- 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
re: Convention off the states.. all 50 now in play
Posted on 7/22/14 at 9:11 am to SpidermanTUba
Posted on 7/22/14 at 9:11 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
I predict a total implosion at the convention
This, if not worse.
The idea behind trying to hold a convention, likely meaning an Article V convention, would be to push new amendments into the Constitution.
That's good if the idea is to eliminate the ability of the state to do certain things, such as beggaring the people through extreme deficit spending and quantitative easing.
I have a feeling, though, that such a convention would co-opted by people looking to change or remove existing amendments such as the 2nd Amendment or the 1st Amendment.
3
Posted on 7/22/14 at 9:17 am to teke184
quote:
I have a feeling, though, that such a convention would co-opted by people looking to change or remove existing amendments such as the 2nd Amendment or the 1st Amendment.
More like fact. A opened ended convention would be chaos. Every IG pulling on every leg there.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 9:52 am to teke184
quote:
I have a feeling, though, that such a convention would co-opted by people looking to change or remove existing amendments such as the 2nd Amendment or the 1st Amendment.
SO what? The amendments have to be ratified by 3/4ths of the states. If that many states decide to do it, so be it.
What are we so scared of? That there will be disagreement in a convention? Propose an amendment and go through the ratification process. If it passes then that's a hell of a threshold.
I think open debate and active participation by the states is a good thing in a representative republic.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 9:59 am to teke184
I may be mistaken, T...but I recall that the Convention - because of the possibility of the chaos you suspect - will be strictly focused on a single issue. Such being the independence of individual States. This would be part of the rules up front.
The Urban populous vote is what they seek to bridle; and in this manner, it would be (narrowly) possible to get the 'flyover' Red States on board to make it happen. And who knows, a couple of the Blues might buy in so as not to be forced to put up money for slacker Reds (Mississippi, comes to mind).
Interesting.
The Urban populous vote is what they seek to bridle; and in this manner, it would be (narrowly) possible to get the 'flyover' Red States on board to make it happen. And who knows, a couple of the Blues might buy in so as not to be forced to put up money for slacker Reds (Mississippi, comes to mind).
Interesting.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:06 am to Mohican
quote:
SO what? The amendments have to be ratified by 3/4ths of the states. If that many states decide to do it, so be it.
An Article V convention doesn't exactly follow the normal rules for ratifying amendments.
If one is called and the wrong people get control of it, they could ram all kinds of shite through and it becomes part of the Constitution.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:09 am to darkhorse
quote:If the convention is off the states, who is it on?
Convention off the states.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:18 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
That doesn't even make sense. Treaties and international law are not enforcible domestically without Congress specifically passing a law enforcing them. So that's the situation as it stands now, no amendment needed.
UN small arms treaty is a perfect example. And with the nuclear option opened, why should a simple majority be able to backdoor ammend the constitution?
Thats not how you change the second ammendment.
I believe the 2nd ammendment should have said the people can have any weaponry available to the government without restrictions
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:30 am to Mr.Perfect
quote:
I believe the 2nd ammendment should have said the people can have any weaponry available to the government without restrictions
The second amendment says nothing of the sort and thank god it doesnt... Do you think the second amendment allows or should allow citizens to have nukes? Drones? longrange missles? fighter jets?
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:32 am to teke184
quote:
If one is called and the wrong people get control of it, they could ram all kinds of shite through and it becomes part of the Constitution.
That can't happen without 3/4th's approval.
If you've ever been in a business meeting you know that shite can get out of hand. It happens. But no one ever argued that the meeting shouldn't take place because of that fact. The real issue is what actions take place due to the meeting, and in this case there is a very high threshold for action.
I agree they should be narrowly focused beforehand. 2/3rds of the states have to agree to the convention to begin with. That will not and should not happen without the agenda clearly set forth and rules put in place.
We are so afraid of the power the founders put forth and intended for us to use. I don't quite get it.
This post was edited on 7/22/14 at 10:35 am
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:33 am to petar
quote:
The second amendment says nothing of the sort and thank god it doesnt... Do you think the second amendment allows or should allow citizens to have nukes? Drones? longrange missles? fighter jets?
I think Scalia got it right in the most recent interpretation.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:34 am to darkhorse
quote:
and has already passed in several states.
What does this mean? Have the State legislatures passed something?
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:34 am to Mr.Perfect
quote:
UN small arms treaty is a perfect example. And with the nuclear option opened, why should a simple majority be able to backdoor ammend the constitution?
Do you know what the nuclear option is?
The nuclear option removed the threshold for cloture. That is, you only need a simple majority to call a vote now.
A treaty ratification still requires two thirds of the Senators to actually vote for it after the vote is called.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:37 am to Mohican
I'm not afraid at all.
The issue is that the liberals are afraid. The reason is that the state legislatures are generally conservative vs washington.
That's the real issue.
The issue is that the liberals are afraid. The reason is that the state legislatures are generally conservative vs washington.
That's the real issue.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:45 am to Mohican
quote:
We are so afraid of the power the founders put forth and intended for us to use. I don't quite get it.
Many would argue this from the opposite side of the aisle from you.
California was recently calling for a convention but i seem to remember it was on starkly different issue.
And just out of curiosity, what scalia decision are you referring to?
Posted on 7/22/14 at 11:02 am to petar
quote:
Many would argue this from the opposite side of the aisle from you.
California was recently calling for a convention but i seem to remember it was on starkly different issue.
Good on them. The ideological reasons for calling the convention are irrelevant. It's the idea that the states have the right to do so.
If 2/3rds of the states decide to call a convention on the basis of making Obama lord of all and ruler of nations, then they can do it. Good luck on the 2/3rds though.
quote:
And just out of curiosity, what scalia decision are you referring to?
I believe it was District of Columbia vs. Heller IIRC.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 11:22 am to Mr.Perfect
quote:
UN small arms treaty is a perfect example.
Of what? A treaty that can't be enforced domestically without specific action from Congress? Like I said. They're all like that.
EDIT-
Oh, sorry, my bad. I should have figured your statement would in some way relate to a lie.
LINK
This post was edited on 7/22/14 at 11:25 am
Posted on 7/22/14 at 11:24 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
To do what?
Balance the budget.
Term limits.
Don't underestimate the amount of consensus that could be drawn in a few key areas - and it wouldn't change things overnight, but could have long-term implications.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 11:26 am to Mohican
quote:
District of Columbia vs. Heller
thanks. couldn't remember either
Posted on 7/22/14 at 11:27 am to petar
quote:
Do you think the second amendment allows or should allow citizens to have nukes? Drones? longrange missles? fighter jets?
Tyrants like the Kim family of North Korea have them. And nobody stops them.
But, let me toss it back to you - what right do you believe the Second Amendment protects, and how far do you believe that protection extends?
And "keep and bear arms" towards what purpose do you think was intended?
Posted on 7/22/14 at 11:34 am to Ace Midnight
quote:We need to have guns so when we disagree with the law we can shoot people trying to enforce it.
And "keep and bear arms" towards what purpose do you think was intended?
This post was edited on 7/22/14 at 11:35 am
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News