• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Constitutional Convention, Anyone?

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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?
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
normally since9, the topic sentence is at the beginning so the reader knows what your message is, not at the bottom with a 'What do you think...' type opening.

further, did your uni homework accidently get mingled into your post, i mean, really, 'risk mgmt 101'?

the lonestar state has whinned for decades, tis bravado!

ipse
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Can any of us seriously say the Bill Of Rights could get through Congress today? Hell, it wouldn't even get out of committee..

Individual rights are being slowly striped each day.. Think, public safety, officer safety, terrorist, forced contracts with the government, via licensing and permits, etc..

My .02
Regards
CCJ
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
thankfully since9, i do not need to list my pedigree to provide creds like some feel they do.

so since9, have i ever disparaged your educational & civilian work accomplishments, or your service to this country as an appointed officer and gentleman in the USAF?

of course not, yet why is it this gentleman, which you have no earthly knowledge of my background whatsoever, can elicit such vemous attacks when you are challenged?

do you exhibit the same hostilities towards the undergrads you instruct who may challege your material, or do you exercise complete power and control via punishing the students using their grades for their obedience?

futher, i am sure you do not threaten your PI or other committee members with such displays of tantrum attitude or threaten to put them on ignore or discount their comments as you circulate your preliminary dissertation for review and they challenge your subject matter commentary, or document's schema, do you?

perhaps, just perhaps, you might reflect on your own pontificating to decide why you are ranting and stomping your feet protesting so much...

since9, are you truly that insecure to the point where you believe you have to brag about your education, military & civilian career, on some forum board, to make member(s) feel you are credible to have a discussion on any topic?

and you feel i am the one with the problem?

ipse
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Wow. No sooner did I post this appeal to your intelligence than you responded with the above rebuttal firmly proving I was right in placing you in ignore status in the first place.

FYI, even now in 2017, I have yet to see more than a handful of members of Congress apply even the most rudimentary management skills developed throughout the 20th Century (that was last century, i.e. averaging 67 years ago). Most appear to be firmly entrenched in a "the Law will fix All" mentality that originated from, quitely literally, well over a thousand years ago.

One cannot run a country on even the best of law any more than one can run an airlines on hot air. Yes, it'll get you off the ground, but what then? Carried by prevailing currents to who knows where?

This is why absolutely ZERO of the Fortune 500 companies run their organizations on "law." Instead, they use the tools of contemporary management, plus a boatload of combined personal experience and institutionalized knowledge.

But hey, what the hell do I know? Sheesh, forgive me, I'm only a college professor with three degrees, two Summa Cum Laude, working on my PhD, on top of 38+ years of practical work experience both throughout the Air Force and another 18 years on the civilian side of things. Darn, Solus! Compared to you I'm a newbie! A fresh nugget. By all means, kindly regale me with your advanced years of wisdom which you have yet to share with practically anyone!

Back on ignore.

PS: Of course what I shared was "PM 101." This isn't a suitable forum for EVMS and other advanced topics. My point is that members of Congress can't seem to apply even the most basic of management skills, a point which I think is well understood by those of us who do. Again, my two cents that 18th Century lawyers knew far more about practical business matters than most lawyers today, and even then, they knew enough to avoid attempting to create a country based on the thousands of rules and regulations that has become the body of Federal Law, instead opting to develop and publish a "whopping" and wonderfully-crafted 12-page document that has been so successful it has, by far, been used as a template for the creation of more Constitutions of other countries than any other source.

Sadly, I don't think most members of Congress today appreciate that fact. I think they have a difficult time understanding just how much more harm than good they're doing by passing ever more laws. Furthermore, those who have been stuck in the system (usually by choice) for decades are so far removed from reality they're just flat out clueless when it comes to real-world issues and how to solve them.

I'd like to see something like the "Real World CEOs Tackle America's Problems" for $1,000,000 a year salary each. The only requirements: Cut ALL ties to their former employers and business interests - Yes, ALL of them. Move to Washington (we'll put them and their families up in Watergate Housing). If not there, some somewhere similar. Share 100% of everything they discuss and e-mail, period, bar none, on an ongoing, real time daily basis (yes, that second) with the rest of the world. And lastly, document their own personal thoughts on everything, daily, in a personal journal that's also made public each and every day. I'd give them a 24-hour "retract window" in order to protect their own hot-headedness.

I'd rather see a multi-tiered value-input system based upon the merits of people's input rather than the forcefulness of their persuasion or worse, the power of their position.

In 2009, I actually attempted to create such a system, but there were very few takers. I guess humanity isn't ready for an optimized level. We're still struggling with trying to achieve our levels within the Peter Principle.

No disrespect, however most " real world CEO".. are in fact the problem.. Think the foreclosure crisis of 2008 into 2015..
Your post are very informative..
Regards
CCJ
 
Top