Things are starting to get interesting.

[Scimitar]

Originally Posted by Pete

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

[PSM]

Originally Posted by Badger52

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]

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]

Originally Posted by PSM

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]

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.