Five Alive: Constitutional Convention being explored by states

[TemplarKormac]

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

 

[Mac1958]

.

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.

.

 

[TemplarKormac]

.

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.

.

Might be wishful thinking, but, the seeds are being sewn. When the states speak, Washington will be forced to listen. Just watch and see what happens.

 

[gipper]

Why bother when the current one is so easily ignored or distorted?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why bo

Assuming you said "Why bother?"

I'll tell you why we should bother. How long would it take you to go bankrupt if you spent your money in the same manner our government did? First, you would run out of money, then you'd borrow and borrow to stay afloat, after borrowing so much money, your debt would be nearly impossible to pay off. You'd be on the streets.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why bother? If you had cancer and the cure was sitting in front of you, would you refuse to take it?

 

[Derideo_Te]

.

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.

 

[JoeB131]

Why bother? If you had cancer and the cure was sitting in front of you, would you refuse to take it?

We do have a cure to debt. It's called 'Making the rich pay their fair share".

Works every time it's tried.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

.

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.

.

Might be wishful thinking, but, the seeds are being sewn. When the states speak, Washington will be forced to listen. Just watch and see what happens.

You're incredibly naive.

The right always thinks bigger government is the answer.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The federal budget is nothing like your personal checkbook, dummy.

A balanced budget amendment is a dog whistle to people who cannot think through issues. Once you get beyond the "common sense" bumper sticker slogans, the reality hits you in the face....and nutter dummies can't handle it. "But.....but....but....it's common sense!!!!!!"

5 Reasons Why a Federal Balanced Budget Amendment Is a Bad Idea Brookings Institution

 

[gipper]

Why bo

Assuming you said "Why bother?"

I'll tell you why we should bother. How long would it take you to go bankrupt if you spent your money in the same manner our government did? First, you would run out of money, then you'd borrow and borrow to stay afloat, after borrowing so much money, your debt would be nearly impossible to pay off. You'd be on the streets.

The Constitution is ignored today. Placing another amendment to it, won't fix anything.

The political class is nearly entirely owned by the elites...and the elites always get their way.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Why bo

Assuming you said "Why bother?"

I'll tell you why we should bother. How long would it take you to go bankrupt if you spent your money in the same manner our government did? First, you would run out of money, then you'd borrow and borrow to stay afloat, after borrowing so much money, your debt would be nearly impossible to pay off. You'd be on the streets.

The Constitution is ignored today. Placing another amendment to it, won't fix anything.

The political class is nearly entirely owned by the elites...and the elites always get their way.

They do?

 

[Roadrunner]

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

I doubt a CC could be limited to one topic.

 

[gipper]

Why bo

Assuming you said "Why bother?"

I'll tell you why we should bother. How long would it take you to go bankrupt if you spent your money in the same manner our government did? First, you would run out of money, then you'd borrow and borrow to stay afloat, after borrowing so much money, your debt would be nearly impossible to pay off. You'd be on the streets.

The Constitution is ignored today. Placing another amendment to it, won't fix anything.

The political class is nearly entirely owned by the elites...and the elites always get their way.

They do?

They do.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Why bo

Assuming you said "Why bother?"

I'll tell you why we should bother. How long would it take you to go bankrupt if you spent your money in the same manner our government did? First, you would run out of money, then you'd borrow and borrow to stay afloat, after borrowing so much money, your debt would be nearly impossible to pay off. You'd be on the streets.

The Constitution is ignored today. Placing another amendment to it, won't fix anything.

The political class is nearly entirely owned by the elites...and the elites always get their way.

They do?

They do.

Well then. Please tell me who they are and what they want. I will invest my money accordingly. You must be filthy rich!!

 

[occupied]

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

I doubt a CC could be limited to one topic.

Every special interest group would come with their wish lists. Right wingers hate due process and equal protection so that would certainly be under attack as well as the definition of citizenship.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The federal budget is nothing like your personal checkbook, dummy.

A balanced budget amendment is a dog whistle to people who cannot think through issues. Once you get beyond the "common sense" bumper sticker slogans, the reality hits you in the face....and nutter dummies can't handle it. "But.....but....but....it's common sense!!!!!!"

5 Reasons Why a Federal Balanced Budget Amendment Is a Bad Idea Brookings Institution

A BBA is a 'solution' in search of a problem.

Advocating for such an 'amendment' is idiocy; it's perfectly appropriate for the government of a modern industrialized nation to cycle from surplus to deficit then back to surplus again – particularly during a recession when government spending is needed.

Advocates of such an 'amendment' have no interest in 'smaller government' or 'fiscal responsibility,' they see it as a weapon to use against necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy, and as a means to destroy social programs that run counter to subjective, errant conservative dogma.

 

[gipper]

Why bo

Assuming you said "Why bother?"

I'll tell you why we should bother. How long would it take you to go bankrupt if you spent your money in the same manner our government did? First, you would run out of money, then you'd borrow and borrow to stay afloat, after borrowing so much money, your debt would be nearly impossible to pay off. You'd be on the streets.

The Constitution is ignored today. Placing another amendment to it, won't fix anything.

The political class is nearly entirely owned by the elites...and the elites always get their way.

They do?

They do.

Well then. Please tell me who they are and what they want. I will invest my money accordingly. You must be filthy rich!!

Damn....

How could you not know? Are you blind?

The power elite are the top .1% and they want world domination, which most see as a Marxist political command and control structure, centralized into the hands of a select few leaders they have complete control of.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The power elite are the top .1% and they want world domination, which most see as a Marxist political command and control structure, centralized into the hands of a select few leaders they have complete control of.

You will find a far more receptive audience for that drivel in the Conspiracy Forum.

Conspiracy Theories US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Freewill]

Why bother? If you had cancer and the cure was sitting in front of you, would you refuse to take it?

We do have a cure to debt. It's called 'Making the rich pay their fair share".

Works every time it's tried.

What is the rich's fair share?