User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 1:50:36 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree. Make it 10 years or some other number that puts them beyond the reach of most politicking but lifetime has to go. All we end up with is sleeping geezers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They can include term limits on SCOTUS judges too, lifetime appointments are no good, that group is the one that can really make or bring down this country. I agree. Make it 10 years or some other number that puts them beyond the reach of most politicking but lifetime has to go. All we end up with is sleeping geezers. Like Antonin Scalia. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 1:51:20 PM EDT
[#2]
It's scary what useless lawmakers would try to pass in this cesspool of society.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 1:52:26 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's a potential disaster. Amendments can as easily repealed as added. The Constitution is hard to amend for a reason. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's a start. It's a potential disaster. Amendments can as easily repealed as added. The Constitution is hard to amend for a reason. THIS!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 1:53:24 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's a potential disaster. Amendments can as easily repealed as added. The Constitution is hard to amend for a reason. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's a start. It's a potential disaster. Amendments can as easily repealed as added. The Constitution is hard to amend for a reason. There is at least one amendment that should be repealed. 
I don't see much of a "disaster" happening, considering that you would need 3/4 of the states to approve of any amendments, there just isn't enough libtard states in number to do anything "disastrous". 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 1:56:35 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
NY, CA, MA, MD, VT, OH, WA, OR, CO, PA, IL and MI are less than 1/4 of the states. This is a 17th Amendment work-around. Restoration of the power of the states. Good stuff. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Nothing gets passed if 1/4 of the States disapprove. Put another way, nothing gets passed unless 3/4 of the States approve. IMHO, it would be a practical impossibility to get anything in the Bill of Rights diminished, including the Second Amendment. As of the moment, I'm strongly inclined to favor such a move. The alternatives should such a Convention fail to at least begin to turn things around are horrible to contemplate. This is a 17th Amendment work-around. Restoration of the power of the states. Good stuff. Don't lump us in with those assholes, we've got an R governor (kinda, as far as "R"'s go) and an R majority in the state house and senate. 
The big cities all vote "D", which is pretty much the only reason why our state is blue, like other "blue" midwestern states. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 2:00:38 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
NY, CA, MA, MD, VT, OH, WA, OR, CO, PA, IL and MI are less than 1/4 of the states. This is a 17th Amendment work-around. Restoration of the power of the states. Good stuff. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Nothing gets passed if 1/4 of the States disapprove. Put another way, nothing gets passed unless 3/4 of the States approve. IMHO, it would be a practical impossibility to get anything in the Bill of Rights diminished, including the Second Amendment. As of the moment, I'm strongly inclined to favor such a move. The alternatives should such a Convention fail to at least begin to turn things around are horrible to contemplate. This is a 17th Amendment work-around. Restoration of the power of the states. Good stuff. Ohio is solid Republican in the state assembly. It isn't fair to lump Ohio in that list. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 2:01:45 PM EDT
[#7]
As long as it's not structured in such a way as to give IL, CA, NJ and NY control of the event.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 2:09:22 PM EDT
[#8]
Anyone who has read Matthew Bracken would be very hesitant to crack open the Constitution and open the door to god knows what during a convention.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 2:09:30 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's a start. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 2:09:52 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Screw that. We don't need to change the Constitution. We need to start following it. Great point here, indeed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 2:15:02 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Semantics. If it looks like a duck if it quacks like a duck, its a duck. The purpose of both is to change the constitution. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A constitutional convention is a complete crap shoot. You have no idea going in what the outcome is going to be. It could be term limits or a balanced budget. It could just as easily be the abolition of the second or even first amendment. The one good thing about the process is I don't think you could get 38 state legislatures to agree the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, so it may just be an exercise in futility. This is not a constitutional convention, it's a convention of the states for proposing amendments. This is the alternative to bringing amendments out of Congress. See Article V. Semantics. If it looks like a duck if it quacks like a duck, its a duck. The purpose of both is to change the constitution. The Convention of States is a tool that was provided for the states to regain control over the FedGov. Congress won't restrain itself, so it's up to us to take that action. Also, the intent and scope of the convention is defined up front, so amendments that aren't germane to the purpose won't come up for a vote. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 2:33:04 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Convention of States is a tool that was provided for the states to regain control over the FedGov. Congress won't restrain itself, so it's up to us to take that action. Also, the intent and scope of the convention is defined up front, so amendments that aren't germane to the purpose won't come up for a vote. Balderdash. Lets go to the text. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments It does not specify a convention for "specified amendments" -- its a convention. The convention is for purposes of "specified amendments." A corrupt process could lead to a wholesale offering of a substitute "FSA FRIENDLY" constitution, no 2A, guaranty of employment, living wage, guaranty of housing, guaranty of healthcare, etc., and in a country 50:50 virtually in the last presidential election, that's some risky shit. You guys seem to think you can open that door and put the genie back in the bottle. Guess what: The US Constitution was adopted CONTRARY to the amending provisions of the Articles of Confederation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 2:40:22 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Balderdash. Lets go to the text. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
It does not specify a convention for "specified amendments" -- its a convention. The convention is for purposes of "specified amendments." A corrupt process could lead to a wholesale offering of a substitute "FSA FRIENDLY" constitution, no 2A, guaranty of employment, living wage, guaranty of housing, guaranty of healthcare, etc., and in a country 50:50 virtually in the last presidential election, that's some risky shit. You guys seem to think you can open that door and put the genie back in the bottle. Guess what: The US Constitution was adopted CONTRARY to the amending provisions of the Articles of Confederation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The Convention of States is a tool that was provided for the states to regain control over the FedGov. Congress won't restrain itself, so it's up to us to take that action. Also, the intent and scope of the convention is defined up front, so amendments that aren't germane to the purpose won't come up for a vote. Balderdash. Lets go to the text. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
It does not specify a convention for "specified amendments" -- its a convention. The convention is for purposes of "specified amendments." A corrupt process could lead to a wholesale offering of a substitute "FSA FRIENDLY" constitution, no 2A, guaranty of employment, living wage, guaranty of housing, guaranty of healthcare, etc., and in a country 50:50 virtually in the last presidential election, that's some risky shit. You guys seem to think you can open that door and put the genie back in the bottle. Guess what: The US Constitution was adopted CONTRARY to the amending provisions of the Articles of Confederation. The US Constitution was not an amendment to the Articles of Confederation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 2:43:02 PM EDT
[#14]
I lost my first post slot in the dupe thread
So I'll just tag this one 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 2:43:55 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The US Constitution was not an amendment to the Articles of Confederation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Convention of States is a tool that was provided for the states to regain control over the FedGov. Congress won't restrain itself, so it's up to us to take that action. Also, the intent and scope of the convention is defined up front, so amendments that aren't germane to the purpose won't come up for a vote. Balderdash. Lets go to the text. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
It does not specify a convention for "specified amendments" -- its a convention. The convention is for purposes of "specified amendments." A corrupt process could lead to a wholesale offering of a substitute "FSA FRIENDLY" constitution, no 2A, guaranty of employment, living wage, guaranty of housing, guaranty of healthcare, etc., and in a country 50:50 virtually in the last presidential election, that's some risky shit. You guys seem to think you can open that door and put the genie back in the bottle. Guess what: The US Constitution was adopted CONTRARY to the amending provisions of the Articles of Confederation. The US Constitution was not an amendment to the Articles of Confederation. Yeah, but the Philadelphia meeting was INTENDED or CALLED to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation. And what emerged was a completely new constitution. ETA: go read this: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/const04.asp ATTEND: A motion was then made by the delegates for Massachusetts to postpone the farther consideration
of the report in order to take into consideration a motion which they read in their place, this being agreed to, the motion of the delegates for Massachusetts as taken up and being amended was agreed to as follows Whereas there is provision in the Articles of Confederation & perpetual Union for making alterations therein by the assent of a Congress of the United States and of the legislatures of the several States; And whereas experience hath evinced that there are defects in the present Confederation, as a mean to remedy which several of the States and particularly the State of New York by express instructions to their delegates in Congress have suggested a convention for the purposes expressed in the following resolution and such convention appearing to be the most probable mean of establishing in these states a firm national government. Resolved that in the opinion of Congress it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several states be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the states render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government & the preservation of the Union. (1) Journals of the Continental Congress, vol. 38 (manuscript), Library of Congress In other words, see my point above. Q.E.D. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 2:45:18 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
THIS!! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's a start. It's a potential disaster. Amendments can as easily repealed as added. The Constitution is hard to amend for a reason. THIS!! So the legislatures of 38 states are going to agree to repeal the Second Amendment? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 2:59:17 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A constitutional convention is a complete crap shoot. You have no idea going in what the outcome is going to be. It could be term limits or a balanced budget. It could just as easily be the abolition of the second or even first amendment. The one good thing about the process is I don't think you could get 38 state legislatures to agree the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, so it may just be an exercise in futility. Exactly. People that clamor for this don't really know the can of worms this could open. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:02:31 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So the legislatures of 38 states are going to agree to repeal the Second Amendment? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's a start. It's a potential disaster. Amendments can as easily repealed as added. The Constitution is hard to amend for a reason. THIS!! So the legislatures of 38 states are going to agree to repeal the Second Amendment? Ah, no. The legislatures of 38 states call a convention. They may even specify a purposes such as "To Remedy the Defects of The Current Constitution by Specified Amendments." Based on existing precedent. (I.e, the one time its been done), a convention is then in order. When sufficient numbers of states call for the convention, each state has to come up with delegates. There is no mechanism for the selecting of delegates. The judicial review of any such issue will be a "political question" that the courts treat as untouchable. So there's the first stumbling block. How do you pick the delegates in a fair way? A away that represents the states? At the convention, each state gets one vote on each matter presented. The precedent from the Convention of 1787 is that the proceedings of the convention are conducted in absolute secrecy. The delegates come up with the rules. Go read this: http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/15546-secrecy-and-states-rights-the-constitutional-convention-of-1787-begins Then go read ALL of this: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp And realize these minutes of the convention were not published for decades afterward. A bunch of state delegates went into convention that was called to tweak the Articles of Confederation. In proceedings conducted in absolute secrecy, they emerged with a completely new constitution. Anyone who thinks that is not the most likely outcome of a constitutional convention called now is fooling themselves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:06:48 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Exactly. People that clamor for this don't really know the can of worms this could open. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A constitutional convention is a complete crap shoot. You have no idea going in what the outcome is going to be. It could be term limits or a balanced budget. It could just as easily be the abolition of the second or even first amendment. The one good thing about the process is I don't think you could get 38 state legislatures to agree the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, so it may just be an exercise in futility. Exactly. People that clamor for this don't really know the can of worms this could open. I understand that some will have reservations about this approach. But the Founding Fathers included this feature of the original Constitution in the event that the States found that the FedGov was over-reaching its powers. I think most of us can agree that this over-reach has happened, and some corrective measures, on which the majority of us can all agree, might be appropriate. I understand that this approach is novel, but so is the size, and potential danger of the problems we Americans face. Extraordinary problems require extraordinary solutions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:08:55 PM EDT
[#20]
If 3/4 of the state legislatures approve
an amendment which destroys our nation then there was nothing left to save. That is 13 states to veto any destructive amendments. Sorry but I'm not going to lose sleep over that. If something isn't done to change the status quo we are done as the leader of the free world in a generation or two. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:09:47 PM EDT
[#21]
I'm okay with it so long as they do not touch the Bill of Rights in any negative way.
No re-wording, Not even on some kind of compromise. There must be a net gain of freedom and more curtailing of gov't bureaucracies. However, considering the caliber of most modern day politicians, I doubt any of that would be possible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:10:11 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:Shouldn't we be concerned about this?
It could be good, but could also turn very bad for us, don't you think? Compared to what we have now? Let it ride & keep rolling the dice .... (that is to say - convention!) |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:11:26 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Great point here, indeed. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Screw that. We don't need to change the Constitution. We need to start following it. Great point here, indeed. Ok, so start. Why isn't anything happening? There's your problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:11:50 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is a little-known and (AFAIK) unused provision in the Constitution that allows Congress to deny SCOTUS the jurisdiction to review a particular law that Congress has passed. If desired, Congress could cut out SCOTUS at will. Not saying it would be a good idea, but it could be done. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Screw that. We don't need to change the Constitution. We need to start following it. Good luck with that. I'm sure the Supreme Court will help. There is a little-known and (AFAIK) unused provision in the Constitution that allows Congress to deny SCOTUS the jurisdiction to review a particular law that Congress has passed. If desired, Congress could cut out SCOTUS at will. Not saying it would be a good idea, but it could be done. The Court has effectively held otherwise in almost all scenarios. Which is ironic, of course, since the Court invented the power to review laws in the first place. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:12:53 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Semantics. If it looks like a duck if it quacks like a duck, its a duck. The purpose of both is to change the constitution. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A constitutional convention is a complete crap shoot. You have no idea going in what the outcome is going to be. It could be term limits or a balanced budget. It could just as easily be the abolition of the second or even first amendment. The one good thing about the process is I don't think you could get 38 state legislatures to agree the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, so it may just be an exercise in futility. This is not a constitutional convention, it's a convention of the states for proposing amendments. This is the alternative to bringing amendments out of Congress. See Article V. Semantics. If it looks like a duck if it quacks like a duck, its a duck. The purpose of both is to change the constitution. Not semantics. It's a meeting to explore the possibilities for a convention. It's a meeting ABOUT a convention, not the convention itself. It's an important distinction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:12:56 PM EDT
[#26]
Also, and I can't remember the case, the Court has held that for a convention to be valid, each state must propose one for the same purpose. I believe there are currently more than the required number of states with active convention resolutions, but for different reasons.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:13:18 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Screw that. We don't need to change the Constitution. We need to start following it. My default position as well. I would be very curious to see what the organizers of this convention have in mind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:13:54 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I understand that some will have reservations about this approach. But the Founding Fathers included this feature of the original Constitution in the event that the States found that the FedGov was over-reaching its powers. I think most of us can agree that this over-reach has happened, and some corrective measures, on which the majority of us can all agree, might be appropriate. I understand that this approach is novel, but so is the size, and potential danger of the problems we Americans face. Extraordinary problems require extraordinary solutions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A constitutional convention is a complete crap shoot. You have no idea going in what the outcome is going to be. It could be term limits or a balanced budget. It could just as easily be the abolition of the second or even first amendment. The one good thing about the process is I don't think you could get 38 state legislatures to agree the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, so it may just be an exercise in futility. Exactly. People that clamor for this don't really know the can of worms this could open. I understand that some will have reservations about this approach. But the Founding Fathers included this feature of the original Constitution in the event that the States found that the FedGov was over-reaching its powers. I think most of us can agree that this over-reach has happened, and some corrective measures, on which the majority of us can all agree, might be appropriate. I understand that this approach is novel, but so is the size, and potential danger of the problems we Americans face. Extraordinary problems require extraordinary solutions. Read and address the points in my posts above, please? HOW do the delegates to this convention to be called by the legislatures get chosen? How do you keep the delegates from working in secret as is the historical antecedent from 1787? How do you keep them from throwing out the entire constitution and coming out with an entirely new charter, as is the historical antecedent from 1787. And again, how do you keep the Democrats, the most accomplished election gamesmen and cheaters in in the history of our republic from stacking the slate of delegates so that when folks meet in secret behind closed doors, they don't have a super majority for some dastardly changes? You can't talk about "drastic" or "novel" without having a road map of the moves after your opening gambit. This really is chess not checkers and you can't start the game without understanding all the places it can go. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:13:58 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Balderdash. Lets go to the text. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.It does not specify a convention for "specified amendments" -- its a convention. The convention is for purposes of "specified amendments." A corrupt process could lead to a wholesale offering of a substitute "FSA FRIENDLY" constitution, no 2A, guaranty of employment, living wage, guaranty of housing, guaranty of healthcare, etc., and in a country 50:50 virtually in the last presidential election, that's some risky shit. You guys seem to think you can open that door and put the genie back in the bottle. Guess what: The US Constitution was adopted CONTRARY to the amending provisions of the Articles of Confederation. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The Convention of States is a tool that was provided for the states to regain control over the FedGov. Congress won't restrain itself, so it's up to us to take that action. Also, the intent and scope of the convention is defined up front, so amendments that aren't germane to the purpose won't come up for a vote. Balderdash. Lets go to the text. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.It does not specify a convention for "specified amendments" -- its a convention. The convention is for purposes of "specified amendments." A corrupt process could lead to a wholesale offering of a substitute "FSA FRIENDLY" constitution, no 2A, guaranty of employment, living wage, guaranty of housing, guaranty of healthcare, etc., and in a country 50:50 virtually in the last presidential election, that's some risky shit. You guys seem to think you can open that door and put the genie back in the bottle. Guess what: The US Constitution was adopted CONTRARY to the amending provisions of the Articles of Confederation. Not gonna happen...too many red states with Conservative government (more conservative than the Republicans in Washington). Try another argument, because that one sucks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:14:00 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not semantics. It's a meeting to explore the possibilities for a convention. It's a meeting ABOUT a convention, not the convention itself. It's an important distinction. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A constitutional convention is a complete crap shoot. You have no idea going in what the outcome is going to be. It could be term limits or a balanced budget. It could just as easily be the abolition of the second or even first amendment. The one good thing about the process is I don't think you could get 38 state legislatures to agree the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, so it may just be an exercise in futility. This is not a constitutional convention, it's a convention of the states for proposing amendments. This is the alternative to bringing amendments out of Congress. See Article V. Semantics. If it looks like a duck if it quacks like a duck, its a duck. The purpose of both is to change the constitution. Not semantics. It's a meeting to explore the possibilities for a convention. It's a meeting ABOUT a convention, not the convention itself. It's an important distinction. He's not talking about the meeting in the article. He's talking about what that meeting is proposing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:15:24 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not gonna happen...too many red states with Conservative government (more conservative than the Republicans in Washington). Try another argument, because that one sucks. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Convention of States is a tool that was provided for the states to regain control over the FedGov. Congress won't restrain itself, so it's up to us to take that action. Also, the intent and scope of the convention is defined up front, so amendments that aren't germane to the purpose won't come up for a vote. Balderdash. Lets go to the text. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
It does not specify a convention for "specified amendments" -- its a convention. The convention is for purposes of "specified amendments." A corrupt process could lead to a wholesale offering of a substitute "FSA FRIENDLY" constitution, no 2A, guaranty of employment, living wage, guaranty of housing, guaranty of healthcare, etc., and in a country 50:50 virtually in the last presidential election, that's some risky shit. You guys seem to think you can open that door and put the genie back in the bottle. Guess what: The US Constitution was adopted CONTRARY to the amending provisions of the Articles of Confederation. Not gonna happen...too many red states with Conservative government (more conservative than the Republicans in Washington). Try another argument, because that one sucks. Are you joking? When the progressives failed miserably in the state governments, they went to the national government, took control of the narrative, and then convinced much more conservative states to vote themselves out of power in a series of constitutional amendments. Be careful where you put your faith. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:17:48 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Court has effectively held otherwise in almost all scenarios. Which is ironic, of course, since the Court invented the power to review laws in the first place. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Screw that. We don't need to change the Constitution. We need to start following it. Good luck with that. I'm sure the Supreme Court will help. There is a little-known and (AFAIK) unused provision in the Constitution that allows Congress to deny SCOTUS the jurisdiction to review a particular law that Congress has passed. If desired, Congress could cut out SCOTUS at will. Not saying it would be a good idea, but it could be done. The Court has effectively held otherwise in almost all scenarios. Which is ironic, of course, since the Court invented the power to review laws in the first place. AFAIK, the Constitutional provision to deny cert to SCOTUS has never been invoked, so the SCOTUS cannot have been said to have ruled on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:17:56 PM EDT
[#33]
Also, a note to those who think the language of the Constitution matters in a convention, here's what our last constitution said in regards to amendments:
Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the united States in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:20:35 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
AFAIK, the Constitutional provision to deny [I]cert[/] to SCOTUS has never been invoked, so the SCOTUS cannot have been said to have ruled on it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Screw that. We don't need to change the Constitution. We need to start following it. Good luck with that. I'm sure the Supreme Court will help. There is a little-known and (AFAIK) unused provision in the Constitution that allows Congress to deny SCOTUS the jurisdiction to review a particular law that Congress has passed. If desired, Congress could cut out SCOTUS at will. Not saying it would be a good idea, but it could be done. The Court has effectively held otherwise in almost all scenarios. Which is ironic, of course, since the Court invented the power to review laws in the first place. AFAIK, the Constitutional provision to deny [I]cert[/] to SCOTUS has never been invoked, so the SCOTUS cannot have been said to have ruled on it. It has been invoked many times. In fact, when the Court was going more liberal in the wake of FDR, Congress specifically repassed a law (and president signed) that had just been declared unconstitutional by the Court. They added the provision that the Court could not have jurisdiction to review. The Court's reaction was to declare the new law unconstitutional and also created the rule that Congress cannot pass a law designed specifically to override a declaration by the Court that something is a "right." ETA: Cannot remember which specific controversy it was. That was Con Law about 8 years ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:22:30 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Read and address the points in my posts above, please? HOW do the delegates to this convention to be called by the legislatures get chosen? How do you keep the delegates from working in secret as is the historical antecedent from 1787? How do you keep them from throwing out the entire constitution and coming out with an entirely new charter, as is the historical antecedent from 1787. And again, how do you keep the Democrats, the most accomplished election gamesmen and cheaters in in the history of our republic from stacking the slate of delegates so that when folks meet in secret behind closed doors, they don't have a super majority for some dastardly changes? You can't talk about "drastic" or "novel" without having a road map of the moves after your opening gambit. This really is chess not checkers and you can't start the game without understanding all the places it can go. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A constitutional convention is a complete crap shoot. You have no idea going in what the outcome is going to be. It could be term limits or a balanced budget. It could just as easily be the abolition of the second or even first amendment. The one good thing about the process is I don't think you could get 38 state legislatures to agree the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, so it may just be an exercise in futility. Exactly. People that clamor for this don't really know the can of worms this could open. I understand that some will have reservations about this approach. But the Founding Fathers included this feature of the original Constitution in the event that the States found that the FedGov was over-reaching its powers. I think most of us can agree that this over-reach has happened, and some corrective measures, on which the majority of us can all agree, might be appropriate. I understand that this approach is novel, but so is the size, and potential danger of the problems we Americans face. Extraordinary problems require extraordinary solutions. Read and address the points in my posts above, please? HOW do the delegates to this convention to be called by the legislatures get chosen? How do you keep the delegates from working in secret as is the historical antecedent from 1787? How do you keep them from throwing out the entire constitution and coming out with an entirely new charter, as is the historical antecedent from 1787. And again, how do you keep the Democrats, the most accomplished election gamesmen and cheaters in in the history of our republic from stacking the slate of delegates so that when folks meet in secret behind closed doors, they don't have a super majority for some dastardly changes? You can't talk about "drastic" or "novel" without having a road map of the moves after your opening gambit. This really is chess not checkers and you can't start the game without understanding all the places it can go. If 3/4ths plus one of the States don't concur nothing happens. As an obverse, only 1/4 of the States dissenting prevents passage. I'll take those odds. Otherwise, what can we do to change the broken system? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:23:33 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If 3/4ths plus one of the States don't concur nothing happens. As an obverse, only 1/4 of the States dissenting prevents passage. I'll take those odds. Otherwise, what can we do to change the broken system? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A constitutional convention is a complete crap shoot. You have no idea going in what the outcome is going to be. It could be term limits or a balanced budget. It could just as easily be the abolition of the second or even first amendment. The one good thing about the process is I don't think you could get 38 state legislatures to agree the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, so it may just be an exercise in futility. Exactly. People that clamor for this don't really know the can of worms this could open. I understand that some will have reservations about this approach. But the Founding Fathers included this feature of the original Constitution in the event that the States found that the FedGov was over-reaching its powers. I think most of us can agree that this over-reach has happened, and some corrective measures, on which the majority of us can all agree, might be appropriate. I understand that this approach is novel, but so is the size, and potential danger of the problems we Americans face. Extraordinary problems require extraordinary solutions. Read and address the points in my posts above, please? HOW do the delegates to this convention to be called by the legislatures get chosen? How do you keep the delegates from working in secret as is the historical antecedent from 1787? How do you keep them from throwing out the entire constitution and coming out with an entirely new charter, as is the historical antecedent from 1787. And again, how do you keep the Democrats, the most accomplished election gamesmen and cheaters in in the history of our republic from stacking the slate of delegates so that when folks meet in secret behind closed doors, they don't have a super majority for some dastardly changes? You can't talk about "drastic" or "novel" without having a road map of the moves after your opening gambit. This really is chess not checkers and you can't start the game without understanding all the places it can go. If 3/4ths plus one of the States don't concur nothing happens. As an obverse, only 1/4 of the States dissenting prevents passage. I'll take those odds. Otherwise, what can we do to change the broken system? Please see my post above regarding the Articles of Confederation. We have a solid history of ignoring the law when it comes to changing the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:25:04 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not gonna happen...too many red states with Conservative government (more conservative than the Republicans in Washington). Try another argument, because that one sucks. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Convention of States is a tool that was provided for the states to regain control over the FedGov. Congress won't restrain itself, so it's up to us to take that action. Also, the intent and scope of the convention is defined up front, so amendments that aren't germane to the purpose won't come up for a vote. Balderdash. Lets go to the text. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
It does not specify a convention for "specified amendments" -- its a convention. The convention is for purposes of "specified amendments." A corrupt process could lead to a wholesale offering of a substitute "FSA FRIENDLY" constitution, no 2A, guaranty of employment, living wage, guaranty of housing, guaranty of healthcare, etc., and in a country 50:50 virtually in the last presidential election, that's some risky shit. You guys seem to think you can open that door and put the genie back in the bottle. Guess what: The US Constitution was adopted CONTRARY to the amending provisions of the Articles of Confederation. Not gonna happen...too many red states with Conservative government (more conservative than the Republicans in Washington). Try another argument, because that one sucks. I ask again: How are those red states going to select delegates? What can happen in, say, a 10 year ratification period for a whole new constitution? Do you think folks will be having an enlightened debate with Publius coming out of retirement to author a new set of Federalist papers? Or is it most likely the commie news media with engage in propaganda the likes of which this republic has never, ever, seen? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:29:57 PM EDT
[#38]
Well, as Andrew Jackson said, let SCOTUS enforce their decision. Not that I agree with their stated opinion, as it goes against the clear wording of the Constitution, and also against their vested interests as an institution.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:30:35 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mark Levin has been all over this. They are laying the ground RULES for a limited Constitutional Convention. They are ensuring that when/if a CC is convened it will not be a free-for-all. Agreed. They have to ratify. The convention is limited. There are currently 30 "R" governors and 24 "R" controlled legislatures. I trust "R" state reps way further than any "R" in congress. The grass roots effort at the state and local level the past few cycles has been positive. I support giving it a try. The powder keg that is building could be far worse than any convention. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:32:49 PM EDT
[#40]
Can we trust any elected politician?
Unless they're willing to repeal a bunch of laws starting with anything Woodrow Wilson did, no. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:34:10 PM EDT
[#41]
Unless the states decide to use their power per article 5 we are screwed. Unless enough states decide to shackle the federal government to the ground i do not know short of shooting how this works out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:34:38 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Paging TravisMcgee. TravisMcgee to the white phone please. Beware of "shenanigans". |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:35:33 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A constitutional convention is a complete crap shoot. You have no idea going in what the outcome is going to be. It could be term limits or a balanced budget. It could just as easily be the abolition of the second or even first amendment. The one good thing about the process is I don't think you could get 38 state legislatures to agree the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, so it may just be an exercise in futility. You might be able to get 38 states to hold their own conventions... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:41:29 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agreed. They have to ratify. The convention is limited. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Mark Levin has been all over this. They are laying the ground RULES for a limited Constitutional Convention. They are ensuring that when/if a CC is convened it will not be a free-for-all. Agreed. They have to ratify. The convention is limited. You people cannot read. The last convention was also supposed to be a for limited convention. The charge from the continental congress called it for "the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations..." Not what ended up happening under a completely closed and secret convention. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:43:46 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Screw that. We don't need to change the Constitution. We need to start following it. Obeying the law? Surely there must be a more convoluted and politically advantageous way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:45:35 PM EDT
[#46]
I sat through the House Judiciary Committee and listened to all three hour of testimony. Everyone on that panel except for the Democrat hack, Simon Lazarus, described in great detail that we are on the precipice. An Article 5 Convention is the only and final solution to restore Constitutional order and government. I am scared to death of the current status quo and trajectory that we are on.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/316596-1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:45:59 PM EDT
[#47]
I would agree with a balanced budget amendment, but only if it included rules that the government had to operate it's accounting according to the Generally Accepted Accounting Practices or whatever practices are in effect for businesses at the time and that would NEVER pass. The United States and their numbers fudging practices make Arthur Andersen and Enron look like pikers in lying about finances.
So that only leaves me to support an Amendment that forces SCOTUS to rule unanimously for any law to pass constitutional muster. That would make the biggest difference in our future, if we value liberty. Clearly SCOTUS has left any remnant of the cloak of being a non-political branch of the government shredded in the multiple rulings completely split on ideological lines instead of interpreting the words written into the Constitution. We even usually know who will vote for which way and who will be on each side before the case is even heard. Think about that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:49:26 PM EDT
[#48]
everyone rooting for amendments is an idiot.
IF this happens, you will be sorry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:51:14 PM EDT
[#49]
Last time there was a "constitutional convention", they threw out the Articles of Confederation and re-wrote it from scratch.
"I smelt a rat" - Patrick Henry, 1787. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2013 3:52:23 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I would agree with a balanced budget amendment, but only if it included rules that the government had to operate it's accounting according to the Generally Accepted Accounting Practices or whatever practices are in effect for businesses at the time and that would NEVER pass. The United States and their numbers fudging practices make Arthur Andersen and Enron look like pikers in lying about finances. So that only leaves me to support an Amendment that forces SCOTUS to rule unanimously for any law to pass constitutional muster. That would make the biggest difference in our future, if we value liberty. Clearly SCOTUS has left any remnant of the cloak of being a non-political branch of the government shredded in the multiple rulings completely split on ideological lines instead of interpreting the words written into the Constitution. We even usually know who will vote for which way and who will be on each side before the case is even heard. Think about that. So, how is it determined how the budget will be balanced? All the law says is that the budget is to be balanced, right? Who is acting against the Constitution? The President who refuses to cut spending, or the Congress who refuses to raise taxes? Why not just print more money to solve the problem? Honestly, I don't think a balanced budget amendment is very useful at all. I'd rather see an amendment that impacts the mechanism of the 16th. No withholdings, no progressive taxation, somehow limit the commerce clause, etc. |
|
|
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.
