View Full Version : Things are starting to get interesting.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/09/gaining-steam-nearly-100-lawmakers-descend-on-mount-vernon-to-talk-convention-of-states/
Have you read Mark Levins book?
Scroll down after opening the link; its a jump ball with regard to how states would vote if a constitutional convention was convened, it might very impact amendments and what we consider basic unalienable rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states
The percentage of state legislatures that need to pass an amendment is pretty high. We aren't going to see gun rights abolished or set up a king. What you may see passed are congressional term limits, strengthening of the 10th (maaaaybe), a change to tenure on SCOTUS justices, or re-establishing state legislature election for Senators. No purely partisan issue stands a chance being ratified by enough States.
As designed.
Have you read Mark Levins book?
I have!
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44154
Pat
If you could only pick one amendment to add what would it be?
Mine would term limits. That would take care of so many problems up there, and get rid of the elitest "ruling class", career politicians.
If you could only pick one amendment to add what would it be?
Mine would term limits. That would take care of so many problems up there, and get rid of the elitest "ruling class", career politicians.
I'd go with the repeal of the 17th Amendment. That would give some power back to the states. Arizona would not have McCain and Flake or, as Tucsonan Linda Ronstadt would say, sort of, they would have been "reined in" at least. ;)
Pat
GratefulCitizen
12-10-2013, 23:27
If you could only pick one amendment to add what would it be?
An amendment prohibiting the federal government from:
-imposing any fine
-seizing any property of any form
-compelling or restricting the buying or selling of any good or service
-imposing any tax or fee except a tax on the several state governments, in proportion to the number of representatives each state has in the house
I'd go with the repeal of the 17th Amendment. That would give some power back to the states. Arizona would not have McCain and Flake or, as Tucsonan Linda Ronstadt would say, sort of, they would have been "reined in" at least. ;)
Pat
I second.
The flow of power from the States to the Federal Government began in earnest with the 17th.
We could get something bad out of the convention, but the chances of 3/4s of the States ratifying something bad is almost nil.
Well we have to do something. This would beat the alternative, or delay it, or hasten it. I don't know which.
:munchin
D.
IMO, a Constitutional convention could be too dangerous right now. We could get something really bad out of it.
Levin is NOT calling for a Constitutional Convention. They are two totally different things. The provision for the states to gather together to amend the constitution was specifically added to Article Five because the founders foresaw the events that we are facing today.
Now is not only the time for an Article Five Convention of the states, it may be the last time for one before all power is wrested from the states.
Pat
What we need to do is enforce the Constitution as it is written and quit letting politicians violate it without recourse.
True that.
D.
Trapper John
12-11-2013, 12:48
I am torn between repeal of the 16th & 17th Amendments and instituting a balanced budget amendment and a term limit amendment, all of which are necessary IMO. But if I had to choose one - it would be the 17th.
PedOncoDoc
12-11-2013, 13:53
I'll just leave this here... (http://www.kontraband.com/videos/12474/Help-End-Womens-Suffrage) :D
I'll just leave this here... (http://www.kontraband.com/videos/12474/Help-End-Womens-Suffrage) :D
I remember reading a study back in the '80s (I think) that showed that the move toward socialism in Europe followed allowing women to vote. Personally, I believe it was related but more complicated that that. ("Don't feed the gremlins after midnight." Of course, it's always after midnight.) It's more that the vote was given to those that have no "skin in the game". IIRC, some states, early on in our history, did allow women to vote. They were women who had inherited property and hence the right to vote that was attached to property ownership.
In bumper sticker speak: "No representation without taxation." ;)
Pat
FlagDayNCO
12-12-2013, 09:41
I am torn between repeal of the 16th & 17th Amendments and instituting a balanced budget amendment and a term limit amendment, all of which are necessary IMO. But if I had to choose one - it would be the 17th.
Trapper,
Balance Budget Amendment can be dangerous, in that the government is required to balance the budget for the regulations/ taxes/ fees imposed. Where we generally believe this to mean less taxes, it can have the opposite effect. The government raises taxes to cover the budget.
It is all the nitty gritty in the creation of the individual regulations/ laws.
I'm also not convinced a term limit will help. Instead of a Politician going in for twenty years, they'll just have multiple politicians play the same party game for the same total time. The term limit, however, is a start.
Have no politician pass a lwa that they are exmpted from. No exemptions.
How about we require that no elected official can run for re-election while in any appointed or elected office. You can be President twice, you just have to sit out a term is all (i.e. maybe DO YOUR JOB and not campaign all term long).
Require every elected and appointed official to carry recall insurance. That way if they accept another position, resign, die, whatever - the cost of any election to replace them is not borne by the taxpayers.
Oh, how about they provide proof of that insurance too. Not like we're asking them to provide proof of citizenship or anything...
(1VB)compforce
12-12-2013, 11:50
My three (in order)
1. All laws passed by any government body must apply to all members of that body with no exceptions.
2. A bill may not be amended by any party other than the originating party, which will trigger a new vote to advance it.
The current practice of taking a bill that has passed the House, the Senate amending it 100% and then passing it to get around the requirement that all revenue affecting bills must originate in the House is ridiculous.
3. Service means citizenship (Ala Heinlein). You must serve the state or country before the country serves you or provides you any entitlements.
This has been beat to death in other threads.
Bonus: the CBO or equivalent body must use dynamic scoring when evaluating the economic effects of a proposed law.
1. All laws (including taxes or fees) passed by any government body must apply to all members of that body with no exceptions, for at least one year before it applies to the general populace.
Fixed it for ya...
(1VB)compforce
12-12-2013, 12:06
I'm good with your amendment to my amendment. In fact, if you are going to go there, let's add this:
1. All laws passed by any government body and regulations, taxes and fees created by government agencies must apply to all members of that body with no exceptions, for at least one year before it applies to the general populace.
longrange1947
12-12-2013, 13:04
Always weigh all of the intended consequences of many of these actions. A balanced budget will mean higher taxes, that is guaranteed as they will raise taxes and now have the cover to raise them. Need to give back to the states the power of that has been eroding since the civil war.
Repeal and replace 16th Amendment with the "Fair Tax" amendment. $25,000,000 worth of research behind it.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=HowFairTaxWorks
Badger52
12-12-2013, 18:17
Ol' fashioned spine-stiffening and the use of nullification has its advocates. (http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2013/09/15/mark-levin-refuted-keep-the-feds-in-check-with-nullification-not-amendments/) A worthwhile read.
Ol' fashioned spine-stiffening and the use of nullification has its advocates. (http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2013/09/15/mark-levin-refuted-keep-the-feds-in-check-with-nullification-not-amendments/) A worthwhile read.
Are you elfing serious! You post a link to this, apparent, nutcase as a challenge to Mark Levin who runs a law firm, Landmark Legal, that has actually argued cases before the Supreme Court and won? :confused::rolleyes:
"Warning, warning!" Sheeeez!
Pat
Nutcase?
I've heard more than one person who thought a convention could be a bad idea because you never know what's going to come out the other end of the rabbit hole.
Scimitar
12-13-2013, 06:49
Whats the merit of the State legislature voting in representatives vs popular vote? I'm still new enough to the US system.
S
Badger52
12-13-2013, 06:56
Are you elfing serious! You post a link to this, apparent, nutcase as a challenge to Mark Levin who runs a law firm, Landmark Legal, that has actually argued cases before the Supreme Court and won? :confused::rolleyes:
"Warning, warning!" Sheeeez!
PatIt was posted as information with the ongoing discussion of constitutional convention so, yeah, I was effing serious. I don't subscribe to the notion that someone's credentials abrogates another's view. Something to consider, in whole or in part. It's a viewpoint but, as Pete pointed out, there are two edges on that convention blade.
Have a nice day.
Whats the merit of the State legislature voting in representatives vs popular vote? I'm still new enough to the US system.
S
The States held the power in the Senate. It was hard to bribe all the officials in a State. The State would appoint someone who would look out for the State's interests.
With direct election the Senators can be bought - and pressured by the national parties. Not much different than the House.
It was another step in the shift of power from the States to Washington.
I've heard more than one person who thought a convention could be a bad idea because you never know what's going to come out the other end of the rabbit hole.
Again, it is not a Constitutional Convention. It is a convention of the states in order to propose amendments that will reign in the federal government. Those in power are not about to propose amendments to limit that power. Are congressmen who look to be senators one day likely to recommend term limits? Are they going to repeal the 17th Amendment and put the senators back under control of the state legislatures? Are any of them likely to want to set term limits on the Supreme Court? There are only two ways that I see and this one was added to the constitution to forestall the second method. At the end of the rabbit hole is the same ratification requirements as required for all of the amendments that have already been added.
A Constitutional Convention creates, from scratch, a totally new constitution and is not an option found in the current document. A Constitutional Convention would be called in the aftermath of the second option I mentioned above.
Fretting about an imaginary "run away convention" in the future in the face of a present day runaway Federal Government and Federal Court is to tune one's fiddle while the arsonists run amuck.
Pat
Scimitar
12-13-2013, 12:44
The States held the power in the Senate. It was hard to bribe all the officials in a State. The State would appoint someone who would look out for the State's interests.
With direct election the Senators can be bought - and pressured by the national parties. Not much different than the House.
It was another step in the shift of power from the States to Washington.
Thanks Pete
It was posted as information with the ongoing discussion of constitutional convention so, yeah, I was effing serious. I don't subscribe to the notion that someone's credentials abrogates another's view. Something to consider, in whole or in part. It's a viewpoint but, as Pete pointed out, there are two edges on that convention blade.
Have a nice day.
Badger, I retract all I said in that post. It wasn't the content so much as what I saw as a really screwy website. Apparently it didn't load correctly in my browser and those links on the right side were somehow mixed into the rest of the text. It looked like it was built by a crazy person (i.e. nutcase). I just went back and it looks fine. I'll read through it the way it was meant to be formatted.
IE auto-updated on the 10th and I've had several problems with it. That's the first time I have seen that problem, though.
ETA: I have now read through the posted site and my first impression, thanks to a glitch in IE11, may have been correct. I came away with a headache both times. The second time mostly due to all of the hyper links included (which I gave up on). At times, she seems to quote Levin but only a few words are actually between the quotation marks. She stated that, since the states would have to apply to Congress to call for a convention, that Congress would set the rules and even pick the participants. Nothing in Article Five says that. Given the time it was written, this may just have been a convenient means of ensuring communication between the states. We have phones, now. Plus, one of Levin's amendments would remove that requirement because even he is worried that it will be used to stall the process.
Again, Levin worked in the Reagan Administration: (from Wikipedia--sorry I don't want to dig around for a different source while I'm cooking) Beginning in 1981, Levin served as advisor to several members of President Ronald Reagan's cabinet, eventually becoming Associate Director of Presidential Personnel and ultimately Chief of Staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese; Levin also served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education at the U.S. Department of Education, and Deputy Solicitor of the U.S. Department of the Interior."
I have never heard of this Publius Huldah person but this caught my eye from the profile on her site: "There is no such thing as Jew & Greek, slave & freeman, male & female, black person & white person; for we are all one person in Christ Jesus." It may come as no surprise that Levin is a Jew.
I'll stick with Levin. Unfortunately, I believe even his plan will take too long to save the Republic.
Pat
Badger52
12-14-2013, 06:05
Pat, thanks for giving it a read. Wouldn't get too caught up in the denominational issue either or the pseudonym of the author. Wasn't pushing one or the other, or detracting from the fact that Levin has some things to say and a basis of experience for them; just another way of looking at it. As you indicate, such a timetable (as Levin's) has too much lag built in. Individual actions (or inactions) by states taken - those with spine as mentioned when I first posted it - may slightly reduce that timeline or at least fracture a completely contiguous loonie-bin (apologies to Heinlein). Getting consent of those suckling at the G's teat en masse is not something I'm putting money on.
Appreciate the Article V comment (especially if you were cooking, the multi-tasking Force must be strong in you).
IE sux -ditched it long ago; my sympathies. It hosed up the HH6 computer and she is pissed.
NurseTim
12-14-2013, 06:12
Again, it is not a Constitutional Convention. It is a convention of the states in order to propose amendments that will reign in the federal government. Those in power are not about to propose amendments to limit that power. Are congressmen who look to be senators one day likely to recommend term limits? Are they going to repeal the 17th Amendment and put the senators back under control of the state legislatures? Are any of them likely to want to set term limits on the Supreme Court? There are only two ways that I see and this one was added to the constitution to forestall the second method. At the end of the rabbit hole is the same ratification requirements as required for all of the amendments that have already been added.
A Constitutional Convention creates, from scratch, a totally new constitution and is not an option found in the current document. A Constitutional Convention would be called in the aftermath of the second option I mentioned above.
Fretting about an imaginary "run away convention" in the future in the face of a present day runaway Federal Government and Federal Court is to tune one's fiddle while the arsonists run amuck.
Pat
Sooooo, NOT a constitutional convention, it's a convention dealing with amendments of the constitution. Kind of like, "no new taxes, they'll be revenue enhancers."
By your logic, not that it is totally unsound, no laws will ever be enacted by legislators with our current mentality that do benefit them in some way. Actually they haven't yet.
GratefulCitizen
12-14-2013, 07:48
Not sure where the confusion is WRT an Article V convention.
There is little difference from the congressional method which has been used so far.
Just like with amendments proposed by congress, it takes ratification by 38 states.
No changes will happen to the Constitution until after the states have had a chance to consider the proposed amendments and 38 states ratify a particular amendment.
<edit>
A very simple amendment to take power from the federal government and give some back to the states:
Allow the states to print their own money, and collect taxes in their own money.