October 18, 2014, 03:41 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
Allowing a Constitutional Convention is a terrible idea.
Think about this: Are you unhappy with the state of our government? Me, too. OK, so given that "we the people" have voted for this state of affairs, that means that you and I are in the minority, and people who have different values than us are in the majority. So, if we open up the Constitution, which side do you think is more likely to have the votes to re-write / remove parts of the Constitution, the few or the many? Now you understand why it's a terrible idea. |
October 18, 2014, 03:49 PM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,274
|
IMO,the language of Article 5 and the provision for the States,does not place the Constitution in any more jeopardy than a session of Congress does.
Congress has the same power. I see no reason to trust a supermajority of the States coming together for a common outrage less than we are forced to trust a Federal Congress every year. I think it is brilliant that the authors of the Constitution foresaw an out of control Federal Government,and gave the States the means to say "No" In this way,Article 5 has,for the States,something in common with the 2nd Ammendment. |
October 18, 2014, 04:40 PM | #28 |
Member
Join Date: June 5, 2011
Posts: 30
|
Missouri isn't backing down anytime soon. Every year they pass less restrictive gun laws even if that means the state Congress has to override that moron Gov. Nixon. As the sang goes, Go MO!
-Robb |
October 18, 2014, 05:24 PM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 6, 2009
Posts: 341
|
From what I understand, each state gets one vote in a convention. This would definitely give the small red states an advantage over the big blue states.
|
October 18, 2014, 05:50 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,274
|
IMO,we have far less to be concerned about with a Article 5 Convention of the States than we do a session of the Supreme Court,
Where we can ,at this point,generally count on the deadlock of the polar extremes,and our Liberty in the hands of just one or two individuals deciding which way to swing. That is scary! |
October 18, 2014, 09:03 PM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2009
Location: Utah
Posts: 285
|
Many have mentioned term limits. Though in theory I like them, they have in other countries caused huge corruption and opens the door for these people who have nothing to loose because they will be out of a job soon, to try and take as much money for a vote a certain way as they can get.
I know it already happens, but in a world of either no pay or term limits it would be much much worse. Same thing happens if you don't pay the guards who work in a prison enough money. If they think they are not making enough money the quick dirty money starts to look good and the risk becomes worth it. I thing no to a CC. I think we the people need to learn about the issues and vote the way we think is right. We the people need to understand that we can and should hold these people accountable. That does happen from time to time. I think we should have campaign reform so good patriots who are not millionaires or backed by one, can run and have an equal shot at winning! We should require any pay raises or benefits be approved by the voters. This would make them want to do what we want them to do. Mel |
October 19, 2014, 12:26 AM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,274
|
Term limits are one topic worthy of debate.Lifetime terms for SCOTUS merit debate.A more disciplined approach to spending,up to the possibility of balanced budget,and originally,our Senators were selected by the State Legislatures rather than the general election.I can see merit in returning to that process,as it returns the Senators responsibility to the State,rather than the Federal Party.
The Federal Government has taken too much power.That needs to be scaled back.The Federal Government will never scale back its own power. To provide a mechanism short of armed revolution,the Founders wisely wrote in the provision for the States in Article 5. If it is not now time for the States to rein in our Federal Gorvernment...a Government that has become of the government,by the government,for the government...if it is not now time,when?? Does anyone believe our Federal Government will place itself in check? |
October 19, 2014, 01:04 AM | #33 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Pretty much everything mentioned could be implemented without a constitutional convention -- by, in most cases, statute, or by the alternate amendment process. So apparently there is insufficient political support for those changes. So why would anyone expect a constitutional convention to work?
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
October 19, 2014, 02:37 AM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,274
|
I am not a legal scholar,and I cannot do this argument justice.
This man is ,and he can. http://www.marklevinshow.com/common/...8484&is_corp=0 http://landmarklegal.org/DesktopDefault.aspx http://www.landmarklegal.org/Desktop....aspx?tabid=14 Last edited by HiBC; October 19, 2014 at 02:46 AM. |
October 19, 2014, 10:38 AM | #35 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
there are a great many people who believe that once a Constitutional Convention is called for, EVERYTHING is up for grabs.
And that includes who represents us at the convention, and in what proportion. Quote:
Delegates to such a convention will be determined by the legislatures of the states. (those people ALREADY in office, you know, the ones we distrust, and think are doing a horrible job now...) AND THOSE PEOPLE STAY in office until the convention is over and its new rules ratified. Everything is open to change, and the people deciding what to vote on, and how to vote are ONLY as responsible to the American public as their personal morals. Even the tiny threat of not re-electing them is meaningless. We would, effectively have NO CONTROL at all. Term Limits. A double edged sword, with no guard. Main problem? Corrupt, ineffective career politicians. Secondary problem? Corrupt, ineffective term limited politicians. As long as the problem is "meet the new boss, ..same as the old boss.." how much does it really matter if we get new faces every few years or keep the old ones? Many, many years ago, I learned the basic truth in the answer to this old soldier's gripe... young private: "(deleted), Army!...." old trooper: "It's not the ARMY, its the people in it!" We have term limits, simply elect someone else. I don't recall anyone ever promising it would be easy....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
October 19, 2014, 10:53 AM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 23, 2008
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 2,126
|
In answer to the OP's question, I can say with some conviction, YES.
|
October 20, 2014, 08:13 AM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
|
"I do not read law well."
Neither do I, and I'm sure a lot (if not most) of others don't either. The Constitution as written is readable by us common folks. What do you think a newly written constitution would read like? That's a scary thought. |
October 20, 2014, 08:28 AM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 6, 2009
Posts: 341
|
If you read article 5, it does say that three-fourths of the states have to approve of any changes. Are some of you saying that isn't enough of a safeguard to prevent anything dangerous or stupid from happening?
That is why I originally asked if there are at least thirteen states that would defend the second amendment. Maybe there are not! |
October 20, 2014, 10:25 AM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
I imagine there are 13 States that would try and defend the 2A. I question how effective they would be. The real threat is the exemptions people would be tempted to throw onto the existing amendments, and rights.
I can easily see the first, fourth, and fifth amendments taking the real beating. Free Speech is ok, but not hate speech. Or this speech, or that speech. Which sounds great. We're, most of us, past the time when the KKK "made sense" and don't want to listen to their propaganda. What we forget is that the same protections they're enjoying now was what gave Dr King his voice. So in an attempt to silence the hate groups, we could easily hamper whatever the next civil rights movement could be. What about the folks at the convention tired of hearing about some criminal getting off on a technicality? I'm sure there are people out there who will read US v Black and be more angry that some felon got away with possession of a firearm than the police seizing and searching someone they shouldn't. Should we take a poll of all the folks here to see who think Lois Lerner should be compelled to testify against herself before Congress? We could go about "fixing" a lot of things that didn't "work" the way they "should have" that one time, only to end up breaking them far, far, far worse. And the fallout, oh the fallout. It would take a generation or more to wade through it all, as previous court rulings get re-challenged, re-interpreted, and revised. Will any changes to the 4A/5A invalidate Miranda? Stop, Question, And Frisk"? Terry Stops in general? Will students still have fewer first amendment protections at school? Fiddle with free speech to silence hate speech, and you can bet Imminent Lawless Action won't be the standard anymore. And while Justice Potter may know it when he sees it, the rest of us might have to wait for the trial to end. |
October 20, 2014, 11:51 AM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 6, 2009
Posts: 341
|
I have read and reread article 5 of the US Constitution. It clearly states that three-fourths of the state legislatures have to approve any changes. This was put in there so that states could have a way to combat an out of control Federal Government.
|
October 20, 2014, 01:22 PM | #41 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
A super-majority allows something to be done, but assures that anything that is done requires a significant consensus -- more than just a majority. But it has nothing to do with the underlying purpose. If three-fourths of the state legislatures decided that free speech was a bad idea, or that the federal government needed more taxing authority, or that guns should be outlawed entirely, or that the presidency should be hereditary, etc., any of those awful things could be accomplished by amending the Constitution. The super-fourths super-majority requirement helps assure that none of those awful things are likely to get done.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
October 20, 2014, 02:21 PM | #42 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
|
|
October 20, 2014, 02:48 PM | #43 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
Quote:
It depends. If the distrust and disgust is mainly at the state level, then I agree that a Constitutional Convention is not the way to go. If the distrust is mainly at the Federal level, then a Consitutional Convention is the way to bypass the House of Representatives and the Senate. Quote:
|
||
October 20, 2014, 02:57 PM | #44 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|