User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 12:49:06 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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? Not quite. Article V says that Congress isn't merely acknowledging a convention, it is calling the convention, not the states. Congress appears to be required to call it, but Congress is still the one calling it. Pam's question about who decides those issues is valid. I don't know what the answer is; Article V is vague on that. You could be right that the actions currently taken by the states to select delegates gives them a leg up in deciding who has authority. When it's vague and undecided, the first one to act can set the tone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 12:52:06 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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? In light of what occurred during the convention to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation, that's a dangerous precedent on which to rely. Should the delegates to your proposed convention decide to follow that precedent (drafting a new founding document with a different, less stringent provision for ratification) we could be in a much worse position. Similarly, since the USSC wouldn't reach a decision until AFTER the convention was called, the result could be much worse, once Congress stacked the delegates. It's clear that you have no idea just how far off the rails this could go. There's no reason for that. All you have to do is look at how far off track the Federal government is today. There's your model for a convention organized by Congress. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 1:03:33 PM EDT
[#3]
The folks who are scaremongering over the States having a convention to propose amendments are missing one point:
It's not unreasonable to say that Congress is always in a convention. They can propose amendments anytime the want. All it takes is 2/3 of both houses. You are scared of the States doing this, but aren't worried about Congress' ability to do so? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 1:24:07 PM EDT
[#4]
The idea that the purpose of the convention of 1786 was to just “polish and tweak” the Articles of Confederation is shallow and misleading.
The nation was in a state of crisis. The Articles had proven to be woefully inadequate. The weakness of the Union, and its resultant strife and division, placed this entire American experiment in self government at peril. From http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/7/essays/136/ratification-clause: In 1786, the abortive Annapolis convention had issued a summons (drafted by Alexander Hamilton) requesting a new meeting of the states to consider all measures that would "render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union." The Confederation Congress had renewed but narrowed that call, charging the delegates to the Constitutional Convention with "the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the state legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall...render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government & the preservation of the Union." Eight of the twelve state delegations to the Convention arrived under the former terms, and four under the latter, less elastic ones. If I start revising a document, at what point does it cease being the document I started with? At 50% change? 80%? These men were charged with revising the Articles so as to “render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government & the preservation of the Union." That means, “Do whatever needs to be done to resolve this crisis and preserve the Union.” It is also disingenuous to simultaneously say that the actions taken at that convention were illegitimate and “out of control”, and with the same mouth praise the results. Either the delegates acted appropriately, or the Constitution you are trying to preserve is illegitimate. You can’t have it both ways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 1:32:06 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not quite. Article V says that Congress isn't merely acknowledging a convention, it is calling the convention, not the states. Congress appears to be required to call it, but Congress is still the one calling it. Pam's question about who decides those issues is valid. I don't know what the answer is; Article V is vague on that. You could be right that the actions currently taken by the states to select delegates gives them a leg up in deciding who has authority. When it's vague and undecided, the first one to act can set the tone. My take on the words in the text are that if the states tell Congress "we're having a convention to propose amendments", what choice does Congress really have? That's the crux of his last question. What happens if Congress (or the Supreme Court) rejects the whole notion of States calling for a convention? I don't interpret the text's saying Congress is calling for it because they would not of done so had it not been for the States stating they wanted to get together. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 1:34:34 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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? I hadn't seen that yet so thanks. But the fact remains you say "ConCon" around people and they freak out, I can't speak for the CoS folks who are trying to convince people this isn't a way to wipe out the Constitution. ETA: CoS Project doesn't use phrase "constitutional convention" in its application for a review except to illustrate the existence of the Constitutional Convention |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 2:22:36 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hadn't seen that yet so thanks. But the fact remains you say "ConCon" around people and they freak out, I can't speak for the CoS folks who are trying to convince people this isn't a way to wipe out the Constitution. ETA: CoS Project doesn't use phrase "constitutional convention" in its application for a review except to illustrate the existence of the Constitutional Convention Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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? I hadn't seen that yet so thanks. But the fact remains you say "ConCon" around people and they freak out, I can't speak for the CoS folks who are trying to convince people this isn't a way to wipe out the Constitution. ETA: CoS Project doesn't use phrase "constitutional convention" in its application for a review except to illustrate the existence of the Constitutional Convention Yes, but the government response does, which goes back to POLYTHENEPAM's point that the language and the process unclear in the Constitution will be argued in court with no certainty that the Congress vs States questions would be settled before the process starts. This is an issue that the CoS project seems to be addressing with their petition. The question is, does the absence of an FEC ruling on this equate to Congress being helpless in controlling the process? I don't think it does. I was mistaken when I called the FEC's response a ruling above. It was actually a "Notice of Disposition of Petition for Rulemaking." Maybe I don't understand what's being said but it appears to me the CoS project is saying the absence of a ruling on their petition means the FEC agreed with their position. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 2:53:54 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My take on the words in the text are that if the states tell Congress "we're having a convention to propose amendments", what choice does Congress really have? That's the crux of his last question. What happens if Congress (or the Supreme Court) rejects the whole notion of States calling for a convention? I don't interpret the text's saying Congress is calling for it because they would not of done so had it not been for the States stating they wanted to get together. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not quite. Article V says that Congress isn't merely acknowledging a convention, it is calling the convention, not the states. Congress appears to be required to call it, but Congress is still the one calling it. Pam's question about who decides those issues is valid. I don't know what the answer is; Article V is vague on that. You could be right that the actions currently taken by the states to select delegates gives them a leg up in deciding who has authority. When it's vague and undecided, the first one to act can set the tone. My take on the words in the text are that if the states tell Congress "we're having a convention to propose amendments", what choice does Congress really have? That's the crux of his last question. What happens if Congress (or the Supreme Court) rejects the whole notion of States calling for a convention? I don't interpret the text's saying Congress is calling for it because they would not of done so had it not been for the States stating they wanted to get together. I'm not sure I can see how you can disagree with that, when the text clearly states that "Congress ... shall call". If this does get disputed, you can bet the Feds will be arguing this interpretation vs yours. 
Regardless, the ambiguity of the whole process is a concern. I think the states taking the initiative reduces that concern and gives them a solid lead in establishing the accepted interpretation, though. Edit: Here's the sunny side, though. Let's say it's the pro-Convention's worst case. Congress gets to decide the agenda and decides whether it will be the legislatures or convention that will decide whether each state ratifies the amendment. There's still nothing to prevent the delegates from simply saying "meh, we're voting on X anyway", doing it, and then the states themselves ratifying. When you get 3/4 of the states agreeing that something should happen, it's going to be very hard for Congress to actually stand up to it, politically. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 4:02:03 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The nation was in a state of crisis. The Articles had proven to be woefully inadequate. The weakness of the Union, and its resultant strife and division, placed this entire American experiment in self government at peril. Everything you have stated about the condition of the country at the time of the convention to propose amendments to the Articles could be said of the nation today, replacing the word "Articles" with the word "Constitution". Many would agree. Some might go so far as to suggest that without a convention to propose amendments the American experiment in self-government is in peril. 
Would such thoughts warrant the delegates to your proposed convention drafting an entirely new document, one they felt was more appropriate for this modern age? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 4:18:52 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Everything you have stated about the condition of the country at the time of the convention to propose amendments to the Articles could be said of the nation today, replacing the word "Articles" with the word "Constitution". Many would agree. Some might go so far as to suggest that without a convention to propose amendments the American experiment in self-government is in peril.
Would such thoughts warrant the delegates to your proposed convention drafting an entirely new document, one they felt was more appropriate for this modern age? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The nation was in a state of crisis. The Articles had proven to be woefully inadequate. The weakness of the Union, and its resultant strife and division, placed this entire American experiment in self government at peril. Everything you have stated about the condition of the country at the time of the convention to propose amendments to the Articles could be said of the nation today, replacing the word "Articles" with the word "Constitution". Many would agree. Some might go so far as to suggest that without a convention to propose amendments the American experiment in self-government is in peril.
Would such thoughts warrant the delegates to your proposed convention drafting an entirely new document, one they felt was more appropriate for this modern age? You are so intent on arguing your case that you are stuck on transmit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 4:26:38 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are so intent on arguing your case that you are stuck on transmit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The nation was in a state of crisis. The Articles had proven to be woefully inadequate. The weakness of the Union, and its resultant strife and division, placed this entire American experiment in self government at peril. Everything you have stated about the condition of the country at the time of the convention to propose amendments to the Articles could be said of the nation today, replacing the word "Articles" with the word "Constitution". Many would agree. Some might go so far as to suggest that without a convention to propose amendments the American experiment in self-government is in peril.
Would such thoughts warrant the delegates to your proposed convention drafting an entirely new document, one they felt was more appropriate for this modern age? You are so intent on arguing your case that you are stuck on transmit. Are you unable to answer my simple questions or afraid of the answers? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 4:36:56 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Everything you have stated about the condition of the country at the time of the convention to propose amendments to the Articles could be said of the nation today, replacing the word "Articles" with the word "Constitution". Many would agree. Some might go so far as to suggest that without a convention to propose amendments the American experiment in self-government is in peril.
Would such thoughts warrant the delegates to your proposed convention drafting an entirely new document, one they felt was more appropriate for this modern age? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The nation was in a state of crisis. The Articles had proven to be woefully inadequate. The weakness of the Union, and its resultant strife and division, placed this entire American experiment in self government at peril. Everything you have stated about the condition of the country at the time of the convention to propose amendments to the Articles could be said of the nation today, replacing the word "Articles" with the word "Constitution". Many would agree. Some might go so far as to suggest that without a convention to propose amendments the American experiment in self-government is in peril.
Would such thoughts warrant the delegates to your proposed convention drafting an entirely new document, one they felt was more appropriate for this modern age? Our country is no where near the state that it was when the AoC was ditched. You're getting hyperbolic now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 5:22:02 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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? I think the litigation will start well before any convention is called. The sooner the fight starts, the better. And I believe if 34+ states petition for a convention and Congress either refuses to call it or attempts to meddle in it in any material way, they risk their individual political futures in a huge way, especially those from states that applied for the convention. The political winds will be very strong right in their face, very soon I believe... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 5:27:44 PM EDT
[#14]
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. ... Many of these questions can be addressed based on historical precedent. The Assembly of State Legislatures is working on rules of order that will apply irrespective of what the agenda is. All delegate selection, control and sanction provisions are the purview of the states. The delegates propose and discuss amendment language inside of the convention. If at least 26 state delegations can agree on specific amendment language, it goes to the states for ratification. Each state gets one vote. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 5:36:02 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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? COS does not accept that an Article V convention would be a constitutional convention if "constitutional convention" is defined to mean "a convention to start with a blank piece of paper and draft a new constitution". The term "constitutional convention" has been used, including by USSC Justices, to also refer to a convention that is called under the provisions of Article V. But they are two completely different things. The distinction is very important to obscure if you're intent on never seeing an Art V convention occur. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 5:57:15 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
COS does not accept that an Article V convention would be a constitutional convention if "constitutional convention" is defined to mean "a convention to start with a blank piece of paper and draft a new constitution". The term "constitutional convention" has been used, including by USSC Justices, to also refer to a convention that is called under the provisions of Article V. But they are two completely different things. The distinction is very important to obscure if you're intent on never seeing an Art V convention occur. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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? COS does not accept that an Article V convention would be a constitutional convention if "constitutional convention" is defined to mean "a convention to start with a blank piece of paper and draft a new constitution". The term "constitutional convention" has been used, including by USSC Justices, to also refer to a convention that is called under the provisions of Article V. But they are two completely different things. The distinction is very important to obscure if you're intent on never seeing an Art V convention occur. The only difference is the one you're trying to create in your head. There is no other legal mechanism by which states can agree together to modify the existing government outside of Article V. Creating a new government would involve modifying the existing one; passing an amendment which replaces the entire Constitution with whatever new document they create. The Constitution forbids states from going about it any other way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 5:58:01 PM EDT
[#17]
The arguing that a Con Con really isn't a Convention of States reminds of Fair Tax arguments that the Fair Tax really is only 23%.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 6:22:25 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you unable to answer my simple questions or afraid of the answers? You really overestimate yourself. Let's try some simple logic. Do you believe that the convention that gave us our Constitution went rogue and was out of control, exceeding their charge? If the answer is yes, then you have no justification for defending the current Constitution, since it was foisted upon us by an illegitimate convention. On the other hand, if you you believe (as I do) that this Constitution is a marvelous document, then criticism of the delegates and their actions is silly. Do you believe Madison was in error, giving us this route? He understood that governments made of men were imperfect, and insisted on giving the states a means to rein in an overreaching federal government. Tip: Go back and watch the video in the OP. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 6:47:42 PM EDT
[#19]
One interesting thing I haven't seen addressed in other threads that this one has answered is what legal arguments would be made in support of States controlling the CoS process.
Farris makes those arguments in his request to the FEC that's posted above. That at least acknowledges that the points we've raised over Congress vs States controlling the process are valid and need to be settled. It would be better if there was some standing to settle the arguments now, but we may have to wait until the CoS is called. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 12:31:20 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The only difference is the one you're trying to create in your head. There is no other legal mechanism by which states can agree together to modify the existing government outside of Article V. Creating a new government would involve modifying the existing one; passing an amendment which replaces the entire Constitution with whatever new document they create. The Constitution forbids states from going about it any other way. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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? COS does not accept that an Article V convention would be a constitutional convention if "constitutional convention" is defined to mean "a convention to start with a blank piece of paper and draft a new constitution". The term "constitutional convention" has been used, including by USSC Justices, to also refer to a convention that is called under the provisions of Article V. But they are two completely different things. The distinction is very important to obscure if you're intent on never seeing an Art V convention occur. The only difference is the one you're trying to create in your head. There is no other legal mechanism by which states can agree together to modify the existing government outside of Article V. Creating a new government would involve modifying the existing one; passing an amendment which replaces the entire Constitution with whatever new document they create. The Constitution forbids states from going about it any other way. Ok, I'll try again. If 34+ states all sent applications to Congress for an Art V convention and said applications all indicated that the topic (or one of the topics) to be discussed was an amendment that would effectively gut the existing Constitution and replace it with a new document, then, per the Constitution, an Art V convention should be called. If at least 26 state delegations voted to adopt that amendment in the convention, then the amendment would go to the states for ratification. If 38 states ratified the amendment that gutted the Constitution, then it should become the supreme law of the land, subject to intense litigation and significant civil unrest. I think the odds of that happening are the same as Obama appointing Mark Levin or Michael Farris to the USSC. But if that sort of a convention were called via Article V, and everyone wanted to call it a "Con-Con", fine. That's not what COS is all about, and the belief that a convention limited in scope via 34+ state convention applications and delegate limitation legislation can somehow be hijacked to become a "Con-Con" is not rational in my view. I have yet to hear a plausible explanation of exactly how such a hijacking could be successful. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 12:41:46 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One interesting thing I haven't seen addressed in other threads that this one has answered is what legal arguments would be made in support of States controlling the CoS process. Farris makes those arguments in his request to the FEC that's posted above. That at least acknowledges that the points we've raised over Congress vs States controlling the process are valid and need to be settled. It would be better if there was some standing to settle the arguments now, but we may have to wait until the CoS is called. It seems to me if Congress, via Court action, were somehow given the power to exert any control over an Art V convention beyond setting a time and place and the mode of ratification, the states could simply rescind the applications or, if the convention had already been called, just adjourn it. Again, I think the ramifications of Congress attempting to do anything via legislation to control an Art V convention outcome, particularly once 34+ states have settled on what they're going to do, would amount to political suicide for any members of Congress in support of the effort. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 2:16:07 AM EDT
[#22]
Since an Article V Convention is a state driven initiative, I just wanted to add this bit of information to the discussion...
The Other GOP Wave: State Legislatures November 11, 2014 Last Tuesday, Republicans made historic gains in the nation’s state legislatures. The GOP now controls 68 out of 98 partisan state legislative chambers -- the highest number in the history of the party. Republicans currently hold the governorship and both houses of the legislature in 23 states (24 if Sean Parnell wins re-election in Alaska), while Democrats have that level of control in only seven. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 10:50:51 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since an Article V Convention is a state driven initiative, I just wanted to add this bit of information to the discussion... The Other GOP Wave: State Legislatures Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since an Article V Convention is a state driven initiative, I just wanted to add this bit of information to the discussion... The Other GOP Wave: State Legislatures November 11, 2014 Last Tuesday, Republicans made historic gains in the nation’s state legislatures. The GOP now controls 68 out of 98 partisan state legislative chambers -- the highest number in the history of the party. Republicans currently hold the governorship and both houses of the legislature in 23 states (24 if Sean Parnell wins re-election in Alaska), while Democrats have that level of control in only seven. This is why there's going to be a big push to get the COS resolution adopted by as many states as possible in 2015-16. We have what appears to be be a very narrow but significant opportunity to open a major new front in the war against the federal monster. If successful, the COS effort will cut right to the core of the structural problems we have in DC, and will do so with a couple of election cycles. It will also clearly underscore the power of the state legislatures in cutting the fed back down to constitutional size... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 10:52:59 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok, I'll try again. If 34+ states all sent applications to Congress for an Art V convention and said applications all indicated that the topic (or one of the topics) to be discussed was an amendment that would effectively gut the existing Constitution and replace it with a new document, then, per the Constitution, an Art V convention should be called. If at least 26 state delegations voted to adopt that amendment in the convention, then the amendment would go to the states for ratification. If 38 states ratified the amendment that gutted the Constitution, then it should become the supreme law of the land, subject to intense litigation and significant civil unrest. I think the odds of that happening are the same as Obama appointing Mark Levin or Michael Farris to the USSC. But if that sort of a convention were called via Article V, and everyone wanted to call it a "Con-Con", fine. That's not what COS is all about, and the belief that a convention limited in scope via 34+ state convention applications and delegate limitation legislation can somehow be hijacked to become a "Con-Con" is not rational in my view. I have yet to hear a plausible explanation of exactly how such a hijacking could be successful. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
COS does not accept that an Article V convention would be a constitutional convention if "constitutional convention" is defined to mean "a convention to start with a blank piece of paper and draft a new constitution". The term "constitutional convention" has been used, including by USSC Justices, to also refer to a convention that is called under the provisions of Article V. But they are two completely different things. The distinction is very important to obscure if you're intent on never seeing an Art V convention occur. The only difference is the one you're trying to create in your head. There is no other legal mechanism by which states can agree together to modify the existing government outside of Article V. Creating a new government would involve modifying the existing one; passing an amendment which replaces the entire Constitution with whatever new document they create. The Constitution forbids states from going about it any other way. Ok, I'll try again. If 34+ states all sent applications to Congress for an Art V convention and said applications all indicated that the topic (or one of the topics) to be discussed was an amendment that would effectively gut the existing Constitution and replace it with a new document, then, per the Constitution, an Art V convention should be called. If at least 26 state delegations voted to adopt that amendment in the convention, then the amendment would go to the states for ratification. If 38 states ratified the amendment that gutted the Constitution, then it should become the supreme law of the land, subject to intense litigation and significant civil unrest. I think the odds of that happening are the same as Obama appointing Mark Levin or Michael Farris to the USSC. But if that sort of a convention were called via Article V, and everyone wanted to call it a "Con-Con", fine. That's not what COS is all about, and the belief that a convention limited in scope via 34+ state convention applications and delegate limitation legislation can somehow be hijacked to become a "Con-Con" is not rational in my view. I have yet to hear a plausible explanation of exactly how such a hijacking could be successful. And here's the problem. That bit in red is an assumption. I am not aware of any legal restrictions that states can place on other states which would require that only certain topics be discussed and certain amendments from being proposed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 11:31:32 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the litigation will start well before any convention is called. The sooner the fight starts, the better. And I believe if 34+ states petition for a convention and Congress either refuses to call it or attempts to meddle in it in any material way, they risk their individual political futures in a huge way, especially those from states that applied for the convention. The political winds will be very strong right in their face, very soon I believe... You might want to investigate the concepts of jurisdiction and standing. Until there is a live controversy and a plaintiff there can be no litigation. What that means is that until a sufficient number of states have applied to the congress, no litigation is possible. Once a sufficient number have applied, there may not be any turning back, if the results of litigation isn't to their liking. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 11:42:53 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you believe that the convention that gave us our Constitution went rogue and was out of control, exceeding their charge? Here's a tip: Find a library which contains a Black's Law Dictionary and study the definition of the word "ratification". If you actually understand that word in the legal sense, you will discover that the question of whether the delegates to the convention to propose amendments to the Articles exceeded their mandate is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the Constitution. More importantly, the question of the legitimacy of the Constitution has no bearing on whether it is wise to rely on the convention which drafted it as a precedent for a proposed one. In short, once one relies on the previous convention as precedent for a future one ALL of the actions taken by the delegates to that convention apply, whether you approve of them or not. The delegates to a future convention would be as free to act as they saw fit as were the delegates to that one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 11:48:01 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It seems to me if Congress, via Court action, were somehow given the power to exert any control over an Art V convention beyond setting a time and place and the mode of ratification, the states could simply rescind the applications or, if the convention had already been called, just adjourn it. Please provide some authority for the proposition that states have the power to rescind an application. While the delegates to a convention would presumably have the authority to adjourn a convention once it started, there is no clear authority for the state governments to control the actions of the delegates. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 11:55:18 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here's a tip: Find a library which contains a Black's Law Dictionary and study the definition of the word "ratification". If you actually understand that word in the legal sense, you will discover that the question of whether the delegates to the convention to propose amendments to the Articles exceeded their mandate is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the Constitution. More importantly, the question of the legitimacy of the Constitution has no bearing on whether it is wise to rely on the convention which drafted it as a precedent for a proposed one. In short, once one relies on the previous convention as precedent for a future one ALL of the actions taken by the delegates to that convention apply, whether you approve of them or not. The delegates to a future convention would be as free to act as they saw fit as were the delegates to that one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Do you believe that the convention that gave us our Constitution went rogue and was out of control, exceeding their charge? Here's a tip: Find a library which contains a Black's Law Dictionary and study the definition of the word "ratification". If you actually understand that word in the legal sense, you will discover that the question of whether the delegates to the convention to propose amendments to the Articles exceeded their mandate is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the Constitution. More importantly, the question of the legitimacy of the Constitution has no bearing on whether it is wise to rely on the convention which drafted it as a precedent for a proposed one. In short, once one relies on the previous convention as precedent for a future one ALL of the actions taken by the delegates to that convention apply, whether you approve of them or not. The delegates to a future convention would be as free to act as they saw fit as were the delegates to that one. Those of you who keep falling back on ratification as some sort of defense are naive. You're saying that it's okay for a convention to throw shit at a wall to see what sticks. And the wall, in that analogy, is the Constitution. WELL THOUGHT OUT STRATEGY, FELLAS. Sounds like it's all based on Hope and Change to me. You're also assuming that there won't be any compromises taking place. Like there aren't any states that would sell out. Like Snips said, there aren't any restrictions on what a convention can do, as long as 2/3rds agree to it. Everything is on the table, and nothing will pass without compromise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 12:19:10 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Those of you who keep falling back on ratification as some sort of defense are naive. You're saying that it's okay for a convention to throw shit at a wall to see what sticks. And the wall, in that analogy, is the Constitution. WELL THOUGHT OUT STRATEGY, FELLAS. Sounds like it's all based on Hope and Change to me. You're also assuming that there won't be any compromises taking place. Like there aren't any states that would sell out. Like Snips said, there aren't any restrictions on what a convention can do, as long as 2/3rds agree to it. Everything is on the table, and nothing will pass without compromise. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do you believe that the convention that gave us our Constitution went rogue and was out of control, exceeding their charge? Here's a tip: Find a library which contains a Black's Law Dictionary and study the definition of the word "ratification". If you actually understand that word in the legal sense, you will discover that the question of whether the delegates to the convention to propose amendments to the Articles exceeded their mandate is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the Constitution. More importantly, the question of the legitimacy of the Constitution has no bearing on whether it is wise to rely on the convention which drafted it as a precedent for a proposed one. In short, once one relies on the previous convention as precedent for a future one ALL of the actions taken by the delegates to that convention apply, whether you approve of them or not. The delegates to a future convention would be as free to act as they saw fit as were the delegates to that one. Those of you who keep falling back on ratification as some sort of defense are naive. You're saying that it's okay for a convention to throw shit at a wall to see what sticks. And the wall, in that analogy, is the Constitution. WELL THOUGHT OUT STRATEGY, FELLAS. Sounds like it's all based on Hope and Change to me. You're also assuming that there won't be any compromises taking place. Like there aren't any states that would sell out. Like Snips said, there aren't any restrictions on what a convention can do, as long as 2/3rds agree to it. Everything is on the table, and nothing will pass without compromise. I think you've miss understood my post. The ratification of the current Constitution makes the question of whether the delegates to the Articles convention exceeded their mandate irrelevant to the legitimacy of the Constitution. That doesn't mean that I think calling a convention without safeguards in place is a good idea. I don't. I know all too well that the states have ratified too many ill conceived amendments to think of them as a safety net. As I've posted before, the safe method of proceeding would be to amend Article V to get the safeguards which the convention proponents claim exist set out in the Constitution and THEN call the convention. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 2:01:17 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here's a tip: Find a library which contains a Black's Law Dictionary and study the definition of the word "ratification". If you actually understand that word in the legal sense, you will discover that the question of whether the delegates to the convention to propose amendments to the Articles exceeded their mandate is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the Constitution. More importantly, the question of the legitimacy of the Constitution has no bearing on whether it is wise to rely on the convention which drafted it as a precedent for a proposed one. In short, once one relies on the previous convention as precedent for a future one ALL of the actions taken by the delegates to that convention apply, whether you approve of them or not. The delegates to a future convention would be as free to act as they saw fit as were the delegates to that one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Do you believe that the convention that gave us our Constitution went rogue and was out of control, exceeding their charge? Here's a tip: Find a library which contains a Black's Law Dictionary and study the definition of the word "ratification". If you actually understand that word in the legal sense, you will discover that the question of whether the delegates to the convention to propose amendments to the Articles exceeded their mandate is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the Constitution. More importantly, the question of the legitimacy of the Constitution has no bearing on whether it is wise to rely on the convention which drafted it as a precedent for a proposed one. In short, once one relies on the previous convention as precedent for a future one ALL of the actions taken by the delegates to that convention apply, whether you approve of them or not. The delegates to a future convention would be as free to act as they saw fit as were the delegates to that one. OK, I'll do that. But I wasn't asking about ratification in the query above. I was just asking if you believed that all or most of the delegates to the 1787 convention ignored direction from their state legislatures and, once convened, decided to produce a new constitution, with a new ratification process, and then forced every state to not only call for ratification conventions, but ultimately to vote for ratification. If the fear of a convention today is predicted on what the delegates did back in 1787, I just want to be sure I understand what the delegates did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 2:36:08 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please provide some authority for the proposition that states have the power to rescind an application. While the delegates to a convention would presumably have the authority to adjourn a convention once it started, there is no clear authority for the state governments to control the actions of the delegates. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It seems to me if Congress, via Court action, were somehow given the power to exert any control over an Art V convention beyond setting a time and place and the mode of ratification, the states could simply rescind the applications or, if the convention had already been called, just adjourn it. Please provide some authority for the proposition that states have the power to rescind an application. While the delegates to a convention would presumably have the authority to adjourn a convention once it started, there is no clear authority for the state governments to control the actions of the delegates. Well, there are 12 states that have passed resolutions rescinding their BBA Art V convention applications going back about 15 years. Presumably their state constitutions or other state statutes give the authority to do that. I'm not aware of any successful challenges to any of these actions, nor of any legal actions to force Congress to call a BBA convention on the basis of 34 states (counting all 12 that have rescinded) having passed Art V BBA applications. If states can't rescind, I suppose they could just refuse to send delegates to the convention and/or recall the delegates. If there are fewer than 26 state delegations remaining at the convention, they can't vote to adopt anything and might as well go home. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 2:49:46 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Those of you who keep falling back on ratification as some sort of defense are naive. You're saying that it's okay for a convention to throw shit at a wall to see what sticks. And the wall, in that analogy, is the Constitution. WELL THOUGHT OUT STRATEGY, FELLAS. Sounds like it's all based on Hope and Change to me. You're also assuming that there won't be any compromises taking place. Like there aren't any states that would sell out. Like Snips said, there aren't any restrictions on what a convention can do, as long as 2/3rds agree to it. Everything is on the table, and nothing will pass without compromise. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do you believe that the convention that gave us our Constitution went rogue and was out of control, exceeding their charge? Here's a tip: Find a library which contains a Black's Law Dictionary and study the definition of the word "ratification". If you actually understand that word in the legal sense, you will discover that the question of whether the delegates to the convention to propose amendments to the Articles exceeded their mandate is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the Constitution. More importantly, the question of the legitimacy of the Constitution has no bearing on whether it is wise to rely on the convention which drafted it as a precedent for a proposed one. In short, once one relies on the previous convention as precedent for a future one ALL of the actions taken by the delegates to that convention apply, whether you approve of them or not. The delegates to a future convention would be as free to act as they saw fit as were the delegates to that one. Those of you who keep falling back on ratification as some sort of defense are naive. You're saying that it's okay for a convention to throw shit at a wall to see what sticks. And the wall, in that analogy, is the Constitution. WELL THOUGHT OUT STRATEGY, FELLAS. Sounds like it's all based on Hope and Change to me. You're also assuming that there won't be any compromises taking place. Like there aren't any states that would sell out. Like Snips said, there aren't any restrictions on what a convention can do, as long as 2/3rds agree to it. Everything is on the table, and nothing will pass without compromise. Well, so far Indiana and Georgia would say the delegates are limited by the delegate limitation legislation those two states have passed. In addition, there is a simple majority vote threshold for any language the convention wants to adopt and send to the states for ratification. So 26 state delegations would all need to head off down the same path, with no concern for what the personal civil and/or criminal ramifications might be. Then, assuming the convention is even still in session given the "hijacking", whatever crap they came up with would have to be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures or conventions. I do agree there will be intensive debate and compromise at any convention. That's a good thing, especially with each state having only 1 vote. What amazes me about this aspect of the debate is those who oppose an Art V convention are apparently fine with Congress doing whatever they want to the Constitution, inside or outside of Article V. But the suggestion that another group of people, as authorized by the Constitution, should never be allowed to meet to discuss potential amendments is baffling to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 2:50:46 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think you've miss understood my post. The ratification of the current Constitution makes the question of whether the delegates to the Articles convention exceeded their mandate irrelevant to the legitimacy of the Constitution. That doesn't mean that I think calling a convention without safeguards in place is a good idea. I don't. I know all too well that the states have ratified too many ill conceived amendments to think of them as a safety net. As I've posted before, the safe method of proceeding would be to amend Article V to get the safeguards which the convention proponents claim exist set out in the Constitution and THEN call the convention. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do you believe that the convention that gave us our Constitution went rogue and was out of control, exceeding their charge? Here's a tip: Find a library which contains a Black's Law Dictionary and study the definition of the word "ratification". If you actually understand that word in the legal sense, you will discover that the question of whether the delegates to the convention to propose amendments to the Articles exceeded their mandate is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the Constitution. More importantly, the question of the legitimacy of the Constitution has no bearing on whether it is wise to rely on the convention which drafted it as a precedent for a proposed one. In short, once one relies on the previous convention as precedent for a future one ALL of the actions taken by the delegates to that convention apply, whether you approve of them or not. The delegates to a future convention would be as free to act as they saw fit as were the delegates to that one. Those of you who keep falling back on ratification as some sort of defense are naive. You're saying that it's okay for a convention to throw shit at a wall to see what sticks. And the wall, in that analogy, is the Constitution. WELL THOUGHT OUT STRATEGY, FELLAS. Sounds like it's all based on Hope and Change to me. You're also assuming that there won't be any compromises taking place. Like there aren't any states that would sell out. Like Snips said, there aren't any restrictions on what a convention can do, as long as 2/3rds agree to it. Everything is on the table, and nothing will pass without compromise. I think you've miss understood my post. The ratification of the current Constitution makes the question of whether the delegates to the Articles convention exceeded their mandate irrelevant to the legitimacy of the Constitution. That doesn't mean that I think calling a convention without safeguards in place is a good idea. I don't. I know all too well that the states have ratified too many ill conceived amendments to think of them as a safety net. As I've posted before, the safe method of proceeding would be to amend Article V to get the safeguards which the convention proponents claim exist set out in the Constitution and THEN call the convention. Yeah...I think I did, sorry. So here's my position on changing Article V. I believe it was designed to be scary. Too scary to use. I believe it was put in there to mollify certain elements, with the understanding that it's unrestrained power would never be used. I have NO desire to make it a more accessible route to altering the Constitution. Besides which, as I've already stated, I don't believe any Constitutional change should ever be made prior to the repeal of the 17th Amendment, and that that repeal should be independent of any other change. I honestly believe that following that change we should wait a couple of decades to let that sink in before we consider any further changes to our core document. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 2:52:41 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was just asking if you believed that all or most of the delegates to the 1787 convention ignored direction from their state legislatures and, once convened, decided to produce a new constitution, with a new ratification process, and then forced every state to not only call for ratification conventions, but ultimately to vote for ratification. If the fear of a convention today is predicted on what the delegates did back in 1787, I just want to be sure I understand what the delegates did. The delegates were sent to a convention to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation. They did not do so. While some people may be able to rationalize those actions as not having exceeded the mandate which the delegates were given, that is a rationalization. The delegates did not force anyone to do anything AFAIK. In fact, it seems unlikely that they had any power to do so. That is irrelevant to the question of whether they exceeded their mandate. Perhaps an example will help you. If I send my employee to the market with $200 and instruct him to buy 5 widgets (which cost $40) and he returns with 10 widgets (which he purchased at $20) he has exceeded his instructions by buying more than 5 widgets. I may be delighted that he bought more than he was told to because he negotiated a better price. That doesn't change the fact that he exceeded he instructions. It means that I approved of his actions after the fact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:02:43 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, so far Indiana and Georgia would say the delegates are limited by the delegate limitation legislation those two states have passed. As I posted before, Indiana has a statute on the books which limits marriage to one man and one woman. The Federal court had no problem disposing of that statute based on the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution and, of course, the supremacy clause in Article VI thereof. Should the members of Congress pass legislation which negates any attempts by the states to control the behavior of delegates to a convention to propose amendments to the Federal Constitution, do you think the supremacy clause dictates that the Federal statute prevails? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:08:40 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What amazes me about this aspect of the debate is those who oppose an Art V convention are apparently fine with Congress doing whatever they want to the Constitution, inside or outside of Article V. But the suggestion that another group of people, as authorized by the Constitution, should never be allowed to meet to discuss potential amendments is baffling to me. People meet and discuss changes all the time. I have no issues if the States want to have a convention. I want a voice in who is selected as the delegate for my state, and I think everyone should have the same voice. So an election works for me. Now, let's look at this....what I want is an elected official to represent my voting district in a national gathering of similarly elected representatives in order to pass legislation. Does that not sound familiar? I'm not against a convention...I'm against a collosal waste of time. If you can't make it happen when you only need 2/3rds majority in Congress, how the hell do you expect to make it happen when 3/4ths majority is required for ratification? A convention is a deceptively simple sounding fix. But the only simple thing about it is if you can't do it via Congress, it isn't going to happen. As for those states with legislation ensuring convention participation...that's all it does. It doesn't mean a convention will ever be able to agree on anything to be ratified. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:20:47 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah...I think I did, sorry. So here's my position on changing Article V. I believe it was designed to be scary. Too scary to use. I believe it was put in there to mollify certain elements, with the understanding that it's unrestrained power would never be used. I have NO desire to make it a more accessible route to altering the Constitution. Besides which, as I've already stated, I don't believe any Constitutional change should ever be made prior to the repeal of the 17th Amendment, and that that repeal should be independent of any other change. I honestly believe that following that change we should wait a couple of decades to let that sink in before we consider any further changes to our core document. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do you believe that the convention that gave us our Constitution went rogue and was out of control, exceeding their charge? Here's a tip: Find a library which contains a Black's Law Dictionary and study the definition of the word "ratification". If you actually understand that word in the legal sense, you will discover that the question of whether the delegates to the convention to propose amendments to the Articles exceeded their mandate is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the Constitution. More importantly, the question of the legitimacy of the Constitution has no bearing on whether it is wise to rely on the convention which drafted it as a precedent for a proposed one. In short, once one relies on the previous convention as precedent for a future one ALL of the actions taken by the delegates to that convention apply, whether you approve of them or not. The delegates to a future convention would be as free to act as they saw fit as were the delegates to that one. Those of you who keep falling back on ratification as some sort of defense are naive. You're saying that it's okay for a convention to throw shit at a wall to see what sticks. And the wall, in that analogy, is the Constitution. WELL THOUGHT OUT STRATEGY, FELLAS. Sounds like it's all based on Hope and Change to me. You're also assuming that there won't be any compromises taking place. Like there aren't any states that would sell out. Like Snips said, there aren't any restrictions on what a convention can do, as long as 2/3rds agree to it. Everything is on the table, and nothing will pass without compromise. I think you've miss understood my post. The ratification of the current Constitution makes the question of whether the delegates to the Articles convention exceeded their mandate irrelevant to the legitimacy of the Constitution. That doesn't mean that I think calling a convention without safeguards in place is a good idea. I don't. I know all too well that the states have ratified too many ill conceived amendments to think of them as a safety net. As I've posted before, the safe method of proceeding would be to amend Article V to get the safeguards which the convention proponents claim exist set out in the Constitution and THEN call the convention. Yeah...I think I did, sorry. So here's my position on changing Article V. I believe it was designed to be scary. Too scary to use. I believe it was put in there to mollify certain elements, with the understanding that it's unrestrained power would never be used. I have NO desire to make it a more accessible route to altering the Constitution. Besides which, as I've already stated, I don't believe any Constitutional change should ever be made prior to the repeal of the 17th Amendment, and that that repeal should be independent of any other change. I honestly believe that following that change we should wait a couple of decades to let that sink in before we consider any further changes to our core document. So it's ok for Congress to have the unrestrained power (other than the 2/3rds vote minimum) to propose whatever amendments to the USC they want, but not for any other group of US citizens? Why is it so scary for things to be proposed, then voted on by the states, whether the proposal comes from Congress or a convention? Are the members of Congress the only ones you trust to make proposals? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:36:52 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So it's ok for Congress to have the unrestrained power (other than the 2/3rds vote minimum) to propose whatever amendments to the USC they want, but not for any other group of US citizens? Why is it so scary for things to be proposed, then voted on by the states, whether the proposal comes from Congress or a convention? Are the members of Congress the only ones you trust to make proposals? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So here's my position on changing Article V. I believe it was designed to be scary. Too scary to use. I believe it was put in there to mollify certain elements, with the understanding that it's unrestrained power would never be used. I have NO desire to make it a more accessible route to altering the Constitution. Besides which, as I've already stated, I don't believe any Constitutional change should ever be made prior to the repeal of the 17th Amendment, and that that repeal should be independent of any other change. I honestly believe that following that change we should wait a couple of decades to let that sink in before we consider any further changes to our core document. So it's ok for Congress to have the unrestrained power (other than the 2/3rds vote minimum) to propose whatever amendments to the USC they want, but not for any other group of US citizens? Why is it so scary for things to be proposed, then voted on by the states, whether the proposal comes from Congress or a convention? Are the members of Congress the only ones you trust to make proposals? OCG, are you honestly arguing that it would be easier to convince 2/3rds of the states to hold a convention, come up with a compromise, and get 3/4ths of them to ratify it, than it would be to get 51% of your own state voters to ask your State Representative to offer a proposed amendment? Because seriously...that's what you're arguing, and why we don't take the notion seriously. You're proposing a massive change, when you haven't even taken the steps to test the waters. Has the national COS movement made any effort to poll the members of Congress, asked them to get some feedback from their constituents? Look...it's fun to debate the idea. But it isn't the solution now, and I don't think it will ever be, even if I'm glad the option is clearly there. By the way...the option exists in the event that the will of the people, as represented by the state, is overridden by the demands of the federal government. How can you argue in favor of both the repeal of the 17th AND a COS? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 4:10:05 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
People meet and discuss changes all the time. I have no issues if the States want to have a convention. I want a voice in who is selected as the delegate for my state, and I think everyone should have the same voice. So an election works for me. Very good, we agree. Now, let's look at this....what I want is an elected official to represent my voting district in a national gathering of similarly elected representatives in order to pass legislation. Does that not sound familiar? I'm not against a convention...I'm against a collosal waste of time. If you can't make it happen when you only need 2/3rds majority in Congress, how the hell do you expect to make it happen when 3/4ths majority is required for ratification? The 3/4ths is required whether it comes out of Congress or a convention. The convention has the advantage of only needing a simple majority to report out an amendment. The tough part is getting the convention called. My issue is that Congress has become so disconnected from the world outside of DC that they can no longer function in a manner that is consistent with the USC. And the states/the voters let it get that way. The Framers gave us a way to address this sort of situation without major civil unrest (at least in theory). We can wait for enough voters to wake up and do the right thing during federal elections. But after 2008 and 2012, I fear we are quickly losing the demographic battle, and if we don't move fairly quickly, there will be no coming back from the brink. I remember the Jimmy Carter days, and some say we had to go thru Obama to get a true conservative back in the White House. I just don't know if we have the electorate anymore to get the right people thru primaries and onto ballots. Plus after just a few years in DC, the good ones start to weaken... A convention is a deceptively simple sounding fix. But the only simple thing about it is if you can't do it via Congress, it isn't going to happen. Well, the Framers clearly wanted the states to be able to bypass Congress. Guess we'll see if it can happen. As for those states with legislation ensuring convention participation...that's all it does. It doesn't mean a convention will ever be able to agree on anything to be ratified. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What amazes me about this aspect of the debate is those who oppose an Art V convention are apparently fine with Congress doing whatever they want to the Constitution, inside or outside of Article V. But the suggestion that another group of people, as authorized by the Constitution, should never be allowed to meet to discuss potential amendments is baffling to me. People meet and discuss changes all the time. I have no issues if the States want to have a convention. I want a voice in who is selected as the delegate for my state, and I think everyone should have the same voice. So an election works for me. Very good, we agree. Now, let's look at this....what I want is an elected official to represent my voting district in a national gathering of similarly elected representatives in order to pass legislation. Does that not sound familiar? I'm not against a convention...I'm against a collosal waste of time. If you can't make it happen when you only need 2/3rds majority in Congress, how the hell do you expect to make it happen when 3/4ths majority is required for ratification? The 3/4ths is required whether it comes out of Congress or a convention. The convention has the advantage of only needing a simple majority to report out an amendment. The tough part is getting the convention called. My issue is that Congress has become so disconnected from the world outside of DC that they can no longer function in a manner that is consistent with the USC. And the states/the voters let it get that way. The Framers gave us a way to address this sort of situation without major civil unrest (at least in theory). We can wait for enough voters to wake up and do the right thing during federal elections. But after 2008 and 2012, I fear we are quickly losing the demographic battle, and if we don't move fairly quickly, there will be no coming back from the brink. I remember the Jimmy Carter days, and some say we had to go thru Obama to get a true conservative back in the White House. I just don't know if we have the electorate anymore to get the right people thru primaries and onto ballots. Plus after just a few years in DC, the good ones start to weaken... A convention is a deceptively simple sounding fix. But the only simple thing about it is if you can't do it via Congress, it isn't going to happen. Well, the Framers clearly wanted the states to be able to bypass Congress. Guess we'll see if it can happen. As for those states with legislation ensuring convention participation...that's all it does. It doesn't mean a convention will ever be able to agree on anything to be ratified. Agree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 4:22:42 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As I posted before, Indiana has a statute on the books which limits marriage to one man and one woman. The Federal court had no problem disposing of that statute based on the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution and, of course, the supremacy clause in Article VI thereof. Should the members of Congress pass legislation which negates any attempts by the states to control the behavior of delegates to a convention to propose amendments to the Federal Constitution, do you think the supremacy clause dictates that the Federal statute prevails? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well, so far Indiana and Georgia would say the delegates are limited by the delegate limitation legislation those two states have passed. As I posted before, Indiana has a statute on the books which limits marriage to one man and one woman. The Federal court had no problem disposing of that statute based on the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution and, of course, the supremacy clause in Article VI thereof. Should the members of Congress pass legislation which negates any attempts by the states to control the behavior of delegates to a convention to propose amendments to the Federal Constitution, do you think the supremacy clause dictates that the Federal statute prevails? There would be immediate and significant litigation if Congress took that action. And I would welcome the debate. This all needs to be pushed out into the mainstream so all can see who stands where. And getting a larger number of voters really pissed off would go a long ways towards fixing the fed govt problem via federal elections. They (the federal elections) just don't seem to matter anymore given huge financial suit of armor all the incumbents wear. It's nowhere near as big as a problem with most state reps, and that's why I think we should at least give it a shot. Again, I think just the serious threat of a convention will push the issues a long ways towards appropriate action whether a convention happens or not... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 4:59:03 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OCG, are you honestly arguing that it would be easier to convince 2/3rds of the states to hold a convention, come up with a compromise, and get 3/4ths of them to ratify it, than it would be to get 51% of your own state voters to ask your State Representative to offer a proposed amendment? No, I'm arguing that there are some amendments that are absolutely critical to the survival to the republic, and that they will never be proposed by Congress absent a voter revolt of biblical proportions. And I have no confidence that said revolt will come, if ever, in time to make a difference. And when you say "State Representative" above, I assume you're talking about members of Congress. Because seriously...that's what you're arguing, and why we don't take the notion seriously. You're proposing a massive change, when you haven't even taken the steps to test the waters. Has the national COS movement made any effort to poll the members of Congress, asked them to get some feedback from their constituents? There are maybe a handful of members of Congress who do or would support the COS application. Others who have left Congress support Art V conventions generally, but not necessarily the one being promoted by COS. COS is about severely restricting federal government power and spending. I would never expect Congress to vote for term limits for themselves, or for a return to direct election of Senators. The only way those things happen is via a convention (again, absent a voter revolt). I'd rather manage a convention than wait and see what the revolt looks like. Look...it's fun to debate the idea. But it isn't the solution now, and I don't think it will ever be, even if I'm glad the option is clearly there. By the way...the option exists in the event that the will of the people, as represented by the state, is overridden by the demands of the federal government. How can you argue in favor of both the repeal of the 17th AND a COS? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So here's my position on changing Article V. I believe it was designed to be scary. Too scary to use. I believe it was put in there to mollify certain elements, with the understanding that it's unrestrained power would never be used. I have NO desire to make it a more accessible route to altering the Constitution. Besides which, as I've already stated, I don't believe any Constitutional change should ever be made prior to the repeal of the 17th Amendment, and that that repeal should be independent of any other change. I honestly believe that following that change we should wait a couple of decades to let that sink in before we consider any further changes to our core document. So it's ok for Congress to have the unrestrained power (other than the 2/3rds vote minimum) to propose whatever amendments to the USC they want, but not for any other group of US citizens? Why is it so scary for things to be proposed, then voted on by the states, whether the proposal comes from Congress or a convention? Are the members of Congress the only ones you trust to make proposals? OCG, are you honestly arguing that it would be easier to convince 2/3rds of the states to hold a convention, come up with a compromise, and get 3/4ths of them to ratify it, than it would be to get 51% of your own state voters to ask your State Representative to offer a proposed amendment? No, I'm arguing that there are some amendments that are absolutely critical to the survival to the republic, and that they will never be proposed by Congress absent a voter revolt of biblical proportions. And I have no confidence that said revolt will come, if ever, in time to make a difference. And when you say "State Representative" above, I assume you're talking about members of Congress. Because seriously...that's what you're arguing, and why we don't take the notion seriously. You're proposing a massive change, when you haven't even taken the steps to test the waters. Has the national COS movement made any effort to poll the members of Congress, asked them to get some feedback from their constituents? There are maybe a handful of members of Congress who do or would support the COS application. Others who have left Congress support Art V conventions generally, but not necessarily the one being promoted by COS. COS is about severely restricting federal government power and spending. I would never expect Congress to vote for term limits for themselves, or for a return to direct election of Senators. The only way those things happen is via a convention (again, absent a voter revolt). I'd rather manage a convention than wait and see what the revolt looks like. Look...it's fun to debate the idea. But it isn't the solution now, and I don't think it will ever be, even if I'm glad the option is clearly there. By the way...the option exists in the event that the will of the people, as represented by the state, is overridden by the demands of the federal government. How can you argue in favor of both the repeal of the 17th AND a COS? Now I guess I'm confused too. What option are you talking about? And I don't understand how favoring a repeal of the 17th is inconsistent with favoring an Art V convention...??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 5:08:55 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agree. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What amazes me about this aspect of the debate is those who oppose an Art V convention are apparently fine with Congress doing whatever they want to the Constitution, inside or outside of Article V. But the suggestion that another group of people, as authorized by the Constitution, should never be allowed to meet to discuss potential amendments is baffling to me. People meet and discuss changes all the time. I have no issues if the States want to have a convention. I want a voice in who is selected as the delegate for my state, and I think everyone should have the same voice. So an election works for me. Very good, we agree. Now, let's look at this....what I want is an elected official to represent my voting district in a national gathering of similarly elected representatives in order to pass legislation. Does that not sound familiar? I'm not against a convention...I'm against a collosal waste of time. If you can't make it happen when you only need 2/3rds majority in Congress, how the hell do you expect to make it happen when 3/4ths majority is required for ratification? The 3/4ths is required whether it comes out of Congress or a convention. The convention has the advantage of only needing a simple majority to report out an amendment. The tough part is getting the convention called. My issue is that Congress has become so disconnected from the world outside of DC that they can no longer function in a manner that is consistent with the USC. And the states/the voters let it get that way. The Framers gave us a way to address this sort of situation without major civil unrest (at least in theory). We can wait for enough voters to wake up and do the right thing during federal elections. But after 2008 and 2012, I fear we are quickly losing the demographic battle, and if we don't move fairly quickly, there will be no coming back from the brink. I remember the Jimmy Carter days, and some say we had to go thru Obama to get a true conservative back in the White House. I just don't know if we have the electorate anymore to get the right people thru primaries and onto ballots. Plus after just a few years in DC, the good ones start to weaken... A convention is a deceptively simple sounding fix. But the only simple thing about it is if you can't do it via Congress, it isn't going to happen. Well, the Framers clearly wanted the states to be able to bypass Congress. Guess we'll see if it can happen. As for those states with legislation ensuring convention participation...that's all it does. It doesn't mean a convention will ever be able to agree on anything to be ratified. Agree. I do understand your frustration with the national government, OCG. Here's what you have to ask yourself. When you look at Congress, have you taken steps to remove the two people from your district? If no, then you are satisfied with your government. If yes, what steps have you taken? As for the other 533 members of Congress that you didn't vote for? It's actually none of your business. They don't speak for you. Don't get me wrong, everyone needs to be concerned with how things shake down in Congress. If your representatives don't seem to be influential enough to effect positive change, you need to know how to read the weather and judge whether it's the reps fault or if the tides are just wrong to push a change. But you have to remember, everyone in Congress is a representative, when you say you aren't happy with Congress, you're saying, in effect, that you aren't happy with the nation. And there are ways to change an entire nation, change their hearts and minds, and do it in a relatively short time period. Let's look at recent history. Well, there was Germany. It took some fighting, and there was a nasty breakup and period of separation, but now they're back together and the Germans aren't bad folk at all. Boy, Japan was a hard nut to crack. Their attitudes changed after losing a protracted naval war in the Pacific, topped off with 2 nuclear explosions over civilian populations. But I'll be damned if they didn't become one of the most peaceful people on the planet! No other examples nearly as good come to mind. We're too soft by far on the jihadis. The other alternative is one you've rejected several times here. Educate, educate, educate. OCG, unless we are invaded, you will die long before you see any monumental shift in the government. Not saying there won't be important changes, but nothing so dramatic as what I think you envision. But your children, and all that come after...there's hope in them, and for them. So teach them well, and if you have the means, breed like a rabbit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 5:13:33 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now I guess I'm confused too. What option are you talking about? And I don't understand how favoring a repeal of the 17th is inconsistent with favoring an Art V convention...??? The COS is the option(al means of modifying the Constitution). Arguing for the repeal of the 17th is effectively arguing that the people have too much direct influence on Congress. Arguing for the COS is effectively arguing that people don't have enough influence on Congress. It's incongruous. Contradictory. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 5:27:04 PM EDT
[#44]
Allen West is all for it:
Allen West "It’s time for a Convention of States, particularly since Congress doesn’t think so Posted by Allen West on December 11, 2014 You’ve probably heard this story before. Following the Constitutional Convention in September 1787, Elizabeth Powel, the premiere “Saloniste of Philadelphia” approached Benjamin Franklin on his way out of the Pennsylvania State House and asked what form of government the delegates of the Congress had agreed upon. He replied, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.” |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 5:38:50 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Allen West is all for it: Allen West "It’s time for a Convention of States, particularly since Congress doesn’t think so Posted by Allen West on December 11, 2014 You’ve probably heard this story before. Following the Constitutional Convention in September 1787, Elizabeth Powel, the premiere “Saloniste of Philadelphia” approached Benjamin Franklin on his way out of the Pennsylvania State House and asked what form of government the delegates of the Congress had agreed upon. He replied, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.” I'm sure many of the people who have lost elections are in favor of a convention. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 5:47:07 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The COS is the option(al means of modifying the Constitution). Arguing for the repeal of the 17th is effectively arguing that the people have too much direct influence on Congress. Arguing for the COS is effectively arguing that people don't have enough influence on Congress. It's incongruous. Contradictory. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Now I guess I'm confused too. What option are you talking about? And I don't understand how favoring a repeal of the 17th is inconsistent with favoring an Art V convention...??? The COS is the option(al means of modifying the Constitution). Arguing for the repeal of the 17th is effectively arguing that the people have too much direct influence on Congress. Arguing for the COS is effectively arguing that people don't have enough influence on Congress. It's incongruous. Contradictory. Not really. Arguing for a convention for proposing constitutional amendments is simply arguing that something needs to be changed and that it won't happen via Congressional action. In this case, the argument is that the national government has abused and usurped too much power and that federalism and the power of the States in this federation have diminished in connection with that, and that changes need to be made to bring the national government to heel. A repeal of the 17th Amendment is entirely congruous with such a narrative, as it had the effect of diminishing Federalism and of facilitating the abuse and usurpation of power by the national government (since the people have become absent checks and the States have no input). |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 6:00:58 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not really. Arguing for a convention for proposing constitutional amendments is simply arguing that something needs to be changed and that it won't happen via Congressional action. In this case, the argument is that the national government has abused and usurped too much power and that federalism and the power of the States in this federation have diminished in connection with that, and that changes need to be made to bring the national government to heel. A repeal of the 17th Amendment is entirely congruous with such a narrative, as it had the effect of diminishing Federalism and of facilitating the abuse and usurpation of power by the national government (since the people have become absent checks and the States have no input). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Now I guess I'm confused too. What option are you talking about? And I don't understand how favoring a repeal of the 17th is inconsistent with favoring an Art V convention...??? The COS is the option(al means of modifying the Constitution). Arguing for the repeal of the 17th is effectively arguing that the people have too much direct influence on Congress. Arguing for the COS is effectively arguing that people don't have enough influence on Congress. It's incongruous. Contradictory. Not really. Arguing for a convention for proposing constitutional amendments is simply arguing that something needs to be changed and that it won't happen via Congressional action. In this case, the argument is that the national government has abused and usurped too much power and that federalism and the power of the States in this federation have diminished in connection with that, and that changes need to be made to bring the national government to heel. A repeal of the 17th Amendment is entirely congruous with such a narrative, as it had the effect of diminishing Federalism and of facilitating the abuse and usurpation of power by the national government (since the people have become absent checks and the States have no input). Repeal of the 17th does not diminish Federalism. Quite the opposite, in fact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 6:07:47 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Repeal of the 17th does not diminish Federalism. Quite the opposite, in fact. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Now I guess I'm confused too. What option are you talking about? And I don't understand how favoring a repeal of the 17th is inconsistent with favoring an Art V convention...??? The COS is the option(al means of modifying the Constitution). Arguing for the repeal of the 17th is effectively arguing that the people have too much direct influence on Congress. Arguing for the COS is effectively arguing that people don't have enough influence on Congress. It's incongruous. Contradictory. Not really. Arguing for a convention for proposing constitutional amendments is simply arguing that something needs to be changed and that it won't happen via Congressional action. In this case, the argument is that the national government has abused and usurped too much power and that federalism and the power of the States in this federation have diminished in connection with that, and that changes need to be made to bring the national government to heel. A repeal of the 17th Amendment is entirely congruous with such a narrative, as it had the effect of diminishing Federalism and of facilitating the abuse and usurpation of power by the national government (since the people have become absent checks and the States have no input). Repeal of the 17th does not diminish Federalism. Quite the opposite, in fact. I was speaking of the 17th amendment (the "it" after the comma), hence the use of the past tense (obviously no amendment repealing the 17th has been ratified in the past). |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 8:33:52 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was speaking of the 17th amendment (the "it" after the comma), hence the use of the past tense (obviously no amendment repealing the 17th has been ratified in the past). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Now I guess I'm confused too. What option are you talking about? And I don't understand how favoring a repeal of the 17th is inconsistent with favoring an Art V convention...??? The COS is the option(al means of modifying the Constitution). Arguing for the repeal of the 17th is effectively arguing that the people have too much direct influence on Congress. Arguing for the COS is effectively arguing that people don't have enough influence on Congress. It's incongruous. Contradictory. Not really. Arguing for a convention for proposing constitutional amendments is simply arguing that something needs to be changed and that it won't happen via Congressional action. In this case, the argument is that the national government has abused and usurped too much power and that federalism and the power of the States in this federation have diminished in connection with that, and that changes need to be made to bring the national government to heel. A repeal of the 17th Amendment is entirely congruous with such a narrative, as it had the effect of diminishing Federalism and of facilitating the abuse and usurpation of power by the national government (since the people have become absent checks and the States have no input). Repeal of the 17th does not diminish Federalism. Quite the opposite, in fact. I was speaking of the 17th amendment (the "it" after the comma), hence the use of the past tense (obviously no amendment repealing the 17th has been ratified in the past). Gotcha, I see what you're saying now. So let me go back and restate this again, a different way. The 17th strengthened the people, weakened the state, and disrupted the federal balance. Your plan is to use the people's strength to weaken the imbalanced national government even further by limiting spending. My plan is to restore the balance. Then deal with the trivial-in-comparison issues like balancing the budget. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 10:04:49 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I do understand your frustration with the national government, OCG. Here's what you have to ask yourself. When you look at Congress, have you taken steps to remove the two people from your district? If no, then you are satisfied with your government. If yes, what steps have you taken? As for the other 533 members of Congress that you didn't vote for? It's actually none of your business. They don't speak for you. Don't get me wrong, everyone needs to be concerned with how things shake down in Congress. If your representatives don't seem to be influential enough to effect positive change, you need to know how to read the weather and judge whether it's the reps fault or if the tides are just wrong to push a change. But you have to remember, everyone in Congress is a representative, when you say you aren't happy with Congress, you're saying, in effect, that you aren't happy with the nation. And there are ways to change an entire nation, change their hearts and minds, and do it in a relatively short time period. Let's look at recent history. Well, there was Germany. It took some fighting, and there was a nasty breakup and period of separation, but now they're back together and the Germans aren't bad folk at all. Boy, Japan was a hard nut to crack. Their attitudes changed after losing a protracted naval war in the Pacific, topped off with 2 nuclear explosions over civilian populations. But I'll be damned if they didn't become one of the most peaceful people on the planet! No other examples nearly as good come to mind. We're too soft by far on the jihadis. The other alternative is one you've rejected several times here. Educate, educate, educate. OCG, unless we are invaded, you will die long before you see any monumental shift in the government. Not saying there won't be important changes, but nothing so dramatic as what I think you envision. But your children, and all that come after...there's hope in them, and for them. So teach them well, and if you have the means, breed like a rabbit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What amazes me about this aspect of the debate is those who oppose an Art V convention are apparently fine with Congress doing whatever they want to the Constitution, inside or outside of Article V. But the suggestion that another group of people, as authorized by the Constitution, should never be allowed to meet to discuss potential amendments is baffling to me. People meet and discuss changes all the time. I have no issues if the States want to have a convention. I want a voice in who is selected as the delegate for my state, and I think everyone should have the same voice. So an election works for me. Very good, we agree. Now, let's look at this....what I want is an elected official to represent my voting district in a national gathering of similarly elected representatives in order to pass legislation. Does that not sound familiar? I'm not against a convention...I'm against a collosal waste of time. If you can't make it happen when you only need 2/3rds majority in Congress, how the hell do you expect to make it happen when 3/4ths majority is required for ratification? The 3/4ths is required whether it comes out of Congress or a convention. The convention has the advantage of only needing a simple majority to report out an amendment. The tough part is getting the convention called. My issue is that Congress has become so disconnected from the world outside of DC that they can no longer function in a manner that is consistent with the USC. And the states/the voters let it get that way. The Framers gave us a way to address this sort of situation without major civil unrest (at least in theory). We can wait for enough voters to wake up and do the right thing during federal elections. But after 2008 and 2012, I fear we are quickly losing the demographic battle, and if we don't move fairly quickly, there will be no coming back from the brink. I remember the Jimmy Carter days, and some say we had to go thru Obama to get a true conservative back in the White House. I just don't know if we have the electorate anymore to get the right people thru primaries and onto ballots. Plus after just a few years in DC, the good ones start to weaken... A convention is a deceptively simple sounding fix. But the only simple thing about it is if you can't do it via Congress, it isn't going to happen. Well, the Framers clearly wanted the states to be able to bypass Congress. Guess we'll see if it can happen. As for those states with legislation ensuring convention participation...that's all it does. It doesn't mean a convention will ever be able to agree on anything to be ratified. Agree. I do understand your frustration with the national government, OCG. Here's what you have to ask yourself. When you look at Congress, have you taken steps to remove the two people from your district? If no, then you are satisfied with your government. If yes, what steps have you taken? As for the other 533 members of Congress that you didn't vote for? It's actually none of your business. They don't speak for you. Don't get me wrong, everyone needs to be concerned with how things shake down in Congress. If your representatives don't seem to be influential enough to effect positive change, you need to know how to read the weather and judge whether it's the reps fault or if the tides are just wrong to push a change. But you have to remember, everyone in Congress is a representative, when you say you aren't happy with Congress, you're saying, in effect, that you aren't happy with the nation. And there are ways to change an entire nation, change their hearts and minds, and do it in a relatively short time period. Let's look at recent history. Well, there was Germany. It took some fighting, and there was a nasty breakup and period of separation, but now they're back together and the Germans aren't bad folk at all. Boy, Japan was a hard nut to crack. Their attitudes changed after losing a protracted naval war in the Pacific, topped off with 2 nuclear explosions over civilian populations. But I'll be damned if they didn't become one of the most peaceful people on the planet! No other examples nearly as good come to mind. We're too soft by far on the jihadis. The other alternative is one you've rejected several times here. Educate, educate, educate. OCG, unless we are invaded, you will die long before you see any monumental shift in the government. Not saying there won't be important changes, but nothing so dramatic as what I think you envision. But your children, and all that come after...there's hope in them, and for them. So teach them well, and if you have the means, breed like a rabbit. I'm 59. My breeding days are over, thank God. We home-schooled 3 kids, they're now 24, 23 and 19. They are very conservative. No problems, not even a traffic ticket. It is extremely difficult to raise three kids like this, you make huge sacrifices (all worth it) and, at least when we started, you take a lot of crap from people that think you're a nut-job. I wish dealing with the internal enemy we have could be as straight-forward as what we did to deal with Germany and Japan. Unfortunately, those who are voting to destroy freedom and liberty are our friends, neighbors and family. They are in our churches, schools and offices. The monumental shift in govt that has already occurred took over 100 years to complete. In my view, we pissed away the luxury to take many decades to educate the next generation of voters to preserve freedom and liberty a long time ago. It's now time to pay the price. We can either restore the Constitution by completing the slide into hard tyranny and bondage, followed by a revolution ala 1776, or we can restore it via every available constitutional means at our disposal. Education is fine, but we need to eliminate the federal Dept of Education asap. We need to work to get the right people in every primary and ultimately into elected office. We need to pursue legal challenges, etc. And we need to execute targeted strikes at the federal monster via Art V to give us time for education,elections etc to take effect. So back on the Germany/Japan analogy, I want to use long-range bombers in addition to grinding it out on the ground and on the sea. It takes everything to win.... |
|
|
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.
