Constitutional Convention?

[DGS49]

Article V, Section 1: "The Congress,...on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments..."

Among the many "biggest" issues that confront the governments and people of the U.S. is the issue of "divided government." No, I'm not talking about legislatures of one party and an executive of the other party, I'm talking about the chasm that exists between the Left and Right on the proper authority and role of the Federal Government.

The U.S. Constitution and the political Right at least claim to favor the limited Federal government that was created by the Constitution, while the Left favors a large, broadly-reaching, "generous" federal government that guarantees our retirement income, makes sure we eat healthy food, provides for the poor, homeless, and sick, makes sure we are all well-educated, and so forth.

The Leftist-leaning Supreme Court has spent the past eight or so decades eviscerating the Constitution and paving way for the transformation of the Federal Government from the institution created by the Founders to the one favored by today's leftists. An ignorant population - totally unaware of the Constitution's constraints - wonders why we don't have, for example, "Single Payer" national health insurance, guaranteed national household income, Federally subsidized Old Folks' Homes, and so on.

Honestly, the time has come to resolve the chasm between the Constitution that we have and the Federal Government that we seem to want. As George Will has put it, "Americans want a broad, generous Federal government, but only want to pay for a small, efficient one."

First on the Agenda: Do we abolish the Tenth Amendment or take it seriously?

Do we add to the list of Congressional powers articulated in Article I, Section 8? What do we add?

There are no fixed guidelines on who would be the delegates to the Constitutional Convention; presumably each state legislature would nominate delegates. Having worked on countless committees in my professional life, I can say without hesitation that the fewer people are on the committee the more likely it will be that something worthwhile comes out of it.

How do we get this done?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Supreme Court is not "left-leaning."

Otherwise, there'll be no convention, there's no need for a convention.

 

[TNHarley]

I wouldn't want the current corrupt makeup of Washington to do a convention. Think of how fucked up it would be.. Seriously.

 

[Syriusly]

The Supreme Court is not "left-leaning."

Otherwise, there'll be no convention, there's no need for a convention.

I can't even imagine what a Circus a Constitutional convention would be if there was one.

A Constitutional Convention could do whatever the hell they want to the Constitution- from making Christianity the official religion of the United States to outlawing private gun ownership.

 

[DGS49]

No, no, no, the USSC is not left-leaning. That's why there are no more censorship laws, abortion's are legal, sodomy is not a crime, homo's can get married, and the Feds are up to their ass in Education, healthcare, retirement, and so on.

You moron.

 

[MDiver]

If there were a constitutional convention, I'd like to see it revisit the First Amendment regarding the statement that congress shall make no law restricting the establishment of religion and the free exorcise of such.
When the founders put this in, they no doubt did not think about religions such as the Aztec or Mayan religions that called for human sacrifice, or Islam which preaches hatred throughout the Quran, or other far-fetched philosophies.
When you see a few nut cases together and form some group such as the skin-heads or the neo-nazis, the general public just considers them a few nut cases and just keeps an eye on them. However, religion is totally different. It is something people really adhere to and profess and if that religion calls for violence against all non-believers or those who leave the religion, there should be laws in place to severely restrict or forbid the practice of or dissemination of literature advocating such teachings. Eighty percent of the mosques in the U.S. are preaching hatred toward non-believers and that violence against non-believers is acceptable. Those mosques were built by Saudi funds, which stem from oil revenues, which we consumers provide (essentially, we're setting ourselves up for our own destruction).

 

[Rouge Rover]

We've only had one Constitutional Convention and the delegates to that convention lied to the people about the purpose of the convention. I think one is enough, no need for another one.

 

[regent]

Can we even begin to imagine a convention today. Dump trucks filled with money, cash money, arriving at the convention site daily. One vote on one issue and a delegate could retire for life. There would be no Washington's, no Madison's, no Franklin's; the delegates would be representatives of the vested interests of this nation, and the vested interests of this nation have changed dramatically since that meeting in Philadelphia so long ago.

 

[Centinel]

Article V, Section 1: "The Congress,...on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments..."

Among the many "biggest" issues that confront the governments and people of the U.S. is the issue of "divided government." No, I'm not talking about legislatures of one party and an executive of the other party, I'm talking about the chasm that exists between the Left and Right on the proper authority and role of the Federal Government.

The U.S. Constitution and the political Right at least claim to favor the limited Federal government that was created by the Constitution, while the Left favors a large, broadly-reaching, "generous" federal government that guarantees our retirement income, makes sure we eat healthy food, provides for the poor, homeless, and sick, makes sure we are all well-educated, and so forth.

The Leftist-leaning Supreme Court has spent the past eight or so decades eviscerating the Constitution and paving way for the transformation of the Federal Government from the institution created by the Founders to the one favored by today's leftists. An ignorant population - totally unaware of the Constitution's constraints - wonders why we don't have, for example, "Single Payer" national health insurance, guaranteed national household income, Federally subsidized Old Folks' Homes, and so on.

Honestly, the time has come to resolve the chasm between the Constitution that we have and the Federal Government that we seem to want. As George Will has put it, "Americans want a broad, generous Federal government, but only want to pay for a small, efficient one."

First on the Agenda: Do we abolish the Tenth Amendment or take it seriously?

Do we add to the list of Congressional powers articulated in Article I, Section 8? What do we add?

There are no fixed guidelines on who would be the delegates to the Constitutional Convention; presumably each state legislature would nominate delegates. Having worked on countless committees in my professional life, I can say without hesitation that the fewer people are on the committee the more likely it will be that something worthwhile comes out of it.

How do we get this done?

There's no need to give congress more legislative powers. Simply enact the legislation you desire in your own state.

 

[Agit8r]

Article V, Section 1: "The Congress,...on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments..."

Among the many "biggest" issues that confront the governments and people of the U.S. is the issue of "divided government." No, I'm not talking about legislatures of one party and an executive of the other party, I'm talking about the chasm that exists between the Left and Right on the proper authority and role of the Federal Government.

The U.S. Constitution and the political Right at least claim to favor the limited Federal government that was created by the Constitution, while the Left favors a large, broadly-reaching, "generous" federal government that guarantees our retirement income, makes sure we eat healthy food, provides for the poor, homeless, and sick, makes sure we are all well-educated, and so forth.

The Leftist-leaning Supreme Court has spent the past eight or so decades eviscerating the Constitution and paving way for the transformation of the Federal Government from the institution created by the Founders to the one favored by today's leftists. An ignorant population - totally unaware of the Constitution's constraints - wonders why we don't have, for example, "Single Payer" national health insurance, guaranteed national household income, Federally subsidized Old Folks' Homes, and so on.

Honestly, the time has come to resolve the chasm between the Constitution that we have and the Federal Government that we seem to want. As George Will has put it, "Americans want a broad, generous Federal government, but only want to pay for a small, efficient one."

First on the Agenda: Do we abolish the Tenth Amendment or take it seriously?

Do we add to the list of Congressional powers articulated in Article I, Section 8? What do we add?

There are no fixed guidelines on who would be the delegates to the Constitutional Convention; presumably each state legislature would nominate delegates. Having worked on countless committees in my professional life, I can say without hesitation that the fewer people are on the committee the more likely it will be that something worthwhile comes out of it.

How do we get this done?

The founders were not all of one mind about the constitution. The view that prevailed among them is the one we have today: Broad Constructionism.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Article V, Section 1: "The Congress,...on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments..."

Among the many "biggest" issues that confront the governments and people of the U.S. is the issue of "divided government." No, I'm not talking about legislatures of one party and an executive of the other party, I'm talking about the chasm that exists between the Left and Right on the proper authority and role of the Federal Government.

The U.S. Constitution and the political Right at least claim to favor the limited Federal government that was created by the Constitution, while the Left favors a large, broadly-reaching, "generous" federal government that guarantees our retirement income, makes sure we eat healthy food, provides for the poor, homeless, and sick, makes sure we are all well-educated, and so forth.

The Leftist-leaning Supreme Court has spent the past eight or so decades eviscerating the Constitution and paving way for the transformation of the Federal Government from the institution created by the Founders to the one favored by today's leftists. An ignorant population - totally unaware of the Constitution's constraints - wonders why we don't have, for example, "Single Payer" national health insurance, guaranteed national household income, Federally subsidized Old Folks' Homes, and so on.

Honestly, the time has come to resolve the chasm between the Constitution that we have and the Federal Government that we seem to want. As George Will has put it, "Americans want a broad, generous Federal government, but only want to pay for a small, efficient one."

First on the Agenda: Do we abolish the Tenth Amendment or take it seriously?

Do we add to the list of Congressional powers articulated in Article I, Section 8? What do we add?

There are no fixed guidelines on who would be the delegates to the Constitutional Convention; presumably each state legislature would nominate delegates. Having worked on countless committees in my professional life, I can say without hesitation that the fewer people are on the committee the more likely it will be that something worthwhile comes out of it.

How do we get this done?

There's no need to give congress more legislative powers. Simply enact the legislation you desire in your own state.

the states can form their own convention

which disregards congress and the prezbo ta boot

 

[JakeStarkey]

the states can form their own convention

which disregards congress and the prezbo ta boot

Wrongo. Read it again.

 

[jon_berzerk]

the states can form their own convention

which disregards congress and the prezbo ta boot

Wrongo. Read it again.

are fucking stupid or just fucking plain stupid

you readit again stupid

 

[JakeStarkey]

the states can form their own convention

which disregards congress and the prezbo ta boot

Wrongo. Read it again.

are fucking stupid or just fucking plain stupid you readit again stupid

They can call it, they cannot form it.

To say the states can form one is to reveal a stupidity second only to steve_mcgarrett on the forum. You rank with shootspeeders, protectionist, kush, yurt, et al.

 

[regent]

The second process for amending the Constitution has never been used, and is unlikely to be used. But a question: "the Congress on the application of the states" does that the states can apply but the Congress does not have to accept the application?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The second process for amending the Constitution has never been used, and is unlikely to be used. But a question: "the Congress on the application of the states" does that the states can apply but the Congress does not have to accept the application?

The operative word is "shall", which can be ambiguous. "Will" is not.

 

[Centinel]

A third legal alternative would be for some number of states to exit the union and then establish a new treaty between themselves.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A third legal alternative would be for some number of states to exit the union and then establish a new treaty between themselves.

Provided that Congress ratifies such a departure, yes.

 

[Centinel]

A third legal alternative would be for some number of states to exit the union and then establish a new treaty between themselves.

Provided that Congress ratifies such a departure, yes.

Sorry, the constitution contains no language requiring such a ratification.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A third legal alternative would be for some number of states to exit the union and then establish a new treaty between themselves.

Provided that Congress ratifies such a departure, yes.

Sorry, the constitution contains no language requiring such a ratification.

Sorry, a civil war and a SCOTUS decision says you are obviously not a constitutional scholar. Run along.