Constitutional Convention?

jwoodie · Mar 22, 2012

There are several constitutional issues which need to be addressed but never will attain a 2/3 majority in the House and the Senate. The only other option for amending the Constitution is for 2/3 of the states to call for a Constitutional Convention. Any amendments would still need to be approved by 3/4 of the states, but that is possible, since each state gets one vote regardless of its size. Among the issues that could be addressed are (1) right to own/carry firearms, (2) balanced federal budget, and (3) line item veto by the President. Do you think this is a good idea?

Herr Heckler Koch · Mar 22, 2012

Once a Constitutional Convention is convened then its agenda cannot be limited. That's why one has not been called even though there have been arguably good reasons for one for generations.

SouthernBoy · Mar 22, 2012

Believe me, you do NOT want a constitutional convention to convene. Very bad things could come from that.

Beretta92FSLady · Mar 22, 2012

I wonder if a Great Compromise II will work out better.

Herr Heckler Koch · Mar 23, 2012

Beretta92FSLady said:
I wonder if a Great Compromise II will work out better.

The first compromise was reached during/through a Constitutional Convention (of 1787), why would not this compromise, of yours, also require a Constitutional Convention. The existing Constitution will not be improved upon. Its changes since the Bill of Rights have been at least problematical.

Remember that compromise is failure on the installment plan; particularly when dealing with the implacable foe that ignorance and tyranny are.

OC for ME · Mar 23, 2012

jwoodie said:
<snip> Among the issues that could be addressed are (1) right to own/carry firearms, (2) balanced federal budget, and (3) line item veto by the President.

(1) The several states decide this, where two states have a 'different view', the feds toss out the 2A, or should, to settle the dispute. It ain't perfect, yet, but it is getting better.
(2) If the goal is a ridiculously small and limited federal government, with a budget that only supports the feds enumerated responsibilities, then a balanced federal budget will result. The several states have balanced budget requirements and the state has a more direct impact on me than the federal budget.
(3)The several states have this, good and bad, depending on who has the pen to line stuff out. I'm opposed to line-item veto power for a chief executive. At the federal level, no way. Besides, we have seen how EO's can effectivly be used as a means to 'veto' legislation after the fact.

Do you think this is a good idea?

Bad idea.

jwoodie · Mar 23, 2012

OC for ME said:
(1) The several states decide this, where two states have a 'different view', the feds toss out the 2A, or should, to settle the dispute. It ain't perfect, yet, but it is getting better.
(2) If the goal is a ridiculously small and limited federal government, with a budget that only supports the feds enumerated responsibilities, then a balanced federal budget will result. The several states have balanced budget requirements and the state has a more direct impact on me than the federal budget.
(3)The several states have this, good and bad, depending on who has the pen to line stuff out. I'm opposed to line-item veto power for a chief executive. At the federal level, no way. Besides, we have seen how EO's can effectivly be used as a means to 'veto' legislation after the fact.

Bad idea.

Not very convincing replies. Any Amendment would still have to be approved by 3/4 of the States and would undoubtedly be better than some "compromise" worked out by Washington politicians. The best way to move towards a balanced federal budget would be to prohibit increases in federal spending in any year that the budge is not balanced. A line item veto would prevent one of the worst abuses of legislative power: Omnibus bills which contain all sorts of unrelated earmarks which are then presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. A line item veto would reduce this abuse while still allowing Congress to override it with a 2/3 majority. If you oppose a Constitutional Convention, then you support the status quo.:banghead:

Herr Heckler Koch · Mar 23, 2012

jwoodie said:
If you oppose a Constitutional Convention, then you support the status quo.

I oppose a Constitutional Convention and I oppose progressivism. I support stare decisis, knowing the unintended consequences, stercus accidit!

hermannr · Mar 23, 2012

jwoodie said:
There are several constitutional issues which need to be addressed but never will attain a 2/3 majority in the House and the Senate. The only other option for amending the Constitution is for 2/3 of the states to call for a Constitutional Convention. Any amendments would still need to be approved by 3/4 of the states, but that is possible, since each state gets one vote regardless of its size. Among the issues that could be addressed are (1) right to own/carry firearms, (2) balanced federal budget, and (3) line item veto by the President. Do you think this is a good idea?

Absolutely a VERY BAD IDEA!!!!! No way Jose....we would end up with a totally different country, NO!!!!!

rodbender · Mar 24, 2012

A Constitutional comvention is a very good idea. Do some of you honestly think that 38 States are going to ratify an amendment that is not in their best interest? It is the only way that 10A powers of the States are going to be regained. There needs to be an amendment that says the SCOTUS can't interpret the Constitution to anything other than original intent of the framers of the Contitution and all of the amendments thereafter, under penalty of impeachment. Another to clarify the commerce clause and still another to say that any citizen has standing to sue the feds for an unconstitutional law before it does harm to any citizen. As it is now, no single citizen can challenge the Constitutionality of a federal law unless he has been harmed by it. Possibly another can say that SCOTUS must review all federal laws for Constitutionality before it can be implemented.

We definitely need an Art. V convention very badly.

It's our only hope of bringing sanity back to the union of the States and the general government. Otherwise we (or our children) will see a total collapse because the feds WILL NOT change their despotic ways.

Herr Heckler Koch · Mar 24, 2012

How do you limit a Constitutional Convention to desired amendments/topics? Remember, its purpose, authority and commission is to change the supreme law of the land. Pandora's Box best be left shut, deal with the devils that we know.

SouthernBoy · Mar 24, 2012

Herr Heckler Koch said:
How do you limit a Constitutional Convention to desired amendments/topics? Remember, its purpose, authority and commission is to change the supreme law of the land. Pandora's Box best be left shut, deal with the devils that we know.

Yes. When you open the door called Constitutional Convention, all manner of evil birds can enter. While it may seem a good idea to some, really sit down and think about it. God only knows the evil that could result in such folly.

Herr Heckler Koch · Mar 24, 2012

SouthernBoy said:
...God only knows the evil that could result in such folly.

We know the evil that HAS resulted in this folly. Only God knows the evil that could result from that folly.

rodbender · Mar 24, 2012

If you think the feds are going to straigten this mess out, you are sadly mistaken or very misguided.

An Art. V convention is NOT a Constitutional convention. It is a convention "for proposing Amendments" to the Constitution.

I say it is the only hope we have of setting things right. I also say, "Let 'er rip".

Herr Heckler Koch · Mar 25, 2012

rodbender said:
... An Art. V convention is NOT a Constitutional convention. It is a convention "for proposing Amendments" to the Constitution. I say it is the only hope we have of setting things right. I also say, "Let 'er rip".

LOL Had you ever given a thought to the topic before you wrote, ever read a jot? Here is a reasonably balanced presentation and it concludes with the need to amend the amendment process through an amendment - in an infinite regression. Look to the foremost proponents of particularly an "Article V Convention," they're no friends of Constitutional conservatism, rather progressive leftist libertarians all.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No3_Rogersonline.pdf

Rogers said:
THE OTHER WAY TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION: THE ARTICLE V CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION AMENDMENT PROCESS

[ ... ]

V. CONCLUSION

The history of the convention method of amending the Constitution is filled with much confusion and debate about its meaning, proper application, and scope. One of the major reasons it has never been used is the prevalence of doubts and concerns about the limitations that could be placed on a convention. The convention method of proposing amendments may never realize its potential so long as such confusion exists. Much of the fear surrounding a convention is unfounded. The Convention Clause’s text and history indicate that it grants power to the States to limit the scope of any such convention. In addition, the States have the ability to reject any amendments proposed by a convention through the ratification process.

A possible solution to clarify the Convention Clause power would be for the States to petition for, or for Congress to propose, an amendment to Article V itself. It could be amended to clarify the constitutional convention amendment process so that the purposes of the Convention Clause can be given effect. Such an amendment could explicitly state that Congress cannot limit or control a constitutional convention but that the States may exercise such control, that specific applications can be limited to single issues, and that the resulting convention may only consider those issues. The amendment could also include basic procedures and details for how a convention would operate to ensure its independence from Congress, and it could explicitly answer questions about the funding of a convention, the selection of delegates and a location, and other procedural and logistical questions. Article V could also be amended to decrease Congress’s power over the convention process to further the Convention Clauseʹs purpose of allowing the States to circumvent a corrupt or unresponsive Congress. An amendment could empower a new independent body, perhaps made up of the governor of each state, or the chief justice of each state’s supreme court, to call a convention when a sufficient number of states have applied, to oversee the convention, to ensure it does not exceed its scope, and to make it clear that Congress does not have convention oversight powers.

James Kenneth Rogers

OldCurlyWolf · Mar 25, 2012

NO!:banghead:

rodbender · Mar 25, 2012

Herr Heckler Koch said:
LOL Had you ever given a thought to the topic before you wrote, ever read a jot? Here is a reasonably balanced presentation and it concludes with the need to amend the amendment process through an amendment - in an infinite regression. Look to the foremost proponents of particularly an "Article V Convention," they're no friends of Constitutional conservatism, rather progressive leftist libertarians all.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No3_Rogersonline.pdf

That doesn't bother me in the least. I do not fear a convention under Art.V. I don't think enough States will do the harm that some here seems to be wetting their pants over, although that chance does exist. At worst, it will only speed up the process of bringing the U.S.A. to it's knees. We are headed in that direction anyway without trying something. Sumpin' needs tuh be dun an de feds sho 'nuff ain't gonna do nuttin' to clean up the feces they smeared all over the place. Why not bypass congress and blow the whole bankroll on one spin of the wheel?

Herr Heckler Koch · Mar 25, 2012

You have, truly, an egocentric predicament.

The Friends of the Article V Convention list 750 petitions, going back to 1789. One of the latest, from North Dakota in the June 2011 Congressional Record House 3869, requests the infinite regression of a convention to propose an amendment to limit the scope of an amending convention.

http://www.article-5.org/file.php/1/Amendments/index.htm

OC for ME · Mar 26, 2012

jwoodie said:
Not very convincing replies. Any Amendment would still have to be approved by 3/4 of the States and would undoubtedly be better than some "compromise" worked out by Washington politicians. The best way to move towards a balanced federal budget would be to prohibit increases in federal spending in any year that the budge is not balanced. A line item veto would prevent one of the worst abuses of legislative power: Omnibus bills which contain all sorts of unrelated earmarks which are then presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. A line item veto would reduce this abuse while still allowing Congress to override it with a 2/3 majority. If you oppose a Constitutional Convention, then you support the status quo.:banghead:

You give the constitution more power than it has or was intended to have.

First and foremost your 'revised and amended' constitution must have a amendment that will permit a current congress to hold a future congress to their predecessor's legislative acts. In other words, a tax levied under law today could neither be raised or lowered by a future congress. A budget passed today could neither be increased or decreased by a future congress. Secondly, your 'revised and amended' must have an amendment that prevents further amendments. This will prevent any 'good' done today from being undone by a future congress. Or, conversely, any 'bad' done today could not be 'fixed' by a later congress.

This is the one and only issue I have with amending the constitution to 'fix' legislative issues. All legislative power is vested in the congress, Article I, Section 8. Just as it should be. Just because the congress is doing a poor job does not mean that We The People need to go mucking around in the constitution because congress is doing a poor job.

Believe it or not our Founding Fathers thought of this too, it's called elections. A balanced budget today does not mean that it can be balanced tomorrow. The only 'fix' that will work is to STOP SPENDING!

The constitution is the law of the land, the guarantor of our inalienable rights. What the constitution is not is a mechanism to 'fix' the crappy choices of the electorate.

We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate. - TJ

GhostOfJefferson · Mar 26, 2012

jwoodie said:
Not very convincing replies. Any Amendment would still have to be approved by 3/4 of the States and would undoubtedly be better than some "compromise" worked out by Washington politicians. The best way to move towards a balanced federal budget would be to prohibit increases in federal spending in any year that the budge is not balanced. A line item veto would prevent one of the worst abuses of legislative power: Omnibus bills which contain all sorts of unrelated earmarks which are then presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. A line item veto would reduce this abuse while still allowing Congress to override it with a 2/3 majority. If you oppose a Constitutional Convention, then you support the status quo.:banghead:

And supporting the status quo is not always a bad thing. Where did this idea come from that if you don't support constantly changing everything, that this is somehow bad? What kind of inane brainwashing causes that kind of thinking?

The reason to "maintain the status quo" is because everything you mention, except perhaps the mandated balanced budget, can be handled without changing anything in the Constitution. The balanced budget can be handled through law as well I'd wager, without messing with the Constitution.

You open up the doors to changing the Constitution and I guarantee you that now, in the 21st century, you'd have 10,000 whining, simpering statists and their flocks of lawyers re-writing every single thing until nothing recognizable remained, and they'd get state approvals through deceitful pushes in the requisite number of states. And then, well, we might as well start sending 1 male and 1 female child out from each of the 12 zones to kill each other in a high tech arena until only one remains, because it will go there almost overnight regardless.

Bad bad bad idea. The nation is too immersed in Constitutional ignorance and brainwashing right now to see any outcome but a bad one.

Push for law/regulatory changes and be happy with that, I'd say. A ConCon is a guaranteed full death of the Constitution as we know it.

Constitutional Convention?

New member

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest

Regular Member

New member

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest

Regular Member

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest

Regular Member

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member