- 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: Meckler: Optimistic for a Convention of States by 2026. Count at 19 right now
Posted on 1/22/23 at 8:46 am to Jjdoc
Posted on 1/22/23 at 8:46 am to Jjdoc
Won't happen. All the states that have signed on have GOP majority legislatures, and a number of GOP-majority states aren't close to signing on.
And "convention of states" (sounds good, but no one knows what it is) is a nonstarter in politically mainstream America.
And "convention of states" (sounds good, but no one knows what it is) is a nonstarter in politically mainstream America.
This post was edited on 1/22/23 at 8:48 am
2
Posted on 1/22/23 at 8:51 am to tarzana
Just fyi, once convened, there is no limit as to what can be changed. Heck they could bargain for term limits with an amended 2nd regarding guns as a trade off
Posted on 1/22/23 at 8:58 am to tarzana
quote:
Won't happen. All the states that have signed on have GOP majority legislatures, and a number of GOP-majority states aren't close to signing on.
It will take a "crisis". Like a debt crisis, which we are close to, to get the last few states to sign on.
We need to be ready when this happens.
Posted on 1/22/23 at 9:07 am to frogtown
quote:
last few states to sign on
18 states is a lot more than "the last few." And of the states who have not signed on, no more than 10 have GOP-majority legislatures. In all of the Democratic states, "convention of states" hasn't even been introduced.
This post was edited on 1/22/23 at 9:08 am
Posted on 1/22/23 at 9:19 am to tarzana
quote:
18 states is a lot more than "the last few." And of the states who have not signed on, no more than 10 have GOP-majority legislatures. In all of the Democratic states, "convention of states" hasn't even been introduced.
You didn't read what I posted.
Some of those states, Wyoming, South Dakota, Idaho, Montana, Iowa, etc etc will be on board.
The rest it will take a crisis. Like I said.
Posted on 1/22/23 at 9:53 am to frogtown
Hasn’t this been going on for 10+ years. I was listening to a talking head and his comment was that if a convention of the states did happen, things could get wild. Everything and anything is up for change, good or bad. With enough votes or deals made
This post was edited on 1/22/23 at 9:54 am
Posted on 1/22/23 at 10:00 am to Jjdoc
Be prepared what you wish for. A convention of states can amend your first and second amendment rights (all rights actually) away without the usual constitutional safeguards. You are playing right into their hands.
Posted on 1/22/23 at 10:11 am to ELVIS U
In theory convention of the states can’t do anything but suggest amendments to the states for ratification. As written in the Constitution, It’s basically the same as the congressional amendment process. Only difference is who drafts and refers the amendments.
In reality, a convention of states could do what every constitutional convention in history has done—-get rid of the document they are trying to amend and rewrite it. And there’s nothing the courts etc can do to stop them. This inevitability is why no one should support a COS. It WILL lead to a worse, more burdensome and overbearing document.
In reality, a convention of states could do what every constitutional convention in history has done—-get rid of the document they are trying to amend and rewrite it. And there’s nothing the courts etc can do to stop them. This inevitability is why no one should support a COS. It WILL lead to a worse, more burdensome and overbearing document.
This post was edited on 1/22/23 at 10:14 am
Posted on 1/22/23 at 10:20 am to CelticDog
Stfu, Otto
Posted on 1/22/23 at 10:37 am to Jjdoc
Convention of States? Will never happen nor should it.
Posted on 1/22/23 at 10:58 am to Jack Bauers HnK
quote:
The states are capable of handling all those issues on their own.
LOL at those folk who think the states can't function w/o a Nanny State Federal Government.
Posted on 1/22/23 at 11:04 am to Indefatigable
quote:
In reality, a convention of states could do what every constitutional convention in history has done—-get rid of the document they are trying to amend and rewrite it. And there’s nothing the courts etc can do to stop them. This inevitability is why no one should support a COS. It WILL lead to a worse, more burdensome and overbearing document.
Are you seriously worried that 38 state legislatures will vote to get rid of the constitution?
I don't understand why so many are so afraid of themselves.
Posted on 1/22/23 at 11:07 am to David_DJS
quote:
Are you seriously worried that 38 state legislatures will vote to get rid of the constitution?
No. I’m worried that a convention will give itself the authority to do so, and just do it.
You understand that’s how the Constitution itself came to be right? They were there to amend the Articles, with zero authority to ditch and replace. It’s incredibly naive to expect something like this to be limited in any way.
And to answer your question—yes, I fully expect the state legislatures (aka the entities who sent the delegates to the convention) to rubber stamp anything that comes out of the convention.
This post was edited on 1/22/23 at 11:10 am
Posted on 1/22/23 at 11:14 am to Indefatigable
quote:
No. I’m worried that a convention will give itself the authority to do so, and just do it.
Here's the text of Article V. Where are you finding the a COS's authority to unilaterally amend/replace the 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.
I'm no constitutional authority, but it looks to me like any change to the constitution requires ratification by at least 75% of state legislatures.
Posted on 1/22/23 at 11:16 am to David_DJS
quote:
Here's the text of Article V. Where are you finding the a COS's authority to unilaterally amend/replace the constitution?
It isn’t in there. The entire point is that it doesn’t have to be. A convention will expand the scope of its duties and it will substantially alter the document and/or replace it. It has never not happened that way. Look at France’s constitutional history if our own example isn’t enough for you.
quote:
I'm no constitutional authority, but it looks to me like any change to the constitution requires ratification by at least 75% of state legislatures.
Correct. Rubber stamps from the entities that participated in the convention and drafted whatever comes out of the convention.
This post was edited on 1/22/23 at 11:19 am
Posted on 1/22/23 at 11:25 am to Indefatigable
quote:
It isn’t in there. The entire point is that it doesn’t have to be. A convention will expand the scope of its duties and it will substantially alter the document and/or replace it. ... 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.
Then why bother waiting for a COS to be called? If this is all it takes to amend/replace the constitution, why don't you, me and a few PT'ers that think like we do take care of this ourselves? Sure, our authority to do this isn't in the constitution, but, as you argue, it doesn't have to be.
Posted on 1/22/23 at 11:27 am to David_DJS
quote:
Then why bother waiting for a COS to be called? If this is all it takes to amend/replace the constitution, why don't you, me and a few PT'ers that think like we do take care of this ourselves?
Huh?
What a nonsense and lazy reply
Yes, a convention would need to be called in a lawful manner for any of this to matter. I have no idea how that addresses any of my points though.
You seem to believe that the entities that participate in the COS (the states) are going to act as some sort of barrier against a runaway convention, which I find to be completely absurd. There is a reason one has never been called. It cannot be controlled once convened.
This post was edited on 1/22/23 at 11:33 am
Posted on 1/22/23 at 11:37 am to Indefatigable
quote:
Yes, a convention would need to be called in a lawful manner for any of this to matter.
Why? Aren't you arguing that what's written in the constitution doesn't matter? In the case of a COS, this group of people can just ignore the constitution and amend/replace it by decree, so why can't some other group do the same?
quote:
I have no idea how that addresses any of my points though.
In your words, here's the basis of your argument -
I’m worried that a convention will give itself the authority to do so, and just do it.
And I'm suggesting that if this is a real concern, then why don't we just vote ourselves the authority to amend the constitution and change it to our liking? Because there's no practical difference between the two.
Posted on 1/22/23 at 11:41 am to David_DJS
quote:
Why? Aren't you arguing that what's written in the constitution doesn't matter? In the case of a COS, this group of people can just ignore the constitution and amend/replace it by decree, so why can't some other group do the same?
Because a convention of the states is required for a convention of the states to be convened, which is required for anything in this thread to be relevant.
Quit being obtuse. No one is saying that random groups of people can amend anything.
The point is that a COS, ONCE CONVENED, cannot be controlled. The states will ratify anything that comes out of it, and nothing in the Constitution requires the COS to stay on topic.
quote:
And I'm suggesting that if this is a real concern, then why don't we just vote ourselves the authority to amend the constitution and change it to our liking? Because there's no practical difference between the two.
Because if you could read and/or were arguing honestly, you would notice that my sentence says “A CONVENTION will give itself the authority to do so”
Nothing that I have said in this thread is relevant unless a COS is called.
ETA: This will be the sequence of events:
1. COS called
2. State legislatures send delegates to the COS
3. COS immediately goes outside of its guidance parameters
4. COS decides that replacing is easier than amending just like every other such institution in history
5. COS passes a replacement document
6. State legislatures, who de facto comprised the delegates at the COS to begin with and thus already tacitly approved of the result, ratify whatever comes out of the COS.
This post was edited on 1/22/23 at 11:49 am
Posted on 1/22/23 at 11:59 am to Indefatigable
quote:
Quit being obtuse. No one is saying that random groups of people can amend anything.
I'm not being obtuse. I'm taking the step in logic after yours. That's all.
You argue that the people assembled as a COS can ignore the constitution and amend/replace the constitution by authority they give themselves. I'm suggesting let's just do it ourselves, because that's as much "not in the constitution" as a COS giving itself unilateral authority to replace the constitution.
quote:
Address this point that I am making continuously which you ignore— a COS won’t technically be breaking the law because the state legislatures will rubber stamp anything coming out of the COS. That’s the difference between a COS and random people.
Well, wait - I thought you were arguing that the COS would unilaterally amend/replace the constitution, here we're back to 75% of state legislatures needing to ratify.
Maybe I've misunderstood your point. Is your point that you don't trust the state legislatures in their position to ratify? Ratifying proposed amendments is where the actual power lies in terms of changing the constitution.
Page 2 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News