Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #401
Right. As I've posted before you're not only dumb but vulgar and disgusting.
The Liberty Amendments
- Thread starter Boss
- Start date
Right. As I've posted before you're not only dumb but vulgar and disgusting.
LadyGunSlinger
Conservative Babe
- Feb 6, 2011
- 19,589
- 3,352
- 280
LOL Thanks maggot. ;-)
Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #403
No problem, I suppose in your world those words are high praise.
Boss
Take a Memo:
- Thread starter
- #404
The state's number of delegates issue: no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage. What does that say? Quite simply, that each state would have the same number (i.e. equal suffrage) of delegates. The procedural rules would be determined by the delegation at the convention. The delegates would be appointed by the state legislatures.
The Articles of Confederation is a defunct document that has no relevance in this debate. The Constitution and Article V is all that matters here. There is no chance of a "runaway convention" because of the Constitution, which did not yet exist in 1787. While the Constitution does not give the States power to limit the convention, the States do in fact, have the power to determine the scope by the act of calling for the convention itself. A state cannot expressly call for a convention they have no idea of what it will be about, this would completely undermine the procedural constructs of Article V. Therefore, while Article V does not expressly grant them this power, they do retain it in essence.
Now, this may very well hone down Levin's proposed Amendments to only a few at a time, or maybe even one at a time, a far easier threshold to accomplish, and one that would serve as precedent for the remaining proposals. Again, Levin admits this is not going to be something that is easy and quick. Still, he HAS actually proposed a plan.... which, curiously, you are still avoiding the presentation of here.
I ask you once again, what is YOUR plan?
IlarMeilyr
Liability Reincarnate!
Neither alleged "fact" in hazmutt's post is an actual fact.
Mr. Levin is indeed a Constitutional Scholar.
-- scholar - definition of scholar by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Mr. Levin holds a doctorate in the field of law. He is an accomplished author on the topic of Constitutional law and jurisprudence. He also has a rich basis of knowledge in philosophy and history to complement his scholarship on Constitutional law.
Only an ignorant person or a dishonest one would deny that he is a scholar. Merely disagreeing with him is not the same thing as an honest denial of his qualification as a scholar.
And Mr. Levin (via Landmark Legal, which he heads) has filed numerous lawsuits and briefs and Mr. Levin has been an attorney of record on several of those suits and on those briefs. One need not appear in Court to practice law.
So, hazmutt is flatly wrong on both of the allegedly "factual" claims he made.
Last edited:
Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #406
Ted Kaczynski is a learned and erudite person too as is Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.
IlarMeilyr
Liability Reincarnate!
Maybe. Are they published, too?
Ted was a sick monster. Mark Levin? Not.
Jihadist ***** Nidal Hasan was a murdering traitor. Mark Levin? Not.
So, if you ever have a post that comes with a coherent rational honest "point," send up a flare.
thanatos144
Gold Member
He is progressive he doesn't know how to be coherent.
What you posted in italics says what it says. Does it have any relevance to the number of delegates each state would be entitled to if an Article V convention were called? If it does I would appreciate you explaining it since you posted those words.
I see nothing in the Constitution suggesting the opinion you expressed above. How did you arrive at your conclusion?
Once again you express an opinion, but your opinion of irrelevancy seems to conflict with the words of a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who expressed the relevancy which was a precedent set at the convention of 1787:
“I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “___ Chief Justice Warren Burger
Once again you express an opinion but those who speak from a position of authority disagree with you:
“I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “___Chief Justice Warren Burger
Barry Goldwater said: "[I am] totally opposed [to a Constitutional Convention]...We may wind up with a Constitution so far different from that we have lived under for two hundred years that the Republic might not be able to continue."
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, writing an op-ed piece in the Miami Herald in 1986 wrote:
A few people have asked, "Why not another constitutional convention?"
... One of the most serious problems Article V poses is a runaway convention. There is no enforceable mechanism to prevent a convention from reporting out wholesale changes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Moreover, the absence of any mechanism to ensure representative selection of delegates could put a runaway convention in the hands of single-issue groups whose self-interest may be contrary to our national well-being.
"After 34 states have issued their call, Congress must call 'a convention for proposing amendments.' In my view the plurality of 'amendments' opens the door to constitutional change far beyond merely requiring a balanced federal budget."__ Professor Christopher Brown, University of Maryland School of Law
Once again you express an opinion which is not held by those who speak from a position of authority!
Calling for an Article V convention to propose amendments to our Constitution does absolutely nothing to address the cause of our sufferings which is a federal government acting in rebellion to our existing constitution and its legislative intent. And with regard to your assertion that I have avoided an alternative path is a groundless charge. In POST NO.370 I wrote:
Boss
Take a Memo:
- Thread starter
- #410
It's not my conclusion, it is what Harvard School of Law determined in the constitutional study done on the matter.
Each state shall have equal suffrage, not each population will be represented accordingly, by electoral method. This has nothing to do with the population, only the state governments. Their respective populations have nothing to do with their independent suffrage as states.
Procedural rules would be established by the prevailing convention body, pursuant to rules of parliamentary procedure, just as in the case of the Congress being the prevailing convention body when they call one. Whether you see anything in the Constitution or not, is beside the point.
Yes there is. The specific wording of Article V limits the convention to amendments. The mechanism is not limited in specific language, but the Harvard study suggests that it would not be possible to adhere to Article V without implied understanding by the states, as to the nature of the convention they were proposing. Therefore, states would simply reject proposals which didn't apply to the fundamental subject of the convention called for.
Well, yes I am. This comes from Harvard Freaking School of Law... do you comprehend that? They are the foremost authority on the subject. The case law and study are footnotes in Levin's book, if you care to read it.
Well, you are right. Calling a convention does nothing at all, except to call for a convention. The ratification of Constitutional amendments to remove power from Federal government and SCOTUS and return it to the people and states, does do something to address the cause and the problem itself.
This was tried in 2010, but just as soon as new Tea Party members landed in Washington, the establishment party heads corralled them and controlled them, as they always seem to do. This problem is systemic, it's in both political parties, it's entrenched in the body politic, part of the Federal Leviathan. It will never fix itself. They aren't going to vote themselves term limits, they aren't going to adopt a balanced budget amendment, both parties want to continue controlling federal authority and power, the executive branch wants to continue assuming power it doesn't have, the SCOTUS wants to continue feeding the beast of Federal encroachment. As I said, the Titanic is going down... when do we man the lifeboats? If we're not going to do that, what is your plan?
I am still waiting for you to explain why you posted the following words in support of your opinion. You wrote:
”The state's number of delegates issue: no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage. What does that say?”
How are those words applicable to determining how many delegates each state would be entitled to if an Article V convention were called? Additionally, you never provided the source of those words. I am interested in knowing how you arrive at your conclusions and that would include you documenting your source material.
I would like to address the rest of your post, especially the unsubstantiated opinions you expressed in it, but I feel it is necessary to first clear up the significance of your above words which is necessary for a productive discussion.
JWK
"What about a runaway convention? Yes, it is true that once you assemble a convention that states have called, they can do anything they want." ___ VirginiaÂ’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli
Boss
Take a Memo:
- Thread starter
- #412
Well, I am not really sure how else to explain it to you. Harvard's study says that it means each state would be equally represented by the same number of delegates unless they consent otherwise. Where do the words come from? They come from Article V.
With all due respect to Virginia's Attorney General, he is not completely correct in his opinion. The Harvard folks say, while there is no actual language to limit the convention, the state does retain the implied limitation of topic. It's no different than when Congress convenes a convention. Technically, Congress could allow other completely off-topic issues to be introduced, but they don't. The reason is complicated to explain, so I fear it will be over your head, since you didn't seem to know the wording of Article V.
If I tell you that you need 2/3 of a group to agree with you on something... you get 2/3 to agree... then change the thing they agreed on to something else, is that ethical or right? The state has to be able to rely on the specific subject matter of a convention before it can determine whether it supports it. You can't get their vote to have a convention about ending slavery, then once that vote is secured and the convention begins, change the issue to extending slavery for another 50 years. Harvard explains, while there is no specific language to limit the scope of a convention, it doesn't have to exist. The fact that the state cannot call for a convention if it doesn't know what the convention would be about, is what would keep the convention from running away.
As I said, congress has held these conventions 27 times, and never had one run away.
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
This is one of the many reasons I use e-books.
IlarMeilyr
Liability Reincarnate!
I love my Nook.
But if I wanted Mark Levin's autograph on any of his books which I have bought, the screen might get a bit difficult to read.
You wrote above that the following quote comes from Article V: ” no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage.” But there is no period after the word “suffrage”. That passage has absolutely nothing to do with the number of delegates a State would be entitled to should an Article V convention be called. Article V reads as follows:
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.(my emphasis)
The unavoidable truth is, our Constitution is silent as to the number of delegates each state would get if an Article V convention were called. And with regard to why this is important I wrote:
Will it be an equal representation or by a rule of apportionment in which our “progressive” states like California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and a few others will have an overwhelming representation at the convention because of their large population size? And if this is the case, could they not steamroll their progressive agenda through the convention and force it upon the entire United States by adopting a rule for ratification in which a simple majority vote in the Senate is all that is needed for ratification? This question is important because under the Articles of Confederation, the only precedent we have, a unanimous consent by the States was necessary to alter the Articles, but the Delegates to the 1787 Convention ignored that rule and required a mere nine states to ratify the new government they created for it to become effective.
Keep in mind our despotic Supreme Court would be answering this and other questions should an Article V convention be called!
So, what did Mark have to say concerning how each State’s number of delegates to the convention will be determined?
JWK
A few people have asked, "Why not another constitutional convention?"
... One of the most serious problems Article V poses is a runaway convention. There is no enforceable mechanism to prevent a convention from reporting out wholesale changes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Moreover, the absence of any mechanism to ensure representative selection of delegates could put a runaway convention in the hands of single-issue groups whose self-interest may be contrary to our national well-being. ___ U.S. Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, writing an op-ed piece in the Miami Herald in 1986
Last edited:
LadyGunSlinger
Conservative Babe
- Feb 6, 2011
- 19,589
- 3,352
- 280
This speaks for itself..
Boss
Take a Memo:
- Thread starter
- #418
Uhm, no. Again, the Harvard study referenced in Levin's footnotes, says that Congress and SCOTUS have no bearing on such a convention. The only way SCOTUS could become involved, is if Congress refused to call the convention after the states required had requested one. That final sentence in Article V is the important aspect of establishing how many delegates each state would have, they would be an equal number, as are the Senators for each state. Article V is not addressing the makeup of the Senate, that is addressed in a completely different Article, the subject here is the conventions for amendment, and it is clear (according to Harvard) that the representation would necessarily be equal. The language does seem a bit confusing, and Harvard admits this, but that was the purpose of their study, to review this Article and determine what parameters would be and how it would work.
In the case of a convention, there is no 'weighting of delegates' based on state populations, because the convention is not being called by the population, rather by the state entities themselves. Each state, required to have equal suffrage, would have exactly the same number of delegates, unless the states consented otherwise, which there would be no logical reason for them to do.
I’m still waiting for you to clear up the following matter. You wrote above that the following quote comes from Article V: ” no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage.” But there is no period after the word “suffrage”. That passage has absolutely nothing to do with the number of delegates a State would be entitled to should an Article V convention be called. Article V reads as follows:
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.(my emphasis)
The reason why I am trying to clear this matter up is because after quoting a few words from Article V, which I quote above, you went on to explain why you quoted those specific words. You wrote: “ What does that [the words you posted] say? Quite simply, that each state would have the same number (i.e. equal suffrage) of delegates.” But what you quoted from Article V had absolutely nothing to do with determining the number of delegates each state would be allotted if a convention were called. The words were exclusively added to Article V to insure “that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” When you quoted from Article V, why did you put a period after “Suffrage” and edit out “in the Senate”?
JWK
"We have only one Precedent, the Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. It was summoned, "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Article of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein." From the very beginning it did not feel confined by the call and gave us a totally new Constitution that completely replaced the Articles of Confederation. I see no reason to believe that a constitutional convention, 200 years later, could be more narrowly circumscribed." - Charles Alan Wright, School of Law, The University of Texas at Austin
Boss
Take a Memo:
- Thread starter
- #420
I realize you are myopically hung up on this, but again, it does not matter that there is no period after the word suffrage. The intention and purpose of the statement in Article V is clear and unambiguous, it is calling for "equal suffrage of the states" pursuant to the rights of equal suffrage in the Senate, as it contextually applies to a convention under Article V. There were many arguments presented during the formation of Article V, and the point was raised, the States needed some assurances they would not be disenfranchised through demagoguery and politics. The provisions of Article V allow STATES (not the population) to call for a convention. The representation at the convention HAS TO BE necessarily representative of the STATE not the population of the state. Therefore, there is no fundamental purpose for establishing greater delegate numbers for certain states, as that would give those states MORE suffrage than others. Are you grasping this yet? Do we need to break out the coloring books?
I quoted the relevant part for clarity sake. I realize you think you've caught me in a contradiction and established some ambiguity with regard to the selection of delegates to a convention, but you simply haven't. Article V is quite simply NOT the part of the Constitution which establishes the makeup of the Senate of the United States. That is done in Article 1 Section 3, so it would be redundant (and illogical) to again make this establishment in a totally different Article, dealing with a totally different subject. The statement is establishing that the convention shall be "equal in suffrage" as is the Senate itself. It mentions the Senate as a means to illustrate the principle of equal suffrage, but you are confounding the meaning and trying to claim it has no bearing. Of course it has bearing, or it wouldn't be there!
But it is NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION! There is no provision in the Constitution for a Constitutional Convention. And it's sort of a lie that we don't have precedent, we certainly have precedent of 27 other times the Constitution has been Amended. This process is really no different, other than the fact that the states appoint delegates which replace Congress in the process. Other than that one single aspect, the process works exactly the same way.
Another key point is, in 1787, there was no Article V or US Constitution. The fact that Article V specifically allows for states to call a convention to amend the Constitution, and not to allow them to rewrite the Constitution itself, and the fact that whatever the state-called convention does, it would then have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states, prohibits any possibility of a "runaway convention" or dramatic rewriting of the Constitution. Furthermore, according to Harvard Law review, the convention would be in no danger of even considering such dramatic undertaking, out of sheer point of order. The States would object to any such radical proposal as it was not endorsed by the state in calling the convention. Again... you can't say: You wanna do a convention to discuss an Amendment to do X? Sure! Okay, let's discuss doing Y now! The implied purpose of the convention would already have been established, and issues unrelated or not pertaining to the general issue the convention was called for by the state, would simply not be allowed. And AGAIN... The Congress has undertaken this process 27 times, and never had any runaways.
You are quite simply, FEAR MONGERING for the sake of being obtuse. You have offered NO idea or plan to change the current dynamic. You tossed out some anecdotal idea that the Tea Party can make a formal list of demands, but we did that in 2010. First and foremost, was the REPEAL of Obamacare! Well.... Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, has announced they will not try to defund Obamacare, and they lack the votes to repeal it. So, do you have any more great ideas? And if you do, can't they also be advocated and pushed for at the same time as this plan? Is there some unwritten rule that if we proceed with Levin's idea, we can't do anything else?
The biggest puzzlement I have is, you seem like a conscientious person who is on the conservative side of reigning in government and returning America to the Constitutional republic it was intended to be by the founders. Yet you are trashing and bashing this idea, which would do exactly that. Instead, you think we should continue to have faith in elected officials to fix themselves. To maintain the status quo, and hope the next crop of Republicrats will be better than the last. The questions and objections you are throwing up, are the same exact objections and questions being presented by the establishment ruling class crowd in Washington. It's important for you to realize, these people who you obviously listen to and hold great esteem for, are not interested in any state-called convention to remove them from power. They have a vested interest in derailing this train before it gains any momentum, so they can remain in their positions of power. Are you a staffer? Do you have some vested interest in maintaining the status quo?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Trump kicks Tucker Carlson out of MAGA [Tuckiyya Qatarlson]- Started by Pastelli
- Replies: 2
-
Who was actually being psychologically tested?- Started by DennisPTate
- Replies: 6
-
