Proposed Constitutional Amendments at the Convention of States (Poll)

[frigidweirdo]

2. The current system isn't flawed. That's just how it works. There are conservative and liberal justices who argue the intent of the US Constitution, then count the votes.

5. I just proved to you that the PA legislature can't be gerrymandered like NC's. The point being that 26 states could kill a Federal Law or regulation that they deem onerous. The point isn't about gerrymandering state legislatures.

The current system is flawed, you literally told me it's flawed.
Yes, "That's just how it works", it works flawed.

They count the votes, but the votes aren't equal. The right, with LESS VOTES have MORE SEATS. So the right wins all the time, though not through democracy. Just through cheating and playing the flawed system.

Doesn't matter if you proved the PA system can't be gerrymandered. You admitted the NC system can be, if the NC system can be, then all the other systems can be, either through the current system they have, or through changing things.

The point is that if you can gerrymander the states, one side can get more states and therefore they can control the federal government.

 

[Rigby5]

What's the point of this fantasy? Republicans don't control anything close to 38 state legislatures. They got close once, but due to their consistent disgusting behavior, they're not close now, and they'll never be close again.

What does this have to do with Republicans or Democrats?
This is more of an issue between the federal and state jurisdictions.

 

[Dragonlady]

1. The Federal government would be fine, out of money but fine. The Constitution has Division and Separation of Powers. You being from Canada wouldn't know that.

2. You type lies with no proof. Term Limits would stop vegetables like Feinstein and McConnell, et.al., from staying too long. The proposed mandatory retirement age is 75, good call.

3. The USSC isn't owned by anyone, they have life terms, they don't need money to get re-elected. 9 justices is the right number. You may not recall the "Biden Rule", huh?

In Context: Biden Rule on SCOTUS nominations amid election

The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has prompted a look back at what Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said

www.politifact.com

Biden said that if a vacancy arose, Bush shouldn’t nominate a justice, and if he did, Biden would discourage the Senate from holding confirmation hearings amid campaign season. Biden said that such a nomination process would be more bitter than the one for Clarence Thomas the year before.

I probably understand how your government functions better than you do. We studies US civics and history in school. And I was a history major who studied your Founding for various projects.

That's why I know what you're proposed is unworkable. In the 18th Century, when the nation was formed, the distances between states, and the speed of communications, the differing climates and needs of the various states meant that most control needed to be state specific and local, to take into consideration planting schedules and economic structures.

In the 21st Century, where communication is instant, the idea that your education cirriculum and and rights differ depending on what state you live in, is ludicrous. You're not an agrarian nation any longer. You need a foundational platform of education for your nation. You need standardized rights and education across the nation.

 

[kyzr]

The current system is flawed, you literally told me it's flawed. Yes, "That's just how it works", it works flawed.
They count the votes, but the votes aren't equal. The right, with LESS VOTES have MORE SEATS. So the right wins all the time, though not through democracy. Just through cheating and playing the flawed system.

Doesn't matter if you proved the PA system can't be gerrymandered. You admitted the NC system can be, if the NC system can be, then all the other systems can be, either through the current system they have, or through changing things. The point is that if you can gerrymander the states, one side can get more states and therefore they can control the federal government.

1. The Supreme Court is NOT flawed. There are many cases that get decided 9-0. That proves the USSC works when they focus on the LAW and the Constitrution instead of partisan bias. The LAW and the CONSTITUTION should not be subverted by voter fraud and political hacks. The USSC is just fine, as long as the democrats don't try to "pack" the court.

2. BOTH parties gerrymander. Not the issue. The issue is should 26 state legislatures be allowed to repeal Federal Law or Federal Regulations? I say YES.

 

[kyzr]

I probably understand how your government functions better than you do. We studies US civics and history in school. And I was a history major who studied your Founding for various projects.
That's why I know what you're proposed is unworkable. In the 18th Century, when the nation was formed, the distances between states, and the speed of communications, the differing climates and needs of the various states meant that most control needed to be state specific and local, to take into consideration planting schedules and economic structures.
In the 21st Century, where communication is instant, the idea that your education curriculum and and rights differ depending on what state you live in, is ludicrous. You're not an agrarian nation any longer. You need a foundational platform of education for your nation. You need standardized rights and education across the nation.

1. The US foundational platform used to be "reading, writing, and arithmetic".
2. Now the democrats want to subvert STEM subjects with fake history and deviant behaviors.
3. Some states want to protect parental rights and traditional family values.
4. Some states want to use vouchers to allow their kids to get a parochial education.
5. Some states want to push for transsexual transitions without informing parents.

There is no way to standardize rights and education across the nation. There is too big a divide between red values and blue values.

 

[frigidweirdo]

1. The Supreme Court is NOT flawed. There are many cases that get decided 9-0. That proves the USSC works when they focus on the LAW and the Constitrution instead of partisan bias. The LAW and the CONSTITUTION should not be subverted by voter fraud and political hacks. The USSC is just fine, as long as the democrats don't try to "pack" the court.

2. BOTH parties gerrymander. Not the issue. The issue is should 26 state legislatures be allowed to repeal Federal Law or Federal Regulations? I say YES.

No, just because it gets 9-0 doesn't mean it's not flawed. Certainly doesn't "prove" it.

Yes, both parties gerrymander.

And you say 26 state legislatures should be allowed to repeal federal laws.
What would happen if the Democrats gerrymandered to the point where they always controlled 26 or more of the states?
Essentially though I think you don't care. You want this law in place because you know the Republicans will ALWAYS control things. Democracy, however little the US has, will be totally out of the window.

Why? Because Republicans control smaller states.

It's why statehood for Puerto Rico is such an issue. Because it impacts the Senate. The Republicans are down 15 million votes in the last three Senate elections, and yet the Republicans are only one seat behind the Democrats.

The whole system is a complete lack of democracy, the people's will means nothing. As long as Republicans are getting the power they crave, then they're fine.
The Supreme Court, you're fine as long as Republicans are controlling it, which they do. You want a system whereby Republicans can literally make the US Congress Republican permanently.

That's not right.

 

[kyzr]

No, just because it gets 9-0 doesn't mean it's not flawed. Certainly doesn't "prove" it. Yes, both parties gerrymander. And you say 26 state legislatures should be allowed to repeal federal laws.
What would happen if the Democrats gerrymandered to the point where they always controlled 26 or more of the states?
Essentially though I think you don't care. You want this law in place because you know the Republicans will ALWAYS control things. Democracy, however little the US has, will be totally out of the window.

Why? Because Republicans control smaller states. It's why statehood for Puerto Rico is such an issue. Because it impacts the Senate. The Republicans are down 15 million votes in the last three Senate elections, and yet the Republicans are only one seat behind the Democrats.

The whole system is a complete lack of democracy, the people's will means nothing. As long as Republicans are getting the power they crave, then they're fine. The Supreme Court, you're fine as long as Republicans are controlling it, which they do. You want a system whereby Republicans can literally make the US Congress Republican permanently. That's not right.

The US Constitution is the agreed upon document that guides our republic.
I offered several amendments that are being considered if (38) states can support any of them.
The USSC majority and the control of the Federal government swings between Rs and Ds over time.
I don't want either party to control anything permanently.
I'm old and have seen many cycles in both the USSC and in DC. Sooner or later Justice Thomas will retire, then Justice Roberts, who knows who will replace them?
I was hoping Thomas would retire so Trump would put in a young conservative. That didn't happen.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The US Constitution is the agreed upon document that guides our republic.
I offered several amendments that are being considered if (38) states can support any of them.
The USSC majority and the control of the Federal government swings between Rs and Ds over time.
I don't want either party to control anything permanently.
I'm old and have seen many cycles in both the USSC and in DC. Sooner or later Justice Thomas will retire, then Justice Roberts, who knows who will replace them?
I was hoping Thomas would retire so Trump would put in a young conservative. That didn't happen.

It's not really the "agreed upon document", it's more the document that is currently law. And enough people don't care about it that it stays as is it.

However, I'm not sure why you wrote this. We're having a discussion about CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. I mean, your argument is "this is the way it is, we can't change things, by the way, these are the things I want to change"

That doesn't help us having this discussion if you keep going off to rubbish debate tactics, does it?

The Supreme Court used to swing. Now it won't. Why?

Because the Republicans have got themselves organized.

Look at what they did when Scalia died. They literally refused to put a new justice on the court until after the election. This goes totally against the morality, it's politics, it's hard politics and it's make sure you get what you want.

And remember, when this happened the Dems had the presidency, and the Reps had the Senate, why? Because the Dems had an 18 million majority for the previous three Senate elections.

Literally in 2016 the Dems had a nearly 11 million majority and gained two seats
In 2014 Reps had a 3.5 million majority and gained NINE seats
In 2012 Dems had a 10 million majority and gained two seats.
Does that look like Democracy to you? No, it does not.

Why then?
States with one member of the House

Alaska - Rep
North Dakota - Rep
Delaware - Dem
South Dakota - Rep
Vermont - Dem
Wyoming - Rep

So that's a 4-2 for the Republicans.

Republicans benefit from this. They gain from this

The Senate requires a LARGE majority from the Dems to keep it.

They have a 15 million majority and are one seat ahead

In 2020 Dems had 26 million majority and a 50/50 split in the Senate

In 2018 Dems had a 24 million majority and a 48/52 split against them.

Does that sound fair to you?

Also, the last two Republican presidents have been elected without the majority, they've won ONE presidential vote since the 1990s. Yet had two of the five presidents. Literally two of their three elections with they didn't win the majority.

The House is the only one that's anywhere near fair. The Senate and Presidency are the important ones for choosing Supreme Court justices and they're weighted MASSIVELY in Republicans favor.

And that's not to say that the whole damn electoral system is rubbish in the first place.

You don't want either party to control things permanently, yet you want an amendment to the Constitution that would literally make that happen. I'm not sure how honest you're being with yourself or with me.

 

[kyzr]

It's not really the "agreed upon document", it's more the document that is currently law. And enough people don't care about it that it stays as is it.

However, I'm not sure why you wrote this. We're having a discussion about CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. I mean, your argument is "this is the way it is, we can't change things, by the way, these are the things I want to change" That doesn't help us having this discussion if you keep going off to rubbish debate tactics, does it?

The Supreme Court used to swing. Now it won't. Why? Because the Republicans have got themselves organized. Look at what they did when Scalia died. They literally refused to put a new justice on the court until after the election. This goes totally against the morality, it's politics, it's hard politics and it's make sure you get what you want. And remember, when this happened the Dems had the presidency, and the Reps had the Senate, why? Because the Dems had an 18 million majority for the previous three Senate elections.

Literally in 2016 the Dems had a nearly 11 million majority and gained two seats. In 2014 Reps had a 3.5 million majority and gained NINE seats. In 2012 Dems had a 10 million majority and gained two seats. Does that look like Democracy to you? No, it does not. Why then? States with one member of the House. So that's a 4-2 for the Republicans. Republicans benefit from this. They gain from this

The Senate requires a LARGE majority from the Dems to keep it. They have a 15 million majority and are one seat ahead. In 2020 Dems had 26 million majority and a 50/50 split in the Senate
In 2018 Dems had a 24 million majority and a 48/52 split against them. Does that sound fair to you?

Also, the last two Republican presidents have been elected without the majority, they've won ONE presidential vote since the 1990s. Yet had two of the five presidents. Literally two of their three elections with they didn't win the majority.

The House is the only one that's anywhere near fair. The Senate and Presidency are the important ones for choosing Supreme Court justices and they're weighted MASSIVELY in Republicans favor.

And that's not to say that the whole damn electoral system is rubbish in the first place. You don't want either party to control things permanently, yet you want an amendment to the Constitution that would literally make that happen. I'm not sure how honest you're being with yourself or with me.

1. OK, so the Constitution is current law.

2. This discussion is about the specific 6 proposed amendments being considered by the proposed Convention of States. Many others were considered, but these 6 had the most support. Its not "rubbish debate tactics", its reality. Its these 6 as proposed, or no amendments at this time.

3. The USSC will swing over time, it always does, so will the presidency.

4. You're whining about the "Biden Rule".

5. You're whining about the Electoral College. The EC was the genius of the Founding Fathers. It prevents a few big states from dominating the political arena. The Electoral College isn't going anywhere. Stop whining about it. Or, keep whining, Whatever.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here is a summary of the proposed Amendments to the US Constitution pending approval at the Convention of States.
If/when 38 state legislatures approve any of the following proposed amendments they are approved, and NOT subject to review by the president, congress, nor the Supreme Court.

1) Term limits for Congress (9 terms in the House and 3 terms in the Senate)
2) Cap U.S. Supreme Court judges at nine & a quorum at six
3) Balanced Budget Amendment
4) Set boundaries to the Commerce Clause ( the Department of Commerce will be eliminated, states regulate commerce)
5) Enable states to overrule federal laws and regulations (a simple majority of all state legislatures (i.e. 26) can repeal any federal law)
6) Stop the federal government from seizing states' land and resources (all land and resources within a state shall be regulated by that state)

The Convention of States is a complete waste of time and effort, like Thelma and Louise deciding to get an oil change as they're hurdling off the cliff.

 

[frigidweirdo]

1. OK, so the Constitution is current law.

2. This discussion is about the specific 6 proposed amendments being considered by the proposed Convention of States. Many others were considered, but these 6 had the most support. Its not "rubbish debate tactics", its reality. Its these 6 as proposed, or no amendments at this time.

3. The USSC will swing over time, it always does, so will the presidency.

4. You're whining about the "Biden Rule".

5. You're whining about the Electoral College. The EC was the genius of the Founding Fathers. It prevents a few big states from dominating the political arena. The Electoral College isn't going anywhere. Stop whining about it. Or, keep whining, Whatever.

Well, that killed the conversation.

 

[FA_Q2]

5. You're whining about the Electoral College. The EC was the genius of the Founding Fathers. It prevents a few big states from dominating the political arena. The Electoral College isn't going anywhere. Stop whining about it. Or, keep whining, Whatever.

This stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of our government. Those that hate the EC and senate generally do so because they see our government as a unified entity with differing levels of bureaucratic processes. This is, of course, fundamentally flawed. They think that the president runs the executive branch period rather than recognizing the core concept of separation of powers. The states do not stand under the federal government as a bureaucratic necessity but rather they stand in OPPOSITION to the feds as a way of diffusing power. The president may run the federal executive branch but should not be in power over the individual state executive branches.

Hence why the president and the senate are not elected by the people but rather by the states. This fundamental idea has been lost in the modern view of the government and it is to our detriment. You can see how thoroughly it has been lost whenever discussing the EC because the people that argue against it never even consider that the feds are not all encompassing or that NY should not have the same say about governance in VA that the local populace does.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here is a summary of the proposed Amendments to the US Constitution pending approval at the Convention of States.
If/when 38 state legislatures approve any of the following proposed amendments they are approved, and NOT subject to review by the president, congress, nor the Supreme Court.

1) Term limits for Congress (9 terms in the House and 3 terms in the Senate)
2) Cap U.S. Supreme Court judges at nine & a quorum at six
3) Balanced Budget Amendment
4) Set boundaries to the Commerce Clause ( the Department of Commerce will be eliminated, states regulate commerce)
5) Enable states to overrule federal laws and regulations (a simple majority of all state legislatures (i.e. 26) can repeal any federal law)
6) Stop the federal government from seizing states' land and resources (all land and resources within a state shall be regulated by that state)

Tree of Liberty > COS

 

[JWBooth]

Tree of Liberty > COS

A COS is a bad idea. Not because it is a bad idea but because once initiated there is no stopping the tom foolery it can and will get up to. The original constitutional convention was called, not to rewrite and centralize the national government but to patch up the Articles of Confederation, look how that turned out.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Article V:


[emphasis mine]

Congress will not call together a Convention of the States in order to gut Congress' power ... elect better congressmen and the problem is over ...

Your math is wrong ... 3/4's the States is 38 ... We need only 34 States to APPLY to Congress to seat a Convention ... we still need the 3/4's to approve any Amendment ...

Congress can amend the cotus, OR 2/3 of the states can apply to the congress to call a convention of states.

So, starting the ammendment process is not solely in the hands of congress.

And the word “apply” in this instance is not a “request” of congress, because the following word “shall” means they have to do it.

 

[Oddball]

Here is a summary of the proposed Amendments to the US Constitution pending approval at the Convention of States.
If/when 38 state legislatures approve any of the following proposed amendments they are approved, and NOT subject to review by the president, congress, nor the Supreme Court.

1) Term limits for Congress (9 terms in the House and 3 terms in the Senate)
2) Cap U.S. Supreme Court judges at nine & a quorum at six
3) Balanced Budget Amendment
4) Set boundaries to the Commerce Clause ( the Department of Commerce will be eliminated, states regulate commerce)
5) Enable states to overrule federal laws and regulations (a simple majority of all state legislatures (i.e. 26) can repeal any federal law)
6) Stop the federal government from seizing states' land and resources (all land and resources within a state shall be regulated by that state)

Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments.

 

[ReinyDays]

Congress can amend the cotus, OR 2/3 of the states can apply to the congress to call a convention of states.

So, starting the ammendment process is not solely in the hands of congress.

And the word “apply” in this instance is not a “request” of congress, because the following word “shall” means they have to do it.

You're missing the conditional clause "whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary" ...

Whenever we have 2/3 the States demanding change, we'll find out what SCOTUS thinks ... either way, we still need 3/4's the States to approve ... so we're really in a far-fetched situation where 3/4's of the States approve, but can only 2/3's to request ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments.

No military? ... and you want to return the Senate to The Rich? ... seriously, you want The House of Lords here in the United States? ...

Interesting ... if George Washington was made King ... then our current King would be Robert E. Lee V ... (note some rounding errors) ...

 

[Oddball]

No military? ... and you want to return the Senate to The Rich? ... seriously, you want The House of Lords here in the United States? ...

Murica had a robust military before the income tax.... Fought wars, built roads, and educated children too.

Return the Senate to the state legislatures....Leaving it to popular vote has given us an institution full of dinosaurs like Mitch McTurtle and Dianne Frankenstein.

Interesting ... if George Washington was made King ... then our current King would be Robert E. Lee V ... (note some rounding errors) ...

Nonsense.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A COS is a bad idea. Not because it is a bad idea but because once initiated there is no stopping the tom foolery it can and will get up to. The original constitutional convention was called, not to rewrite and centralize the national government but to patch up the Articles of Confederation, look how that turned out.

You have to be an idiot to believe that the Controlled Opposition Republicans in the Legislatures want what's best for the People.