since9
Campaign Veteran
Quote: "Critics of the effort worry that such a convention could easily overreach the limited rewrites that supporters want and create a whole new constitution without public input or oversight. "This convention will not go the way anybody who is advocating it would think," Openshaw said."
Source: "Debate over changing the U.S. Constitution starts in the Texas House"
I am inclined to agree. I believe that any such effort is likely to be hijacked by adverse players who will attempt to front-load it with their liberal (or even overly-wordy conservative) agenda much the same as they did with Obamacare, particularly with Obamacare-like provisions for continuous modification that caused its length to rapidly grow from its initial thousand pages into more than 35,000 pages of incessant run-at-the-mouth spew that had absolutely nothing to do with providing affordable healthcare but most certainly brought the hugely ill-conceived piece of "we won't know what's in it until we pass it" crap o its knees.
At this point in my life, having read some 40,000 pages of Congressional legislation over the last eight years, I firmly believe in a "Muzzle Law," limiting Congress to passing no more than 1,000 pages, total, of all legislation in any calendar year, without exception. That might give them the impetus to whittle down their voluminous crap to succinct and relevant size. In addition, I'm also all for passing a "2 for 1" law that states they're required to scrap two pages of existing legislation for every one page they create, with a lower limit of, say, a thousand times the size of the initial U.S. Constitution itself i.e. 12 initial pages for 12,000 pages total. Wouldn't it be nice if we could keep all federal law to that size or smaller? The U.S. Supreme court should similarly be limited to twelve pages of decision with no more than one page from any single judge. Anything more is legislating from the bench.
Risk management is the applied study of how to properly assess the cost and probability of various risks, then follow through with one or more of the following five strategies to achieve the best outcome:
1. Accept the Risk - You have identified the risk, logged it, and decided that cost of the risk is low enough that even if it does occur, that cost can be born by the organization without issue.
2. Avoid the Risk - If the risk has a particularly high cost, or a high probability with even an intermediate cost, the overall impact could be high, even unacceptable. If it's possible to avoid it by making changes to your project, then do so.
3. Transfer the Risk - Often used in projects to which there are several parties, one of whom is far better situated for handling the risk than you. Obtaining insurance is another way to transfer risk.
4. Mitigate the Risk - Here, you change project parameters in order to lessen the cost of the risk, its probability, or both. Seat belts are perhaps the best example of mitigating the risk of injury in an automobile accident.
5. Exploit the Risk - Used when the risk of something happening may have a positive component. Here, you may wish to increase the likelihood or positive impact of the risk.
What do you think about Texas' push for a Constitutional Convention? Do you believe, as I do, that it's likely it will turn our succinctly-written, 12-page (12 pt type, 1" margins) Constitution into a ten-thousand page pile of rotting excrement? Even if the probability of that happened may be slight, do you believe it's worth the incredibly high cost of that risk and what it would mean/do to our country?
Bottom line, I see absolutely huge, if not fatal problems if we allow anyone to force the country into a Constitutional Convention.
The problem as it see it has absolutely nothing to do with our U.S. Constitution, but rather, the fact that the government largely ignores it. You can't fix stupid, and changing the Constitution absolutely will not fix the problem of our elected and appointment official's refusing to adhere to their sworn duty to follow it.
What say you?
Source: "Debate over changing the U.S. Constitution starts in the Texas House"
I am inclined to agree. I believe that any such effort is likely to be hijacked by adverse players who will attempt to front-load it with their liberal (or even overly-wordy conservative) agenda much the same as they did with Obamacare, particularly with Obamacare-like provisions for continuous modification that caused its length to rapidly grow from its initial thousand pages into more than 35,000 pages of incessant run-at-the-mouth spew that had absolutely nothing to do with providing affordable healthcare but most certainly brought the hugely ill-conceived piece of "we won't know what's in it until we pass it" crap o its knees.
At this point in my life, having read some 40,000 pages of Congressional legislation over the last eight years, I firmly believe in a "Muzzle Law," limiting Congress to passing no more than 1,000 pages, total, of all legislation in any calendar year, without exception. That might give them the impetus to whittle down their voluminous crap to succinct and relevant size. In addition, I'm also all for passing a "2 for 1" law that states they're required to scrap two pages of existing legislation for every one page they create, with a lower limit of, say, a thousand times the size of the initial U.S. Constitution itself i.e. 12 initial pages for 12,000 pages total. Wouldn't it be nice if we could keep all federal law to that size or smaller? The U.S. Supreme court should similarly be limited to twelve pages of decision with no more than one page from any single judge. Anything more is legislating from the bench.
Risk management is the applied study of how to properly assess the cost and probability of various risks, then follow through with one or more of the following five strategies to achieve the best outcome:
1. Accept the Risk - You have identified the risk, logged it, and decided that cost of the risk is low enough that even if it does occur, that cost can be born by the organization without issue.
2. Avoid the Risk - If the risk has a particularly high cost, or a high probability with even an intermediate cost, the overall impact could be high, even unacceptable. If it's possible to avoid it by making changes to your project, then do so.
3. Transfer the Risk - Often used in projects to which there are several parties, one of whom is far better situated for handling the risk than you. Obtaining insurance is another way to transfer risk.
4. Mitigate the Risk - Here, you change project parameters in order to lessen the cost of the risk, its probability, or both. Seat belts are perhaps the best example of mitigating the risk of injury in an automobile accident.
5. Exploit the Risk - Used when the risk of something happening may have a positive component. Here, you may wish to increase the likelihood or positive impact of the risk.
What do you think about Texas' push for a Constitutional Convention? Do you believe, as I do, that it's likely it will turn our succinctly-written, 12-page (12 pt type, 1" margins) Constitution into a ten-thousand page pile of rotting excrement? Even if the probability of that happened may be slight, do you believe it's worth the incredibly high cost of that risk and what it would mean/do to our country?
Bottom line, I see absolutely huge, if not fatal problems if we allow anyone to force the country into a Constitutional Convention.
The problem as it see it has absolutely nothing to do with our U.S. Constitution, but rather, the fact that the government largely ignores it. You can't fix stupid, and changing the Constitution absolutely will not fix the problem of our elected and appointment official's refusing to adhere to their sworn duty to follow it.
What say you?