Constitutional Convention?

[12icer]

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..." This is the opening line isn't it ! "As for the convention, calling for it and getting it are two totally different things, especially in the electronic media world and even if you had a 100 percent request. It was designed to be that way".From 119 Isn't it. Same subject isn't IT? The idea of a state having control of anything within fed jurisdiction is a lost cause. And the calling of a convention is a lost cause. (Subject, AND my opinion). Qualified by the statements in119. Bullshit someone else bud, I can READ and think for myself, I'm not a liberal. You wont tell us how far you think the US governments power extends in relation the states rights, and the UN Power over the US government extends. Not gonna waste a GB o BW.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, now I get what you are, icer, and all I can say is go for it.

 

[Skylar]

You went off on this tangent of State vs Fed power I just asked a question that would give an idea of your perceived range of power of each, And if the UN could overrule the fed. As for the convention, calling for it and getting it are two totally different things, especially in the electronic media world and even if you had a 100 percent request. It was designed to be that way.

A 'tangent'? I directly addressed a comment made by a poster about secession from the union being a 'legal possibility'. It wasn't. As the Supreme Court had already ruled on the issue in question. Taking the issue from speculative discussion to actual caselaw.

With actual caselaw winning in actual courts of law.

To which you started babbling about Alaska and the UN. Lying your ass off as you went. As Alaska didn't ask to withdraw from the US.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You went off on this tangent of State vs Fed power I just asked a question that would give an idea of your perceived range of power of each, And if the UN could overrule the fed. As for the convention, calling for it and getting it are two totally different things, especially in the electronic media world and even if you had a 100 percent request. It was designed to be that way.

A 'tangent'? I directly addressed a comment made by a poster about secession from the union being a 'legal possibility'. It wasn't. As the Supreme Court had already ruled on the issue in question.

To which you started babbling about Alaska and the UN. Lying your ass off as you went. As Alaska didn't ask to withdraw from the US.

icer has demonstrated an inability to relate his comments to the OP. He has failed to defend the OP.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

There is a Constitutional law expert who says conventions can be limited affairs according to the amendments passed by the states. Then anything they come up with would have to pass I think 3/4ths of the states,. No need to fear a Convention.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

There is a Constitutional law expert who says conventions can be limited affairs according to the amendments passed by the states. Then anything they come up with would have to pass I think 3/4ths of the states,. No need to fear a Convention.

The "expert" is wrong. The states can call for a convention, but the wordage allows the Congress to ignore said call. And as Scalia has said, in effect, "Who wants the disaster a convention would bring."

 

[12icer]

As I posted not wasting the BW, I did not even state that Alaska and Hawaii were doing anything I posted that there was a story being posted online you misread the original question OR did as liberals are want to do added your OWN meaning to my words as if I had posted them. I simply posed a situation and inferred I was interested in your opinion to qualify the depth and spectrum of your stated position in your Posts. I understand linear singlemindedness.

 

[Skylar]

As I posted not wasting the BW, I did not even state that Alaska and Hawaii were doing anything I posted that there was a story being posted online you misread the original question OR did as liberals are want to do added your OWN meaning to my words as if I had posted them. I simply posed a situation and inferred I was interested in your opinion to qualify the depth and spectrum of your stated position in your Posts. I understand linear singlemindedness.

A state seeking to exit the union would be subject to the same standards of the creation of the US: a 3/4 majority.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now icer does fabricate.

 

[12icer]

Skylar do you actually think that would work?

 

[Skylar]

Skylar do you actually think that would work?

Why wouldn't it?

 

[12icer]

I Think there would be sufficient backlash from the sitting Federal govt to stop it. The idea being that they could lose an enormous amount of power and even their positions If changes were made. Constitutionality seems an afterthought in most actions. The idea is to pass and implement whatever you think you can, and unless it is challenged at the Supreme Court level, By the small list of petitioners with STANDING it is here to stay. Allowing a convention could undo all of that from every administration, or congress that did it.

 

[Skylar]

I Think there would be sufficient backlash from the sitting Federal govt to stop it. The idea being that they could lose an enormous amount of power and even their positions If changes were made. Constitutionality seems an afterthought in most actions. The idea is to pass and implement whatever you think you can, and unless it is challenged at the Supreme Court level, By the small list of petitioners with STANDING it is here to stay. Allowing a convention could undo all of that from every administration, or congress that did it.

If such were the case the federal government would 'stop' any amendment that limited their power. Which most do.

They haven't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I Think there would be sufficient backlash from the sitting Federal govt to stop it. The idea being that they could lose an enormous amount of power and even their positions If changes were made. Constitutionality seems an afterthought in most actions. The idea is to pass and implement whatever you think you can, and unless it is challenged at the Supreme Court level, By the small list of petitioners with STANDING it is here to stay. Allowing a convention could undo all of that from every administration, or congress that did it.

If such were the case the federal government would 'stop' any amendment that limited their power. Which most do.

They haven't.

The Scalia comment above indicates that SCOTUS would prevent it somehow.

 

[12icer]

But to allow a rewrite of the Constitution could possibly remove all of the sitting officials, and dissolve the Federal Government, Although not probable but possible. It seems unlikely to me that they would allow it unless by a major event to force them to.

 

[Skylar]

I Think there would be sufficient backlash from the sitting Federal govt to stop it. The idea being that they could lose an enormous amount of power and even their positions If changes were made. Constitutionality seems an afterthought in most actions. The idea is to pass and implement whatever you think you can, and unless it is challenged at the Supreme Court level, By the small list of petitioners with STANDING it is here to stay. Allowing a convention could undo all of that from every administration, or congress that did it.

If such were the case the federal government would 'stop' any amendment that limited their power. Which most do.

They haven't.

The Scalia comment above indicates that SCOTUS would prevent it somehow.

A 3/4 majority of the States voting? I don't see how the SCOTUS could. That's the amendment threshold. The Several States at that level can do.....anything.

 

[Skylar]

But to allow a rewrite of the Constitution could possibly remove all of the sitting officials, and dissolve the Federal Government, Although not probable but possible. It seems unlikely to me that they would allow it unless by a major event to force them to.

You're moving your goal posts. We were talking about the secession of a single state.

If 3/4 of the States agreed, what could the Feds do to stop it? Why would they?

 

[jillian]

The Supreme Court is not "left-leaning."

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

i see a lot of winger wishful thinking like that. but whatchagonnado?

 

[jillian]

I Think there would be sufficient backlash from the sitting Federal govt to stop it. The idea being that they could lose an enormous amount of power and even their positions If changes were made. Constitutionality seems an afterthought in most actions. The idea is to pass and implement whatever you think you can, and unless it is challenged at the Supreme Court level, By the small list of petitioners with STANDING it is here to stay. Allowing a convention could undo all of that from every administration, or congress that did it.

it is not the place of congress or the executive branch to decide constitutionality. it is not the job of the congress to decide what is constitutional. it is the job of the court to decide what is constitutional.

there is good reason for keeping that power in the court.

and the fact that certain types of people are still crying about marriage equality doesn't change that.....even though the court made patently incorrect rightwing decisions in citizens united and heller.

so much for the "left-leaning" court.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I Think there would be sufficient backlash from the sitting Federal govt to stop it. The idea being that they could lose an enormous amount of power and even their positions If changes were made. Constitutionality seems an afterthought in most actions. The idea is to pass and implement whatever you think you can, and unless it is challenged at the Supreme Court level, By the small list of petitioners with STANDING it is here to stay. Allowing a convention could undo all of that from every administration, or congress that did it.

If such were the case the federal government would 'stop' any amendment that limited their power. Which most do.

They haven't.

The Scalia comment above indicates that SCOTUS would prevent it somehow.

A 3/4 majority of the States voting? I don't see how the SCOTUS could. That's the amendment threshold. The Several States at that level can do.....anything.

My error. The "it" refers to the holding of a convention not any amendments such a convention may pass. SCOTUS would prevent a convention, I think.