- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Dems do not want a Convention of States
Posted on 4/9/14 at 3:03 pm
Posted on 4/9/14 at 3:03 pm
Here is a senator's words
BTW.. it passed in vermont without him.
quote:
A Vermont lawmaker says a proposed constitutional convention of states is an attack on free speech and sets up the possibility for a runway convention.
quote:
“I see it as an attack on free speech,”
BTW.. it passed in vermont without him.
quote:
The Vermont Senate on March 20 voted in favor of an Article V constitutional convention
6
Posted on 4/9/14 at 3:05 pm to darkhorse
Maybe they can revise the 2nd amendment to militias only. Yeah right. That's not what they are there for. Just kidding calm your red neck down just kidding
Posted on 4/9/14 at 3:05 pm to darkhorse
I'm confused. Forgive my ignorance. What are the rules on a convention? What's to stop the liberals from taking it over and making things even worse?
Posted on 4/9/14 at 3:07 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
What's to stop the liberals from taking it over and making things even worse?
The fact that the states themselves have to approve the amendments and not congress.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 3:08 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
What's to stop the liberals from taking it over and making things even worse?
Each state is set up differently, but no one state has more POWER than another. LA's vote is as strong as Ca or NY.
It's a sea of RED within most of the states legislatures.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 3:09 pm to C
I am still afraid of a runaway convention.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 3:10 pm to weagle99
If the convention did away with the 2nd amendment wouldn't that be within their right? Crazy
or the 1st etc etc
or the 1st etc etc
This post was edited on 4/9/14 at 3:11 pm
Posted on 4/9/14 at 3:10 pm to weagle99
Well, we may have crossed the threshold for a convention.
It's in the hands of HOUSE to recognize it.
It's in the hands of HOUSE to recognize it.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 3:14 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
If the convention did away with the 2nd amendment wouldn't that be within their right?
Congress could do that today. Why is it more at risk during a convention?
Posted on 4/9/14 at 3:16 pm to darkhorse
It was my understanding that the main driver for a convention was a balanced budget amendment. It's desperately needed IMO.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 3:16 pm to weagle99
I may be wrong because there are a number of initiatives out there , but the convention darkhorse is referring to would only be for a balanced budget amendment.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 3:17 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
1- It's not a constitutional convention. They could not do away with it, as they would not have the power.
2- after amendments are purposed, it has to go back to the states. 38 states must vote for it to ratify it.
3- That means that it is the local rep and senator of the state that votes.
2- after amendments are purposed, it has to go back to the states. 38 states must vote for it to ratify it.
3- That means that it is the local rep and senator of the state that votes.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 3:17 pm to C
C If Congress did it the Supreme Court would knock it down and rightfully so. But if it was made part of the Constitution who knows?
Posted on 4/9/14 at 3:17 pm to C
quote:
Congress could do that today.
No they can't. Legislation does not equal Constitutional amendment - anything passed by Congress, to alter the language of the Constitution would have to be ratified by the States.
Now, a liberal Supreme Court could do it - with just 5 people, by saying that "people" in the 2nd Amendment doesn't really mean "people", but, in fact means "the police and military."
It would be a tough sell, but they did it in Roe v. Wade (7-2, by the way), finding a right to abortion under a general right to privacy, which they also "inferred" in previous decisions.
But, Congress cannot do away with the 2nd Amendment - if they could have, they would have in 1994.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 3:17 pm to OleWar
quote:
the convention darkhorse is referring to would only be for a balanced budget amendment.
I don't think you can restrict the results of the convention.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 3:20 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:34 (2/3 of states by number) states can call for a convention. The convention is free to vote on any amendments to the constitution or even replace the existing constitution, which is what happened once before with the Articles of the Confederation. (No, GT, that was not how the Confederate States of America was formed.)
What are the rules on a convention?
The amendments must then be submitted back to the states and it takes 38 (3/4) of the states to ratify the amendments proposed by the convention.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 3:20 pm to C
I'm starting another topic about where it is. We have REACHED 34.
I wanted to keep this on track in that liberals do not want this to take place. Why? They are afraid they will lose power.
I wanted to keep this on track in that liberals do not want this to take place. Why? They are afraid they will lose power.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 3:22 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
anything passed by Congress, to alter the language of the Constitution would have to be ratified by the States.
and how is that more or less difficult that what this convention is trying to do?
Posted on 4/9/14 at 3:23 pm to darkhorse
quote:
We have REACHED 34.
really?
Posted on 4/9/14 at 3:23 pm to darkhorse
quote:
a senator
=/=
quote:
Dems
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News