Danger - 2 States From Constitutional Convention

well this is what happens when a government betrays the people... or all out civil war... I say we have the convention -- and see what the result changes will before we start blasting caps. Due process folks...

reply to post by SpencerJ


Thanks for saving me a bunch of time as to why his ideas where utterly ridiculous.

To titorite: Why did the the southern states break off during 1860-1861? Oh right, it was the fact Lincoln still got into office even though just about the entire south voted in favor of Douglas. See how fast an issue with representation turns into an issue of civil war?

The Northeast US and the West coast has a great deal of the population in the US. Do they represent interests in Wyoming? How about Texas? Florida?

This isn't a direct democracy, or anything close, for a reason.

NEWS ALERT, the Constitution has been replaced, its called Patriot, the former constitution is just a ghost a shadow nothing more. Soon will come no more guns, no more rights full stop.

Please see this link!

Article Five of the United States Constitution provides an option to assemble a national Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution as an alternative to the process of securing two-thirds approval in both houses of Congress.

When two-thirds of the state legislatures shall apply - in the same procedure as they would follow for passing a law - then Article V of the Constitution requires the Congress to "call a convention for proposing amendments."

This is not the same thing as a Constitutional Convention! Generally, amendments to the Constitution have been pretty good (women's suffrage, civil rights, etc.), and even bad ones (prohibition) can be repealled...

Anyway, all amendments to the Constitution must be ratified by 3/4 of states. So, don't panic.

Originally posted by Naturally Smooth
Anyway, all amendments to the Constitution must be ratified by 3/4 of states. So, don't panic.

Really? Tell that to the Sixteenth Ammendment which was never properly ratified. 3/4ths of the states ratified something, but many of them ratified ammendments that differed from the one that was ultimately placed into the Constitution, making it an invalid ammendment.

Originally posted by SpencerJ



Hardly constitutional. The very nature of this topic is changing what we define as constitutional per amendment, so you cannot argue what is and is not a "constitutional thought" except that which is currently accepted as such. Otherwise, it's ex-post facto. But of course, logical fallacies don't occur to you, do they?

I can debate constitutional thought sir. I seem to have a better understanding of the US constitution and US politics than you do. For example there is no such things as a Limited constitutional convention. Also when you bemoan adding new amendments but support this balanced budget amendment you contradict yourself.

How is it you can still argue for popular electoral representation but allow the Senate to stand?

In our current system the president speaks for you, the senate speaks for you , the house of representatives speaks for you, you have all these people speaking for you with no voice of your own and none of those guys in those offices are under any obligation to listen to you but they still enjoy the authority to speak for you.

I do not propose that we abolish our republic but instead suggest we introduce just enough direct democracy to provide some equilibrium to the system.

Also, how is catering to 3-4 population centers not a substantial grounds for abuse versus electoral voting. If people from New York get a bigger say than people from Wyoming, what are the implications of that? Screw rural voters?

Maybe you do not understand how the big three work. New York does get a bigger say than Wyoming. You have New York, California, and Texas. If you win two out of three of those states electoral votes you will win the race. Three states currently make up half the electoral votes needed to win the presidency. This is not quite fair to the other 47 states.

When in reality, the previous system was much better and more prestigious.

If you think politics are about "prestige" then you are truly of the good ol' boy fold that has created the majority of Americas political problems today.



SpencerJ, for better or worse you are entitled to your opinions. But your attempts to create fear mongering over my constitutional ideas are shallow and easily seen for what they are. The mere fact that you have contradicted yourself in your first reply shows your lack of thought you have invested into your ideas. You do not come off anything like an anti-federalist. No, you come off a bit more like a political troll.

That said I bid you Adieu

Originally posted by BornPatriot
well this is what happens when a government betrays the people... or all out civil war... I say we have the convention -- and see what the result changes will before we start blasting caps. Due process folks...

YES INDEED. Words before bullets. Thank goodness we can amend our constitution. It would suck if the document were set in stone. I kinda like the idea of letting boths sexes of all colors vote. ...

Originally posted by titorite
I can debate constitutional thought sir. I seem to have a better understanding of the US constitution and US politics than you do. For example there is no such things as a Limited constitutional convention. Also when you bemoan adding new amendments but support this balanced budget amendment you contradict yourself.

Um, yes there is. It was the same procedure borrowed from the Articles of Confederation, and if you did your history, then you would know how they cheated in that situation, scholar. You also seem to imagine that I contradict myself. I don't object to new amendments, a fallacy you created because you're a compulsive liar with no hard evidence of your own. I'm perfectly fine with amendments, but I am also a constitutional originalist. I don't buy into the idea that the constitution is a "living document" and that any part should be simply stricken at will. The amendments that I proposed for removal were illegally ratified in the first place, and a balanced budget amendment would further hamper government growth, which ought to be considered a plus. So like I said before, "Oh, so you're telling me that you weren't reading closely! Thanks, I'll know better next time."

And sure enough, here you go again making an ass of yourself. =] Does it liberate you?

Maybe you do not understand how the big three work. New York does get a bigger say than Wyoming. You have New York, California, and Texas. If you win two out of three of those states electoral votes you will win the race. Three states currently make up half the electoral votes needed to win the presidency. This is not quite fair to the other 47 states.

55+34+31= 55+65=120. 270/2 = 120?

Did your parents pay for a tutor?

If you think politics are about "prestige" then you are truly of the good ol' boy fold that has created the majority of Americas political problems today.

No, "liberal progressivism" of your brand has created the majority of America's political problems of today. You never denied the lack of accountability in an overtly populist system, and you provided no guarantee other than your simple assurances as someone capable of "[debating] constitutional thought" that you understood our form of government. You get a big fat F in transparency.

SpencerJ, for better or worse you are entitled to your opinions. But your attempts to create fear mongering over my constitutional ideas are shallow and easily seen for what they are. The mere fact that you have contradicted yourself in your first reply shows your lack of thought you have invested into your ideas. You do not come off anything like an anti-federalist. No, you come off a bit more like a political troll.

Easily seen by who, exactly? Like I have said, inventing contradictions and misperceiving purely objective information isn't exactly smiled upon. So your attempts to call me a "troll" and "fearmonger", which are not only incorrectly used, are laughable. I have news for you. You're the minority in this thread. You're the one that keeps persisting on replying after anyone says this con con might not be such a good idea. Perhaps you're just trying to salvage what you can of your broken pride.

That said I bid you Adieu

And another thing, cockiness and smugness aren't really likeable traits, so if you want others to take you seriously, I suggest you learn some very basic manners.

Props to you, troll.

[edit on 12-12-2008 by SpencerJ]

Originally posted by titorite
I can debate constitutional thought sir. I seem to have a better understanding of the US constitution and US politics than you do. For example there is no such things as a Limited constitutional convention. Also when you bemoan adding new amendments but support this balanced budget amendment you contradict yourself.

Sometimes when people get into debates, they trip up and shoot themselves in the foot. You shot yourself in the face...with a shotgun, cobain style.

No limited constitutional convention? ummm...???

dlc.lib.utk.edu...

Way to discredit yourself completely. I can't even respond to the rest of your post after that blunder you just made.

reply to post by SpencerJ


From your first reply on page 2

Truth is, we need this amendment. We NEED to cripple the federal government, not strengthen it.

In fact, if there were any shot at it, I'd say the 14th, 16th, 17th amendments should all be purged.

Now, you have people trying to tell you that more of this tripe is a good thing.

Well SpencerJ how do you really feel? It is hard to tell when you contradict yourself? Do you think adding new amendments is "Tripe" or do we really need a new balanced budget amendment?

I am no troll sir. I am a member of the greatest board on the net and my ATS family know that and they know me. You SpencerJ are brand new to this board and already you have been up to no good as evidenced by your points.

Take a moment to gather all your thoughts into logical order then get back to us.

reply to post by grimreaper797


grimreaper797, you gave a link to the Tennessee constitution. The topic at hand is the U.S. Federal constitution and not any particular state constitution....

Enough. Yes there is such a thing as a limited Con Con.

A constitutional convention is a gathering for the purpose of writing a new constitution or revising an existing constitution. A general constitutional convention is called to create the first constitution of a political unit or to entirely replace an existing constitution. An unlimited constitutional convention is called to revise an existing constitution to the extent that it deems to be proper, whereas a limited constitutional convention is restricted to revising only the areas of the current constitution named in the convention's call, the legal mandate establishing the convention. In the case of the Philadelphia Convention, delegates met for the "sole purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation."

Wiki

Other than the Philadelphia Convention, we have not had a Limited Con Con and for good reason. The closest we came was in enacting the XVII Amendment.

The movement to amend the Constitution to provide for the direct election of U.S. Senators saw proposals regularly pass the House of Representatives only to die in the Senate from the early 1890s onward. As time went by, more and more state legislatures adopted resolutions demanding that a convention be called, pressuring the Senate to finally relent and approve what later became the Seventeenth Amendment for fear that such a convention—if permitted to assemble—might stray to include issues above and beyond just the direct election of U.S. Senators.

Realize that since the inception of the Constitution, there have been over 10,000 attempts to add amendments - only 27 have been successful to date.

You really want a balanced Budget amendment? Elect ONLY candidates who will submit the proposal - and stick with it - that would be the easier of the 2 ways to get an amendment.

Ohio also called for a Constitutional Convention back in 1912 because the state believed the constitution was outdated.

reply to post by redhatty


From your wiki link.

This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (February 2008)

And the Philadelphia convention was not limited by any means considering that is where the constitution was established in the first place to replace the articles of confederation.




[edit on 12-12-2008 by titorite]

reply to post by titorite


well, titorite, it's a bit impossible to have a site or source for something that HAS NEVER BEEN ALLOWED TO HAPPEN BEFORE.

or does that not compute?

reply to post by titorite

Well SpencerJ how do you really feel? It is hard to tell when you contradict yourself?

It is hard to tell when you're asking a question or inserting lies? This is why anything you say on the subject is so hard to take seriously, since you can't even speak straight for yourself, much less anyone you argue against.

Do you think adding new amendments is "Tripe" or do we really need a new balanced budget amendment?

When did I make such a blanket statement as you suggested? Nowhere at all. Amendments were designed for us to continue to put checks on government power, not EXPAND them. I'm in favor of eliminating ilegally-ratified amendments (which I already said), and not in favor of enacting populist rhetorical sentiment into law, as you suggest we should.

You SpencerJ are brand new to this board and already you have been up to no good as evidenced by your points.

Perhaps if you would like to look into why that is. For such a grey-matter guy, you are pretty arbitrary on a lot of issues. And from what I've seen, many mods act as if they were real cops. So how great does that make this site?

Take a moment to gather all your thoughts into logical order then get back to us.

Gather? Us? Here's a hint if you hadn't found out by now. It's getting easier every time to debunk your fallacies and snide remarks just by the fact I'm repeating myself because you apparently can't comprehend what you're reading. I would kindly point you to your own advice, except for the fact that you wouldn't understand what I just said and would think I'm contradicting myself and agreeing with you. So please, don't lecture me anymore on "seniority" issues or anything of the sort. It's a poor argument and makes you, the populist, look like a hypocrite.

Originally posted by titorite
reply to post by redhatty

 

From your wiki link.

This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (February 2008)

And the Philadelphia convention was not limited by any means considering that is where the constitution was established in the first place to replace the articles of confederation.
[edit on 12-12-2008 by titorite]

One of my earlier replies on the subject of the limited con con that he did not pay any attention to:

Um, yes there is. It was the same procedure borrowed from the Articles of Confederation, and if you did your history, then you would know how they cheated in that situation, scholar.

But it appears he is not as scholarly as he would like everyone to believe. The same protections are in place, and they worked for the Articles because in order to ratify a new constitution, they had to withdraw from the Union completely. Look it up, scholar.

Now, are you honestly going to tell me that- and this is going back to my first post (further proof titorite can't read)- you're going to convince 34 states to secede from the Union to form a NEW government when the convention was ordered to discuss a balanced budget amendment? With the whole world's mainstream press watching you? Yeah, um, that's enough kool-aid for you.

[edit on 12-12-2008 by SpencerJ]

reply to post by titorite


You said a limited constitutional convention DOESN'T EXIST. You think a national limited constitutional convention doesn't exist? Why? Because we haven't called for one yet? There is nothing to indicate a limited constitutional convention can't exist at a federal level. In fact, I'm fairly certain state legislature has called for them before.

I'll get some links after I get dinner.

reply to post by titorite


The convention of 1787, the philadelphia convention, was initially intended to be a LIMITED constitutional convention. When they finally had the convention though, they decided to have a full blown general constitutional convention.

That does not change the fact it was originally intended as a limited constitutional convention. I don't have any source readily avalible, I'm going by memory at the moment.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
reply to post by titorite

 

The convention of 1787, the philadelphia convention, was initially intended to be a LIMITED constitutional convention. When they finally had the convention though, they decided to have a full blown general constitutional convention.

Your words move to prove my point. Even if a limited convention is called for, once it is in session their is nothing to stop the delegates from debating other aspects of the constitution.

The intention was one thing but once those doors were closed it changed to address a variety of issues.