Five Alive: Constitutional Convention being explored by states

Alaska, Florida and Georgia have passed legislation in support of a Constitutional Convention to ratify a new Amendment to rein in spending, force a balanced budget and/or prevent the US government's spending from exceeding its revenue. With 25 more considering to do the same, and assuming they all agree, the total would be 28. But the number of states required to call Congress into a convention is 33, or three fourths of the states according to Article V of the US Constitution, meaning there would need to be 5 more states who must agree. Any Amendment proposed at the convention would have to be agreed upon by 38. More here:

A state-level campaign to rein in the federal government by calling an unprecedented convention to amend the U.S. Constitution is gaining steam, picking up support from two high-profile Republicans as more states explore the idea.

The latest figures to endorse the effort are retired Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

Coburn, a legendary government-waste watchdog, announced this week that he has joined the effort by becoming a senior adviser for the group Convention of States Action, which wants states, not just Congress, to pass constitutional amendments. A primary goal is to get an amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced federal budget, in which spending does not exceed revenue.

Article V of the Constitution says amendments can be ratified either by Congress or by states if two-thirds of them petition Congress to call a convention. Then, any amendment proposed at the convention must be ratified by three-fourth, or 38, states.

So far, the Alaska, Florida and Georgia legislatures have each passed a resolution in support of a convention, and 25 more are considering one, according to the group.


State-led push to force constitutional convention gains steam with high-profile Republican support Fox News

All 50 States have requested an Amendment Convention and congress has ignored more than 600 requests, what makes you think congress will do their job now. The only way is for the States to hold their own conventions and if two thirds agree then the agreed upon Amendments can be referred to the other States for ratification. If three froths agree in their conventions the amendment is consider ratified and becomes part of the Constitution per Article 5.
 
The rich I assume spend more into the economy then the poor. In so doing they spend more in local sales taxes.

That is a fallacious assumption on your part. Rich people don't eat more food than poor people. They don't wear more clothes or buy more cars. They may pay more for what they buy but they don't "consume" more. In fact given the disparity in numbers between the rich and poor it is the rich who are being subsidized by the poor when it comes to sales taxes. The poor pay a far higher percentage of their income in sales taxes than the rich do. The math doesn't lie. This is why sales taxes are regressive and we need higher tax rates on the rich to redress the imbalance.

While your opinion was interesting when first put out by the DNC can you at least provide a bit of fact to support you contention? You see a Lear jet and see a rich man getting away with robbing the poor. I see a host of support persons who are middle class making money from that Lear jet.

One time there was a great idea to increase the luxury taxes on high end boats. You know, make the rich pay. Problem was it almost put the companies that made boats out of business which would hurt the rich at all but not so much for the middle class.

More Libertarian Utopian Koolaid!

Trickle down has been proven to be an abject failure. The evidence that raising wages for low income workers improves the economy is well documented. Those are the hard facts and there is zero credible evidence that providing taxcuts to the wealthy has ever worked. In fact there is evidence to the contrary.
Exactly.

Such tax cuts are used to maximize profits and enrich shareholders, where nothing "trickles down."
 
The rich I assume spend more into the economy then the poor. In so doing they spend more in local sales taxes.

That is a fallacious assumption on your part. Rich people don't eat more food than poor people. They don't wear more clothes or buy more cars. They may pay more for what they buy but they don't "consume" more. In fact given the disparity in numbers between the rich and poor it is the rich who are being subsidized by the poor when it comes to sales taxes. The poor pay a far higher percentage of their income in sales taxes than the rich do. The math doesn't lie. This is why sales taxes are regressive and we need higher tax rates on the rich to redress the imbalance.

While your opinion was interesting when first put out by the DNC can you at least provide a bit of fact to support you contention? You see a Lear jet and see a rich man getting away with robbing the poor. I see a host of support persons who are middle class making money from that Lear jet.

One time there was a great idea to increase the luxury taxes on high end boats. You know, make the rich pay. Problem was it almost put the companies that made boats out of business which would hurt the rich at all but not so much for the middle class.

More Libertarian Utopian Koolaid!

Trickle down has been proven to be an abject failure. The evidence that raising wages for low income workers improves the economy is well documented. Those are the hard facts and there is zero credible evidence that providing taxcuts to the wealthy has ever worked. In fact there is evidence to the contrary.
Exactly.

Such tax cuts are used to maximize profits and enrich shareholders, where nothing "trickles down."
The absurdity of that statement is obvious.
 
All 50 States have requested an Amendment Convention

:link:

The only way is for the States to hold their own conventions and if two thirds agree then the agreed upon Amendments can be referred to the other States for ratification. If three froths agree in their conventions the amendment is consider ratified and becomes part of the Constitution per Article 5.

This is a sloppy and misunderstood explanation.

The constitution provides for the legislatures to appeal to Congress to form a convention to propose amendments to the constitution. If two thirds of the states do so, Congress has a constitutional duty to call a convention for that purpose.

The purpose of the convention is to propose amendments to the constitution. There are no constitutionally prescribed rules as to how the convention is to be conducted, or how the states shall be represented. The convention would, ultimately, decide its own rules and how to proceed. Whatever rules it chooses, any proposed amendments presented by the convention would have to be ratified by the states by one of two methods, as dictated by Congress: 1) Ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures, or 2) Ratification by 3/4 of intrastate conventions. Each state, whether through its legislature or convention, would have the ability to decline to ratify an amendment that was supported by its delegation in the amendment convention.

The delegation that might attend an amendment convention is not a "state convention." It is the state's delegation. The convention is the meeting itself. There is no specific requirement for a state's delegation to be composed of 1 individual, or 25 individuals, and there is no requirement that in the convention each state will have one collective vote or each delegate will vote individually.
 
Not enough money if you were to steal every dollar from the rich.

Not true. In fact, when Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy even SLIGHTLY, he delivered balanced budgets within six years.
Not even close to true.

Budgets didn't start catching up with their spending, until Billary tried to impose a secret Universal Govt Health Care plan on us in 1993. As a result, the people kicked record numbers of Democrats out of Congress in 1994 and put Republicans in charge of both houses for nearly the first time since 1933.

The Republicans then started scaling back some spending, and lowered the Capital Gains tax rate. Clinton objected to it, and vetoed it several times before finally signing it just before an election. This unleashed huge economic activity, and even though Cap Gains tax rates were lower, revenue from Cap Gains taxes nearly tripled.

It was that increasing revenue from lower tax rates, that nearly balanced the budget during Clinton's years.

It's always entertaining when liberals try to rewrite history and pretend they did something good, when it was conservatives who actually did it. (And proved that the liberals were fundamentally wrong at the same time - no wonder the liberals are trying to rewrite history!)
 
Last edited:
Exactly.

Such tax cuts are used to maximize profits and enrich shareholders, where nothing "trickles down."
Completely wrong, as usual.

This sad, tired talking point has been refuted, both in principle and in practice, more times than normal people can count.

See Post #126 for one example.

(yawn)
 
Not even close to true.

Budgets didn't start catching up with their spending, until Billary tried to impose a secret Universal Govt Health Care plan on us in 1993. As a result, the people kicked record numbers of Democrats out of Congress in 1994 and put Republicans in charge of both houses for nearly the first time since 1933.

The Republicans then started scaling back some spending, and lowered the Capital Gains tax rate. Clinton objected to it, and vetoed it several times before finally signing it just before an election. This unleashed huge economic activity, and even though Cap Gains tax rates were lower, revenue from Cap Gains taxes nearly tripled.

It was that increasing revenue from lower tax rates, that nearly balanced the budget during Clinton's years.

It's always entertaining when liberals try to rewrite history and pretend they did something good, when it was conservatives who actually did it. (And proved that the liberals were fundamentally wrong at the same time - no wonder the liberals are trying to rewrite history!)

You're not trying to pretend that laffer curves work, are you? Please tell me you arent' still buying THAT snake oil.

Because no one really claims that. They've moved on to "Mine, mine mine" to rationalize tax cuts.

So riddle me this, Batman, if Republican Policies worked so well, why did those surpluses vanish as soon as George W. Stupid got into office?
 
Leftist Fury over proposed Constitutional Convention

But who messed with the Constitution more -- or longer -- over the past hundred years?

January 19, 2016
Thomas Sowell

united-states-constitution.jpg


In recent years, a small but growing number of people have advocated a convention of states to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The reaction to the proposal has been hostile, out of all proportion to either the originality or the danger of such a convention.

The political left has been especially vehement in its denunciations of what they call "messing with the Constitution." A recent proposal by Governor Greg Abbott of Texas to hold a Constitutional convention of states has been denounced by the Texas branch of the American Civil Liberties Union and nationally by an editorial in the liberal "USA Today."

The irony in all this is that no one has messed with the Constitution more or longer than the political left, over the past hundred years.

This began with Progressives like Woodrow Wilson, who openly declared the Constitution an impediment to the kinds of "reforms" the Progressive movement wanted, and urged judges to "interpret" the Constitution in such a way as to loosen its limits on federal power.

It has long been a complaint of the left that the process of amending the Constitution is too hard, so they have depended on federal judges — especially Supreme Court Justices — to amend the Constitution, de facto and piecemeal, in a leftward direction.

This judicial amendment process has been going on now for generations, so that today government officials at the local, state or national level can often seize private property in disregard of the 5th Amendment's protections.

For nearly 40 years, the Supreme Court has been evading the 14th Amendment's provision of "equal protection" of the law for all, in order to let government-imposed group preferences and quotas continue, under the name of "affirmative action."

Equal rights under the law have been made to vanish by saying the magic word "diversity," whose sweeping benefits are simply assumed and proclaimed endlessly, rather than demonstrated.

The judicial pretense of merely "interpreting" the Constitution is just part of the dishonesty in this process. The underlying claim that it is almost impossible to amend the Constitution was belied during the very years when the Progressive movement was getting underway in the early 20th century.

...
No wonder they don't want to have a convention that would restore a Constitution which begins with "We the People."

Leftist Fury over proposed Constitutional Convention
 
Leftist Fury over proposed Constitutional Convention

But who messed with the Constitution more -- or longer -- over the past hundred years?

January 19, 2016
Thomas Sowell

united-states-constitution.jpg


In recent years, a small but growing number of people have advocated a convention of states to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The reaction to the proposal has been hostile, out of all proportion to either the originality or the danger of such a convention.

The political left has been especially vehement in its denunciations of what they call "messing with the Constitution." A recent proposal by Governor Greg Abbott of Texas to hold a Constitutional convention of states has been denounced by the Texas branch of the American Civil Liberties Union and nationally by an editorial in the liberal "USA Today."

The irony in all this is that no one has messed with the Constitution more or longer than the political left, over the past hundred years.

This began with Progressives like Woodrow Wilson, who openly declared the Constitution an impediment to the kinds of "reforms" the Progressive movement wanted, and urged judges to "interpret" the Constitution in such a way as to loosen its limits on federal power.

It has long been a complaint of the left that the process of amending the Constitution is too hard, so they have depended on federal judges — especially Supreme Court Justices — to amend the Constitution, de facto and piecemeal, in a leftward direction.

This judicial amendment process has been going on now for generations, so that today government officials at the local, state or national level can often seize private property in disregard of the 5th Amendment's protections.

For nearly 40 years, the Supreme Court has been evading the 14th Amendment's provision of "equal protection" of the law for all, in order to let government-imposed group preferences and quotas continue, under the name of "affirmative action."

Equal rights under the law have been made to vanish by saying the magic word "diversity," whose sweeping benefits are simply assumed and proclaimed endlessly, rather than demonstrated.

The judicial pretense of merely "interpreting" the Constitution is just part of the dishonesty in this process. The underlying claim that it is almost impossible to amend the Constitution was belied during the very years when the Progressive movement was getting underway in the early 20th century.

...
No wonder they don't want to have a convention that would restore a Constitution which begins with "We the People."

Leftist Fury over proposed Constitutional Convention


There has never been a constitutional convention, and there won't be one now.
 
Alaska, Florida and Georgia have passed legislation in support of a Constitutional Convention to ratify a new Amendment to rein in spending, force a balanced budget and/or prevent the US government's spending from exceeding its revenue. With 25 more considering to do the same, and assuming they all agree, the total would be 28. But the number of states required to call Congress into a convention is 33, or three fourths of the states according to Article V of the US Constitution, meaning there would need to be 5 more states who must agree. Any Amendment proposed at the convention would have to be agreed upon by 38. More here:

A state-level campaign to rein in the federal government by calling an unprecedented convention to amend the U.S. Constitution is gaining steam, picking up support from two high-profile Republicans as more states explore the idea.

The latest figures to endorse the effort are retired Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

Coburn, a legendary government-waste watchdog, announced this week that he has joined the effort by becoming a senior adviser for the group Convention of States Action, which wants states, not just Congress, to pass constitutional amendments. A primary goal is to get an amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced federal budget, in which spending does not exceed revenue.

Article V of the Constitution says amendments can be ratified either by Congress or by states if two-thirds of them petition Congress to call a convention. Then, any amendment proposed at the convention must be ratified by three-fourth, or 38, states.

So far, the Alaska, Florida and Georgia legislatures have each passed a resolution in support of a convention, and 25 more are considering one, according to the group.


State-led push to force constitutional convention gains steam with high-profile Republican support Fox News

All 50 States have requested an Amendment Convention and congress has ignored more than 600 requests, what makes you think congress will do their job now. The only way is for the States to hold their own conventions and if two thirds agree then the agreed upon Amendments can be referred to the other States for ratification. If three froths agree in their conventions the amendment is consider ratified and becomes part of the Constitution per Article 5.

That's a wildly misleading claim....as per your own sources, these weren't 600 requests for a convention on the same amendment. With a grand total of TWO amendments meeting the threshold of a convention, even theoretically. And your theory has some problems. As you assume that the call for a convention on an amendments to make sure that the government doesn't go into debt in 1789 by New York, was the same call for the 'Balanced Budget' amendment that Tennessee called for in 1989.

And that's not necessarily the case.
 
.

I'd sure love to see a BBA, but it would force the liars in DC to directly justify their taxing & spending initiatives on both sides.

Imagine for a moment how much political influence would be lost.

Probably wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

.

We the People don't need a constitutional convention to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The process for doing that already exists.

This push for a convention is an attempt to undermine the existing constitution and "legitimize" the failed libertarian dogma of the Koch bros.
If that was true then they would not bother as they would never be able to get it ratified.

Why is there so much vitriol when the people even hint at taking charge of their government? What ever happened to the people being the government?
 
Leftist Fury over proposed Constitutional Convention

But who messed with the Constitution more -- or longer -- over the past hundred years?

January 19, 2016
Thomas Sowell

united-states-constitution.jpg


In recent years, a small but growing number of people have advocated a convention of states to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The reaction to the proposal has been hostile, out of all proportion to either the originality or the danger of such a convention.

The political left has been especially vehement in its denunciations of what they call "messing with the Constitution." A recent proposal by Governor Greg Abbott of Texas to hold a Constitutional convention of states has been denounced by the Texas branch of the American Civil Liberties Union and nationally by an editorial in the liberal "USA Today."

The irony in all this is that no one has messed with the Constitution more or longer than the political left, over the past hundred years.

This began with Progressives like Woodrow Wilson, who openly declared the Constitution an impediment to the kinds of "reforms" the Progressive movement wanted, and urged judges to "interpret" the Constitution in such a way as to loosen its limits on federal power.

It has long been a complaint of the left that the process of amending the Constitution is too hard, so they have depended on federal judges — especially Supreme Court Justices — to amend the Constitution, de facto and piecemeal, in a leftward direction.

This judicial amendment process has been going on now for generations, so that today government officials at the local, state or national level can often seize private property in disregard of the 5th Amendment's protections.

For nearly 40 years, the Supreme Court has been evading the 14th Amendment's provision of "equal protection" of the law for all, in order to let government-imposed group preferences and quotas continue, under the name of "affirmative action."

Equal rights under the law have been made to vanish by saying the magic word "diversity," whose sweeping benefits are simply assumed and proclaimed endlessly, rather than demonstrated.

The judicial pretense of merely "interpreting" the Constitution is just part of the dishonesty in this process. The underlying claim that it is almost impossible to amend the Constitution was belied during the very years when the Progressive movement was getting underway in the early 20th century.

...
No wonder they don't want to have a convention that would restore a Constitution which begins with "We the People."

Leftist Fury over proposed Constitutional Convention


Notice that many of us want to get control of our government, while the left continues the government getting, and keeping a hold of us!
 
I will defend the democrats on your unfounded charges. From before the Civil War the democrats stood firmly on not changing the COTUS to free the slaves. Even after the war until today their record of not changing the COTUS is almost 100 percent. Doesn't mean, of course, that they haven't be using the COTUS as toilet paper but change it for the black man, not so much.
 
Leftist Fury over proposed Constitutional Convention

But who messed with the Constitution more -- or longer -- over the past hundred years?

January 19, 2016
Thomas Sowell

united-states-constitution.jpg


In recent years, a small but growing number of people have advocated a convention of states to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The reaction to the proposal has been hostile, out of all proportion to either the originality or the danger of such a convention.

The political left has been especially vehement in its denunciations of what they call "messing with the Constitution." A recent proposal by Governor Greg Abbott of Texas to hold a Constitutional convention of states has been denounced by the Texas branch of the American Civil Liberties Union and nationally by an editorial in the liberal "USA Today."

The irony in all this is that no one has messed with the Constitution more or longer than the political left, over the past hundred years.

This began with Progressives like Woodrow Wilson, who openly declared the Constitution an impediment to the kinds of "reforms" the Progressive movement wanted, and urged judges to "interpret" the Constitution in such a way as to loosen its limits on federal power.

It has long been a complaint of the left that the process of amending the Constitution is too hard, so they have depended on federal judges — especially Supreme Court Justices — to amend the Constitution, de facto and piecemeal, in a leftward direction.

This judicial amendment process has been going on now for generations, so that today government officials at the local, state or national level can often seize private property in disregard of the 5th Amendment's protections.

For nearly 40 years, the Supreme Court has been evading the 14th Amendment's provision of "equal protection" of the law for all, in order to let government-imposed group preferences and quotas continue, under the name of "affirmative action."

Equal rights under the law have been made to vanish by saying the magic word "diversity," whose sweeping benefits are simply assumed and proclaimed endlessly, rather than demonstrated.

The judicial pretense of merely "interpreting" the Constitution is just part of the dishonesty in this process. The underlying claim that it is almost impossible to amend the Constitution was belied during the very years when the Progressive movement was getting underway in the early 20th century.

...
No wonder they don't want to have a convention that would restore a Constitution which begins with "We the People."

Leftist Fury over proposed Constitutional Convention


Notice that many of us want to get control of our government, while the left continues the government getting, and keeping a hold of us!
It would appear that many Americans, including your average Joe Smoe Democrat, do as they are told by the elites.
 
All 50 States have requested an Amendment Convention and congress has ignored more than 600 requests

Do you even stop to think about the absurdity of your lie before you say it? The constitution was ratified in June 1788. If there had been 600 requests, or 2741 months ago. Your wild ass bullshit claim means that requests for constitutional conventions happen at a rate of every 4 and a half months.

:slap:

Don't be such an idiot.
 
Alaska, Florida and Georgia have passed legislation in support of a Constitutional Convention to ratify a new Amendment to rein in spending, force a balanced budget and/or prevent the US government's spending from exceeding its revenue. With 25 more considering to do the same, and assuming they all agree, the total would be 28. But the number of states required to call Congress into a convention is 33, or three fourths of the states according to Article V of the US Constitution, meaning there would need to be 5 more states who must agree. Any Amendment proposed at the convention would have to be agreed upon by 38. More here:

A state-level campaign to rein in the federal government by calling an unprecedented convention to amend the U.S. Constitution is gaining steam, picking up support from two high-profile Republicans as more states explore the idea.

The latest figures to endorse the effort are retired Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

Coburn, a legendary government-waste watchdog, announced this week that he has joined the effort by becoming a senior adviser for the group Convention of States Action, which wants states, not just Congress, to pass constitutional amendments. A primary goal is to get an amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced federal budget, in which spending does not exceed revenue.

Article V of the Constitution says amendments can be ratified either by Congress or by states if two-thirds of them petition Congress to call a convention. Then, any amendment proposed at the convention must be ratified by three-fourth, or 38, states.

So far, the Alaska, Florida and Georgia legislatures have each passed a resolution in support of a convention, and 25 more are considering one, according to the group.


State-led push to force constitutional convention gains steam with high-profile Republican support Fox News

All 50 States have requested an Amendment Convention and congress has ignored more than 600 requests, what makes you think congress will do their job now. The only way is for the States to hold their own conventions and if two thirds agree then the agreed upon Amendments can be referred to the other States for ratification. If three froths agree in their conventions the amendment is consider ratified and becomes part of the Constitution per Article 5.

That's a wildly misleading claim....as per your own sources, these weren't 600 requests for a convention on the same amendment. With a grand total of TWO amendments meeting the threshold of a convention, even theoretically. And your theory has some problems. As you assume that the call for a convention on an amendments to make sure that the government doesn't go into debt in 1789 by New York, was the same call for the 'Balanced Budget' amendment that Tennessee called for in 1989.

And that's not necessarily the case.

Where does article 5 put a time limit or subject restrictions on the requests for a convention? I just says 2/3rds of the States request one, that requirement has been met many times over.
 
All 50 States have requested an Amendment Convention and congress has ignored more than 600 requests

Do you even stop to think about the absurdity of your lie before you say it? The constitution was ratified in June 1788. If there had been 600 requests, or 2741 months ago. Your wild ass bullshit claim means that requests for constitutional conventions happen at a rate of every 4 and a half months.

:slap:

Don't be such an idiot.

See post 137.
 

Forum List

Back
Top