourth Amendment but its generally agreed that its implied. The language is right there but since it's not in the form you want it to be you're attempting to chalk up some useless point on semantics. And you missed the big "OR" that I highlighted in red. Congress merely acknowledges the states have called the convention and the states are proposing the amendments. Its not Congress calling a convention. Both methods are valid ways to amend the Constitution provided the meet the required threshold. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 12:09:23 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
By my reading, Congress is required to call such a convention when enough states petition for one. "shall call a convention". Congress is just the mechanism by which the convention is called, they wouldn't have any authority on whether to call one or not. That doesn't answer a huge number of critical questions. Who has the authority to determine how many delegates there will be? Who has the authority to determine how the delegates are selected? How will the delegates by selected? What role if any do the state legislatures play after the applications are made? What entity (or entities) determines how the convention will be organized? How will decisions on which amendments to propose be reached? Will votes be cast by individual delegates or by state delegations? etc., etc., etc. ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 12:15:56 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That doesn't answer a huge number of critical questions. Who has the authority to determine how many delegates there will be? Who has the authority to determine how the delegates are selected? How will the delegates by selected? What role if any do the state legislatures play after the applications are made? What entity (or entities) determines how the convention will be organized? How will decisions on which amendments to propose be reached? Will votes be cast by individual delegates or by state delegations? etc., etc., etc. ... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
By my reading, Congress is required to call such a convention when enough states petition for one. "shall call a convention". Congress is just the mechanism by which the convention is called, they wouldn't have any authority on whether to call one or not. That doesn't answer a huge number of critical questions. Who has the authority to determine how many delegates there will be? Who has the authority to determine how the delegates are selected? How will the delegates by selected? What role if any do the state legislatures play after the applications are made? What entity (or entities) determines how the convention will be organized? How will decisions on which amendments to propose be reached? Will votes be cast by individual delegates or by state delegations? etc., etc., etc. ... Who answers all these questions? The States, its their process and not Congress'. Second verse same as the first. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 12:17:21 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The words "right to privacy" also don't appear in the Fourth Amendment but its generally agreed that its implied. 
Do you have the foggiest notion where the notion of a "right to privacy" (actually the language was "...zone of privacy...") came from? Do you know who wrote those words? Better yet, do you have any idea of the identity of the last important legal scholar who questioned the existence of such a "right" based on the absence of supporting language in the Constitution? You might want to find out who you've just crawled in bed with and who would be opposing you on your point if he were still alive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 12:24:11 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Who answers all these questions? The States, its their process and not Congress'. Second verse same as the first. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
By my reading, Congress is required to call such a convention when enough states petition for one. "shall call a convention". Congress is just the mechanism by which the convention is called, they wouldn't have any authority on whether to call one or not. That doesn't answer a huge number of critical questions. Who has the authority to determine how many delegates there will be? Who has the authority to determine how the delegates are selected? How will the delegates by selected? What role if any do the state legislatures play after the applications are made? What entity (or entities) determines how the convention will be organized? How will decisions on which amendments to propose be reached? Will votes be cast by individual delegates or by state delegations? etc., etc., etc. ... Who answers all these questions? The States, its their process and not Congress'. Second verse same as the first. That's an airy answer. Now convince the court that Congress doesn't have authority in a process which involves the Federal Constitution. Your first attempt will not be sufficient. If it's "...their process ..." why is Congress needed to issue the call? Why don't the states issue the call? The truth is there is no solid answer. The USSC will simply make a choice and dress it up with a lot of words. What's your plan if they choose to disagree with you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 12:26:17 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you have the foggiest notion where the notion of a "right to privacy" (actually the language was "...zone of privacy...") came from? Do you know who wrote those words? Better yet, do you have any idea of the identity of the last important legal scholar who questioned the existence of such a "right" based on the absence of supporting language in the Constitution? You might want to find out who you've just crawled in bed with and who would be opposing you on your point if he were still alive. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The words "right to privacy" also don't appear in the Fourth Amendment but its generally agreed that its implied.
Do you have the foggiest notion where the notion of a "right to privacy" (actually the language was "...zone of privacy...") came from? Do you know who wrote those words? Better yet, do you have any idea of the identity of the last important legal scholar who questioned the existence of such a "right" based on the absence of supporting language in the Constitution? You might want to find out who you've just crawled in bed with and who would be opposing you on your point if he were still alive. Nice derail attempt because you wanted to argue semantics on whether or not "convention of the states" was in the Constitution. But please tell me that most people don't assume a "right to privacy" exists in the Fourth Amendment (and other parts of the Bill of Rights) in another thread so we don't derail this one. Because that is literally all I was pointing out. Please dwell on non sequitur. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 12:32:33 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's an airy answer. Now convince the court that Congress doesn't have authority in a process which involves the Federal Constitution. Your first attempt will not be sufficient. If it's "...their process ..." why is Congress needed to issue the call? Why don't the states issue the call? The truth is there is no solid answer. The USSC will simply make a choice and dress it up with a lot of words. What's your plan if they choose to disagree with you? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
By my reading, Congress is required to call such a convention when enough states petition for one. "shall call a convention". Congress is just the mechanism by which the convention is called, they wouldn't have any authority on whether to call one or not. That doesn't answer a huge number of critical questions. Who has the authority to determine how many delegates there will be? Who has the authority to determine how the delegates are selected? How will the delegates by selected? What role if any do the state legislatures play after the applications are made? What entity (or entities) determines how the convention will be organized? How will decisions on which amendments to propose be reached? Will votes be cast by individual delegates or by state delegations? etc., etc., etc. ... Who answers all these questions? The States, its their process and not Congress'. Second verse same as the first. That's an airy answer. Now convince the court that Congress doesn't have authority in a process which involves the Federal Constitution. Your first attempt will not be sufficient. If it's "...their process ..." why is Congress needed to issue the call? Why don't the states issue the call? The truth is there is no solid answer. The USSC will simply make a choice and dress it up with a lot of words. What's your plan if they choose to disagree with you? You're right there is no solid answer but what was the answer in the Constitutional Convention? Precedence for selecting delegates for proposing amendments already exists and it was driven by the state legislatures. Reading Article V itself explains that Congress acknowledges the States are calling for a convention and any amendments proposed and passed with the required votes will be valid. Should Congress become combative and want to confront the several states who have assembled for the convention (to propose amendments) then yes it would have to go to the Supreme Court. And if the Supreme Court comes back and says that Article V doesn't say what it actually says then well, we're no better/worse than we were when we began this whole ordeal- are we? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 12:43:34 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nice derail attempt because you wanted to argue semantics on whether or not "convention of the states" was in the Constitution. But please tell me that most people don't assume a "right to privacy" exists in the Fourth Amendment (and other parts of the Bill of Rights) in another thread so we don't derail this one. Because that is literally all I was pointing out. Please dwell on non sequitur. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The words "right to privacy" also don't appear in the Fourth Amendment but its generally agreed that its implied.
Do you have the foggiest notion where the notion of a "right to privacy" (actually the language was "...zone of privacy...") came from? Do you know who wrote those words? Better yet, do you have any idea of the identity of the last important legal scholar who questioned the existence of such a "right" based on the absence of supporting language in the Constitution? You might want to find out who you've just crawled in bed with and who would be opposing you on your point if he were still alive. Nice derail attempt because you wanted to argue semantics on whether or not "convention of the states" was in the Constitution. But please tell me that most people don't assume a "right to privacy" exists in the Fourth Amendment (and other parts of the Bill of Rights) in another thread so we don't derail this one. Because that is literally all I was pointing out. Please dwell on non sequitur. Since 1965 many legal scholars have joined Justice William O. Douglas in divining a "... zone of privacy ..." proceeding from the "... penumbras ..." and "... emanations ..." of several of the amendments in the Bill of Rights. If you're a fan of Justice Douglas, you can start by reading Griswold v. Connecticut. You can then continue on through liberal legal fairyland. Your faith that liberal activist judges like Justice Douglas will supply a decision to empower the states is badly misplaced. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 12:44:02 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nice derail attempt because you wanted to argue semantics on whether or not "convention of the states" was in the Constitution. But please tell me that most people don't assume a "right to privacy" exists in the Fourth Amendment (and other parts of the Bill of Rights) in another thread so we don't derail this one. Because that is literally all I was pointing out. Please dwell on non sequitur. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The words "right to privacy" also don't appear in the Fourth Amendment but its generally agreed that its implied.
Do you have the foggiest notion where the notion of a "right to privacy" (actually the language was "...zone of privacy...") came from? Do you know who wrote those words? Better yet, do you have any idea of the identity of the last important legal scholar who questioned the existence of such a "right" based on the absence of supporting language in the Constitution? You might want to find out who you've just crawled in bed with and who would be opposing you on your point if he were still alive. Nice derail attempt because you wanted to argue semantics on whether or not "convention of the states" was in the Constitution. But please tell me that most people don't assume a "right to privacy" exists in the Fourth Amendment (and other parts of the Bill of Rights) in another thread so we don't derail this one. Because that is literally all I was pointing out. Please dwell on non sequitur. It's odd you are stuck on this point when the OP posted a statement from the COS project on the "FEC ruling" and used the language "delegates to a Convention of States" when the actual "ruling" cited uses "delegates to a constitution convention." So does the COS project accept "constitution convention" when it's convenient to their argument, or does the FEC ruling not apply to a "Convention of States" delegate? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
