It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Disgruntled Democrats Want A Constitutional Convention To Leave The Union

page: 6
43
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter

So a US citizen living in California is less a citizen than one living in another state?

There are 132,000 active members of the US military from California or 10% out of 1.3 million total. That is the largest percentage of the military than any other state (Texas is second at 119,000) and more than Georgia (5th) and Florida (6th) combined. Are they less than their counterparts too?

Like it or not, California has the 6th largest economy in the world and easily the largest in the US. And no, I'm not a Californian.
edit on 7-12-2016 by Beaux because: * Edit for numerical typo




posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
It's not going to happen. They need to realize that there are better ways to win elections and that would be to go back to the Democrat ideals of old and work/represent the people, not corporate/banking interests.

The Constitution is fine. Work on the message.


Spot on.. We need a strong DEM party based on those values they once held, not what the party has turned into...



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: xuenchen

Let us not forget when Obama won, how many Republicans called for secession? How short of memory of we. Governor Perry of Texas, Sanford of South Carolina? Secessionist movements? The tea parties? This time it's just switched around.

Every election year, there will be a segment of want side that wants to pack their toys and leave because things didn't go their way.

Texas V. White 1869. The matter has been settled.


Well the new Supreme court could Overturn that decision rendering that Amendment null.


Absolutely false.

SCOTUS *cannot* amend or overturn any amendments of the United States Constitution. Period.

Neither can the POTUS and neither can the legislature.

All SCOTUS can do is rule on the legal basis and/or what the intent of said article or amendment was.

And they have *never* ruled to repeal an amendment.

Read Article V of the United States Constitution. The framers made it very difficult to change or amend the constitution for a reason. God bless their foresight and intelligence!

Article V - United States Constitution




The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article*; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.


No White V texas was WHAT lincoln used to make his amendment. And the supreme court has rendered decisions before nullifying a amendment. they rule on their CONSTITUIONALITY and can destroy/overturn them.
Lincoln also passed those amendments illegally with a stacked senate and house that he controlled. the southern states were not allowwed to argue it. Going against the constitutions amendment process.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 11:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Beaux
a reply to: Riffrafter

So a US citizen living in California is less a citizen than one living in another state?

There are 132,000 active members of the US military from California or 10% out of 1.3 million total. That is the largest percentage of the military than any other state (Texas is second at 119,000) and more than Georgia (5th) and Florida (6th) combined. Are they less than their counterparts too?

Like it or not, California has the 6th largest economy in the world and easily the largest in the US. And no, I'm not a Californian.


What's your point?

Seriously.

That is NOT how Presidents are elected in this country.

Period.

And I *love* California. I lived in Palo Alto for years. I still miss it. But neither they nor any other populous state gets to choose our President. It's *exactly* why the constitution was set up the way it was.

If people want to change it and amend the constitution - they should go ahead and try.

And good luck - it will NEVER happen for all the right reasons.

The USA is not mob rule.

Thank God.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: xuenchen

Let us not forget when Obama won, how many Republicans called for secession? How short of memory of we. Governor Perry of Texas, Sanford of South Carolina? Secessionist movements? The tea parties? This time it's just switched around.

Every election year, there will be a segment of want side that wants to pack their toys and leave because things didn't go their way.

Texas V. White 1869. The matter has been settled.


Well the new Supreme court could Overturn that decision rendering that Amendment null.


Absolutely false.

SCOTUS *cannot* amend or overturn any amendments of the United States Constitution. Period.

Neither can the POTUS and neither can the legislature.

All SCOTUS can do is rule on the legal basis and/or what the intent of said article or amendment was.

And they have *never* ruled to repeal an amendment.

Read Article V of the United States Constitution. The framers made it very difficult to change or amend the constitution for a reason. God bless their foresight and intelligence!

Article V - United States Constitution




The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article*; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.


No White V texas was WHAT lincoln used to make his amendment. And the supreme court has rendered decisions before nullifying a amendment. they rule on their CONSTITUIONALITY and can destroy/overturn them.
Lincoln also passed those amendments illegally with a stacked senate and house that he controlled. the southern states were not allowwed to argue it. Going against the constitutions amendment process.


The Civil War period was a terrible and strange time for our republic. I mean once a state "secedes" do their votes even count? And that was just the tip of the iceberg.

But you're correct - SCOTUS did rule on the constitutionality of said amendment but what a twisted thing that is as once an amendment is passed - it too is now part of the constitution.

But Scotus can also be overruled by the Legislative and executive branches....

Helluva good system if you ask me...



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter


The USA is not mob rule.


The USA is one citizen/one vote. By your standards, every time anyone gets more votes than their opponent (local, state) than a mob has ruled. Using "mob" instead of majority is an incorrect usage of the word and simply implies that you disagree with another group based on the application of your own beliefs and preferences vs. an equatable and democratic settlement. By those standards we would have minority rule or an oligarchy. We do not permit that at the state level yet it is acceptable for national voting?



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Careful what you wish for ...

How many of the other states (Red), would love to get rid of California's votes?

And it's a "sure fire" way to get rid of the immortal Pelosi



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 07:24 AM
link   
This new wave of Democrats are serious problems.

I used to be a Democrat too.

These new Democrat's and the new Democratic platform is so toxic I went from being a Classical Jeffersonian Liberal to conservatism.
edit on 8-12-2016 by Darkmadness because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-12-2016 by Darkmadness because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Is this really a thing? Democrats want to hold a constitutional convention when republicans control most of the states?


The result is that Republicans control both the governor’s mansion and legislature in 24 states, 70 of the nation’s 99 state legislative chambers, both chambers in 30 states, plus Nebraska’s single chamber, and 31 governor’s mansions.
linky

Not only would California not be allowed to leave they risk actual amendments banning abortion and everything else they hold dear. Not very well thought out...



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 08:05 AM
link   


I am against mob rule, let each county in America have one vote.
A Geography Democracy. Now the cities aren't as important. And you can't gerrymander anything.
And all the people living in rural areas would never be ignored again.

On election night I was listening to CNN talk about the democrats always running the numbers so high in just a few blue counties that they take the whole mostly red state. Disenfranchising every single red winning county voter in the entire state. Also if you knew you could make difference at the county level you might be more inclined to vote as well.
Of course bigger states still have more votes and smaller states have less votes. But those people that vote in those midnight counties in NH would now contribute to the first real win of the day for the candidates.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Beaux
The Electoral College cannot be eliminated without the repeal of the 14th amendment of the constitution which will not happen. However it can be adjusted to properly and correctly reflect the votes of the American public.

Wyoming has 3 Electoral votes with a population of 584,000 people or 1 per 194,000 citizens.
California has 55 with a population of 38.8 million or 1 per 784,000 citizens. As a matter of equality and using Wyoming as a baseline, California should have 200 electoral votes.

Texas has 38 with a population of 27 million or 1 per 710,000. Again, equality would give Texas 139.
New York has 58 with a population of 19.7 million or 1 per 339,000. Equality = 101

Mississippi has 6 with a population of 3 million or 1 per 500,000. Equality = 15
Florida has 29 with a population of 19.9 million or 1 per 686,000. Equality = 102

If the Electoral College was readjusted by granting more (or less, depending) after each census it would more accurately reflect the actual will of the voter vs. the will of a few select states. No one could intelligently argue that Wyoming should have more say in electing a POTUS than any other state. The 538 electors should be updated and made equatable by adding more or balancing them properly.

The only other way would be to eliminate the "winner take all" in the 49 states (Maine is the exception) so that the electors are based on the popular vote percentages. It is really a case of simple mathematics.



So doing the math your way, Wyoming would have effectively NO vote at all.

Okay, let's try this and see if you understand...

How about if we take all the energy produced by Wyoming and remove it from California completely. All the oil, all the natural gas, all the wind and solar. Next let's remove all the trona ore (say bye-bye to ALL auto glass and baking soda).

California doesn't OWN Wyoming, and they shouldn't be allowed to!

Next, let's remove all Californian's presence out of NW Wyoming (i.e. Jackson Hole)...along with their big fat tax shelters. The population would drop .01%, but federal income tax revenue would go up by billions! Yeah sure, state taxes would drop some, but Wyoming got along just fine before all the Californians showed up.

Then, let's redirect all freight destined for California off of Interstate 80 through Wyoming...and to be fair, let's just close I-80 altogether (as there were federal dollars involved in building it). (Think: 25% increase in the cost of all California goods imported from other states). This would include products like grain (flour) and corn. Just use Interstate 70 through Colorado, right? Good luck with that!

While we're at it, let's remove all Wyoming beef from California. Oh, there will still be beef (from Texas), but In-n-Out burgers are gonna' cost $12 bucks then.

And finally, let's just turn off/redirect the water from Flaming Gorge dam.

How's that 50 to 1 electoral vote advantage feelin' now?


edit on 12/8/2016 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: xuenchen

Let us not forget when Obama won, how many Republicans called for secession? How short of memory of we. Governor Perry of Texas, Sanford of South Carolina? Secessionist movements? The tea parties? This time it's just switched around.

Every election year, there will be a segment of want side that wants to pack their toys and leave because things didn't go their way.

Texas V. White 1869. The matter has been settled.


Well the new Supreme court could Overturn that decision rendering that Amendment null.


Absolutely false.

SCOTUS *cannot* amend or overturn any amendments of the United States Constitution. Period.

Neither can the POTUS and neither can the legislature.

All SCOTUS can do is rule on the legal basis and/or what the intent of said article or amendment was.

And they have *never* ruled to repeal an amendment.

Read Article V of the United States Constitution. The framers made it very difficult to change or amend the constitution for a reason. God bless their foresight and intelligence!

Article V - United States Constitution




The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article*; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.


No White V texas was WHAT lincoln used to make his amendment. And the supreme court has rendered decisions before nullifying a amendment. they rule on their CONSTITUIONALITY and can destroy/overturn them.
Lincoln also passed those amendments illegally with a stacked senate and house that he controlled. the southern states were not allowwed to argue it. Going against the constitutions amendment process.


The Civil War period was a terrible and strange time for our republic. I mean once a state "secedes" do their votes even count? And that was just the tip of the iceberg.

But you're correct - SCOTUS did rule on the constitutionality of said amendment but what a twisted thing that is as once an amendment is passed - it too is now part of the constitution.

But Scotus can also be overruled by the Legislative and executive branches....

Helluva good system if you ask me...



I agree its a good system. just playing devils advocate here by stating a option that can be played no matter how long a shot it is. I just wish we would correct the history books on Lincoln though. he wasnt a nice man.

Also IF lincoln was for law and order as much as he claimed then he Should had let the Souther representatives argue,but he didnt. lincoln was a low down snake by manipulating the government to his own ends. I though twith the surrender the south never left and as such they were entitled to argue that amendment.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Sorry dems.You can't secede from the union.However can we interest you in some low rent FEMA.accommodations?
Would be a step up from your parents basement



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Beaux

They are not my standards.

It is an integral part of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Remember that silly little document?

If people like you want to change the constitution to eliminate the electoral college by all means - have at it.

The process for doing so is found in...well, looky here - the Constitution of the United States of America!

Amazing, huh?



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa




Also IF lincoln was for law and order as much as he claimed then he Should had let the Souther representatives argue,but he didnt. lincoln was a low down snake by manipulating the government to his own ends. I though twith the surrender the south never left and as such they were entitled to argue that amendment.


Interesting perspective and one that I haven't heard before.

Can you recommend any good books or online resources so that I can further study?

Thanks.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Anything I can do to help.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Yeah, California's super independent.... Much like my oldest daughters were till they realized I paid all their bills. ....



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk

originally posted by: Beaux
The Electoral College cannot be eliminated without the repeal of the 14th amendment of the constitution which will not happen. However it can be adjusted to properly and correctly reflect the votes of the American public.

Wyoming has 3 Electoral votes with a population of 584,000 people or 1 per 194,000 citizens.
California has 55 with a population of 38.8 million or 1 per 784,000 citizens. As a matter of equality and using Wyoming as a baseline, California should have 200 electoral votes.

Texas has 38 with a population of 27 million or 1 per 710,000. Again, equality would give Texas 139.
New York has 58 with a population of 19.7 million or 1 per 339,000. Equality = 101

Mississippi has 6 with a population of 3 million or 1 per 500,000. Equality = 15
Florida has 29 with a population of 19.9 million or 1 per 686,000. Equality = 102

If the Electoral College was readjusted by granting more (or less, depending) after each census it would more accurately reflect the actual will of the voter vs. the will of a few select states. No one could intelligently argue that Wyoming should have more say in electing a POTUS than any other state. The 538 electors should be updated and made equatable by adding more or balancing them properly.

The only other way would be to eliminate the "winner take all" in the 49 states (Maine is the exception) so that the electors are based on the popular vote percentages. It is really a case of simple mathematics.



So doing the math your way, Wyoming would have effectively NO vote at all.

Okay, let's try this and see if you understand...

How about if we take all the energy produced by Wyoming and remove it from California completely. All the oil, all the natural gas, all the wind and solar. Next let's remove all the trona ore (say bye-bye to ALL auto glass and baking soda).

California doesn't OWN Wyoming, and they shouldn't be allowed to!

Next, let's remove all Californian's presence out of NW Wyoming (i.e. Jackson Hole)...along with their big fat tax shelters. The population would drop .01%, but federal income tax revenue would go up by billions! Yeah sure, state taxes would drop some, but Wyoming got along just fine before all the Californians showed up.

Then, let's redirect all freight destined for California off of Interstate 80 through Wyoming...and to be fair, let's just close I-80 altogether (as there were federal dollars involved in building it). (Think: 25% increase in the cost of all California goods imported from other states). This would include products like grain (flour) and corn. Just use Interstate 70 through Colorado, right? Good luck with that!

While we're at it, let's remove all Wyoming beef from California. Oh, there will still be beef (from Texas), but In-n-Out burgers are gonna' cost $12 bucks then.

And finally, let's just turn off/redirect the water from Flaming Gorge dam.

How's that 50 to 1 electoral vote advantage feelin' now?



You seem to have missed the point and of course Wyoming should have a vote or even three. However somehow I feel that all arguing against this logic would agree with it if the election results were completely opposite. I am not here to debate the value of Wyoming but simply used that as a benchmark since it has the smallest population of any US state. Your argument seems to be one of the past where land ownership and wealth dictated voting power. So arguing the value of one state or person versus another becomes detrimental to the purpose of one citizen/one vote and you wish to punish those that populate one area more than another.

Wyoming and every state has value critical to the nation as a whole, each has their own economy and are dependent upon the others to provide and purchase goods and services. No point otherwise could be argued however your offering implies greater value in one over the other. If you cannot see the disparity in that then there is little I can do to help.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Natas0114

That comparison is amusing although misguided since California is more independent than most states including your own.

For every dollar that Californians contribute in taxes to the Federal Government, they receive $0.87 in Federal spending.
For every dollar that Wisconsinites contribute in taxes to the Federal Government, they receive $1.03 in Federal spending.

Per capita, California residents receive $1.22, Wisconsin residents $1.44. So overall, your own state is a larger welfare and deficit state than California. Unfortunately this is why the US has a deficit since Federal spending continues to expand faster than tax revenue.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Riffrafter
a reply to: Beaux

They are not my standards.

It is an integral part of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Remember that silly little document?

If people like you want to change the constitution to eliminate the electoral college by all means - have at it.

The process for doing so is found in...well, looky here - the Constitution of the United States of America!

Amazing, huh?



The "silly little document" that you reference has been amended 27 times since creation. The Founders intended it to be changed since it was written on paper, not stone...it is not the 10 Commandments. But like you, I do not believe that it will be amended for the Electoral College.

However how that session operates can be adjusted based on changing demographics and how it works has been changed before without amendments. It is up to the individual states to make the changes to their own Electors as Maine and Nebraska have where they allocate two electoral votes to the state popular vote winner, and then one electoral vote to the popular vote winner in each Congressional district. So it can be changed...well, looky here...without impacting the Constitution since state legislatures decide how to allocate electoral college votes.




top topics



 
43
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join