- 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 1:26 pm to HughsWorkPhone
Posted on 1/22/23 at 1:26 pm to HughsWorkPhone
quote:
Is there any negative to this, like a potential Trojan horse?
Still far too many/too great a number of people making decisions at a macro-level, vs. acting in the best interests of communities at a micro-level.
CoS, in theory, is far superior to our current system.
But ultimately, we’ll be having these same problematic convos again in the future.
0
Posted on 1/22/23 at 1:27 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
I’m don’t think most states are “awfully governed” - at least relatively speaking - either.
Difference of opinion then. IIRC, most state legislatures are underwater in approval polling, just like Congress.
quote:
My gripes go way beyond just congress, though.
Maybe so, but Congress is the root of all evil when it comes to fedgov complaints. Everything you hate about the executive and judiciary branches is because of congress. It’s like a corollary to EYLANO
Posted on 1/22/23 at 1:32 pm to Blutarsky
quote:
The politicians will tell you we already have them in the form of elections
:rotflmao:Posted on 1/22/23 at 2:07 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Those states will also ratify easily, as their delegations will be representative of the makeup of their respective legislature’s positions.
This math doesn't work in real life. You are being gaslighted about a COS, and by the same assholes that championed irrational Covid response and continue to champion all the climate and race/equity BS.
Consider this -
Prominent among those speaking out in support of a COS: Ron DeSantis, Rand Paul, and Chip Roy.
Prominent among those speaking out against a COS: Mitch McConnell, George Soros, and Hillary.
Posted on 1/22/23 at 2:17 pm to David_DJS
quote:
This math doesn't work in real life
In what way?
Do you think any state delegation would vote against the wishes of its own state leadership? I don’t. They will very obviously be in constant contact throughout with their States and the legislatures on whose behalf they are acting. It isn’t 1789 where it took weeks for feedback from home and the delegates were true delegates. They’ll be proxy votes this time because of technology.
quote:
You are being gaslighted about a COS
Wrong. My opinion on a COS is entirely my own. I don’t know or care what any of the people you cited think or speak about it. I haven’t even seen any of that.
I could maybe name 15 States I would trust with this risk. You can name more? Republicans love big government as much as democrats.
There aren’t 38 votes for a GOP wish list. Any compromises will require purple state approval and will necessarily mean moderate/Deep Statist positions on limiting the government
I truly believe there’s a better chance to get a term limit amendment through congress than there is of getting a clean term limit amendment with a COS. I have zero confidence the COS would limit itself to its assignment. It will come with poison pills.
This post was edited on 1/22/23 at 2:23 pm
Posted on 1/22/23 at 2:23 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Congress has no role in a COS.
LOL! yes they do. They actually have to call it into session even.
Posted on 1/22/23 at 2:25 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
But the risk of an open-ended COS putting everyone in the hands of the average state legislator is something I can’t get behind.
It's not open-ended. It's limited as the application states and congress calls into session.
Posted on 1/22/23 at 2:25 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
LOL! yes they do. They actually have to call it into session even.
After which they have no role. Once it is convened, Congress is powerless.
Anything Congress has ever done can be undone by constitutional amendment at that point once the COS convenes. Including anything Congress did limiting the scope of the COS.
This post was edited on 1/22/23 at 2:28 pm
Posted on 1/22/23 at 2:32 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
By what?
The application and it is limited.
quote:
And there is still nothing preventing the COS from expanding the scope with 38 State’s approval.
Yes there is. That would be a separate application that is started by 38 states for an open and GENERAL COS.
quote:
You’ve cited no legal authority otherwise and there is no express limitation in Article V.
Speaking of history, it does not good for you to see it nor to cite legal authority. You ignore it.
Congress has historically embraced the limited convention. When considering this question in the past, it has claimed the authority to call the convention, but also asserted a constitutional duty to respect the state application process, and to limit the subject of amendments to the subject areas cited therein. For instance, in 1984, the Senate Judiciary Committee claimed Congress’s power both to set and to enforce limits on the subject or subjects considered by an Article V Convention to those included in the state petitions. The committee’s report on the Constitutional Convention Implementation Act of 1984 (S. 119, 98th Congress), stated:
quote:
Under this legislation, it is the States themselves, operating through the Congress, which are ultimately responsible for imposing subject-matter limitations upon the Article V Convention.... the States are authorized to apply for a convention “for the purpose of proposing one or more specific amendments.” Indeed, that is the only kind of convention within the scope of the present legislation, although there is no intention to preclude a call for a “general” or “unlimited” convention
2010 study by the Goldwater Institute reached a similar conclusion. Examining the contemporary documents from the time of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, author Robert Natelson asserted that the founders anticipated the Article V Convention device would serve chiefly as an agent of the states. The states would set a convention’s agenda by specifying the questions it would address, with the convention bound to respect the limits of this mandate.
Congress’s acceptance of the limited convention model was signaled by its incorporation of supportive language in most of the more than 20 bills introduced between 1968 and 1992 that sought to anticipate an Article V Convention. For instance, S. 119, the Constitutional Convention Implementation Act of 1984, introduced by Senator Orrin G. Hatch in the 98th Congress, was generally similar to many of the convention planning bills introduced during this period. Section 6(a) prescribed a concurrent resolution that would summon an Article V Convention, which would “set forth the nature of the amendment or amendments for the consideration of which the convention is called.” Further, Section 10(b) required subject-matter adherence to the state applications, and reserved the right to decide any related questions to Congress:
quote:
No convention called under this Act may propose any amendment or amendments of a nature different from that stated in the concurrent resolution calling the convention. Questions arising under this subsection shall be determined solely by the Congress of the United States and its decisions shall be binding on all the others, including State and Federal courts.
Posted on 1/22/23 at 2:36 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
The application and it is limited.
The same application that can be altered or abrogated by Constitutional Amendment?
quote:
That would be a separate application that is started by 38 states for an open and GENERAL COS.
Or the initial COS can just do what it wants. Nothing in article V makes a distinction between limited and general COS. Any Act of Congress——ever is irrelevant once a COS is convened. Every act of congress can be removed, ignored, repealed, etc.
Constitution >>>> Congress.
I’ll say it again: Nothing Congress has ever done or will do can withstand a Constitutional Amendment repealing that action. Any limitation on the COS can be removed if 38 states vote to do it. “This amendment removes all topical restrictions on its drafting Article V Convention”…. If passed by 38 state legislatures, boom. Done. No limitation on the Convention.
This post was edited on 1/22/23 at 2:41 pm
Posted on 1/22/23 at 2:40 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Do you think any state delegation would vote against the wishes of its own state leadership? I don’t. They will very obviously be in constant contact throughout with their States and the legislatures on whose behalf they are acting. It isn’t 1789 where it took weeks for feedback from home and the delegates were true delegates. They’ll be proxy votes this time because of technology.
You have lost touch with reality on this subject if you believe that 38 state legislatures will vote to ratify the replacement of the US constitution because they sent delegations to a Convention of States with a remit to propose amendments on term limits and a balanced budget.
quote:
Wrong. My opinion on a COS is entirely my own. I don’t know or care what any of the people you cited think or speak about it. I haven’t even seen any of that.
Okay, I can buy that. So I'll restate the argument.
All by yourself, you have formed the same opinions/beliefs of a COS that Soros, Mitch McConnell and Hillary have, and in opposition to the likes of Rand Paul, Ron DeSantis and Chip Roy.
quote:
I truly believe there’s a better chance to get a term limit amendment through congress than there is of getting a clean term limit amendment with a COS
Yes, you have established in this thread that you have greater confidence/trust in f'n congress than you do state legislatures.
You are less a fan of state power and more a fan of federal power. It's the other way around for me.
This post was edited on 1/22/23 at 2:42 pm
Posted on 1/22/23 at 2:43 pm to David_DJS
quote:
You have lost touch with reality on this subject if you believe that 38 state legislatures will vote to ratify the replacement of the US constitution because they sent delegations to a Convention of States with a remit to propose amendments on term limits and a balanced budget.
You have done the same if you don’t think such a COS wouldn’t be on a slippery slope to replacing the doc. Compromises would have to be made. Deals would be brokered. It will not remain limited to its initial topics. I can’t believe anyone thinks it would be. Just LOOK at how legislatures do business right now. State and federal. There are no clean bills anywhere.
quote:
You are less a fan of state power and more a fan of federal power. It's the other way around for me.
Wrong. I just don’t think state legislatures are the avenue to success.
quote:
All by yourself, you have formed the same opinions/beliefs of a COS that Soros, Mitch McConnell and Hillary have, and in opposition to the likes of Rand Paul, Ron DeSantis and Chip Roy.
Yea, I just don’t care about that. None of those people have substantive positions on the issue, except perhaps Paul I’m guessing.
This post was edited on 1/22/23 at 2:44 pm
Posted on 1/22/23 at 2:58 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
You have done the same if you don’t think such a COS wouldn’t be on a slippery slope to replacing the doc.
No. And I'll explain the flaw in your logic.
You are conflating the above with the rest of that post (the following) -
quote:
Compromises would have to be made. Deals would be brokered. It will not remain limited to its initial topics. I can’t believe anyone thinks it would be. Just LOOK at how legislatures do business right now. State and federal. There are no clean bills anywhere.
I agree that it is possible that a COS be not disciplined, and could possibly go off the path of its remit.
So what?
The reality you've lost touch with is in your belief that because states identified/sent delegates, they'd ratify whatever bullshite advanced from the convention.
quote:
Wrong. I just don’t think state legislatures are the avenue to success.
So my argument that you believe in congress more than state legislatures is wrong because you think congress would be better at reining itself in that the states would be at reining congress in.
That seems a little off.
quote:
Yea, I just don’t care about that. None of those people have substantive positions on the issue, except perhaps Paul I’m guessing.
You should care. It's telling, or at least an interesting data point.
And you're wrong about these people not having substantive positions on the issue. It's a big thing for Soros (follow the money), and McConnell has thrown his weight around bigly in Kentucky to keep that state off the roster of states that have passed a COS resolution.
Posted on 1/22/23 at 2:58 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
By what?
The application and it is limited.
quote:
And there is still nothing preventing the COS from expanding the scope with 38 State’s approval.
Yes there is. That would be a separate application that is started by 38 states for an open and GENERAL COS.
quote:
You’ve cited no legal authority otherwise and there is no express limitation in Article V.
Speaking of history, it does not good for you to see it nor to cite legal authority. You ignore it.
Congress has historically embraced the limited convention. When considering this question in the past, it has claimed the authority to call the convention, but also asserted a constitutional duty to respect the state application process, and to limit the subject of amendments to the subject areas cited therein. For instance, in 1984, the Senate Judiciary Committee claimed Congress’s power both to set and to enforce limits on the subject or subjects considered by an Article V Convention to those included in the state petitions. The committee’s report on the Constitutional Convention Implementation Act of 1984 (S. 119, 98th Congress), stated:
quote:
Under this legislation, it is the States themselves, operating through the Congress, which are ultimately responsible for imposing subject-matter limitations upon the Article V Convention.... the States are authorized to apply for a convention “for the purpose of proposing one or more specific amendments.” Indeed, that is the only kind of convention within the scope of the present legislation, although there is no intention to preclude a call for a “general” or “unlimited” convention
2010 study by the Goldwater Institute reached a similar conclusion. Examining the contemporary documents from the time of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, author Robert Natelson asserted that the founders anticipated the Article V Convention device would serve chiefly as an agent of the states. The states would set a convention’s agenda by specifying the questions it would address, with the convention bound to respect the limits of this mandate.
Congress’s acceptance of the limited convention model was signaled by its incorporation of supportive language in most of the more than 20 bills introduced between 1968 and 1992 that sought to anticipate an Article V Convention. For instance, S. 119, the Constitutional Convention Implementation Act of 1984, introduced by Senator Orrin G. Hatch in the 98th Congress, was generally similar to many of the convention planning bills introduced during this period. Section 6(a) prescribed a concurrent resolution that would summon an Article V Convention, which would “set forth the nature of the amendment or amendments for the consideration of which the convention is called.” Further, Section 10(b) required subject-matter adherence to the state applications, and reserved the right to decide any related questions to Congress:
quote:
No convention called under this Act may propose any amendment or amendments of a nature different from that stated in the concurrent resolution calling the convention. Questions arising under this subsection shall be determined solely by the Congress of the United States and its decisions shall be binding on all the others, including State and Federal courts.
Posted on 1/22/23 at 3:08 pm to Jjdoc
on with the show.
its been established in this thread that a specific topic can be proposed by 38 states agreeing down to the punctuation. no variation. congress may or may not open pandoras box to a general.
but one topic is ok.
so. list your favorite.
lets get it down to 2 or 3 and hone the wording.
i would be shocked if polls oppose term limits.
i would say 12 years.
any combined house and senate years of service.
no exception.
its been established in this thread that a specific topic can be proposed by 38 states agreeing down to the punctuation. no variation. congress may or may not open pandoras box to a general.
but one topic is ok.
so. list your favorite.
lets get it down to 2 or 3 and hone the wording.
i would be shocked if polls oppose term limits.
i would say 12 years.
any combined house and senate years of service.
no exception.
This post was edited on 1/22/23 at 3:19 pm
Posted on 1/22/23 at 3:24 pm to CelticDog
quote:
been established in this thread that a specific topic can be proposed by 38 states agreeing down to the punctuation. no variation. congress may or may not open pandoras box to a general.
No congress shall call the cos or violated a direct article.
Posted on 1/22/23 at 3:29 pm to David_DJS
quote:
The reality you've lost touch with is in your belief that because states identified/sent delegates, they'd ratify whatever bullshite advanced from the convention.
My assumption is that the delegations are never doing anything at the COS that the people who sent them there don’t agree with. Modern reality makes that a certainty.
quote:
So my argument that you believe in congress more than state legislatures is wrong because you think congress would be better at reining itself in that the states would be at reining congress in.
No, my argument is that the States can reign Congress in better than they can reign themselves in.
quote:
You should care. It's telling, or at least an interesting data point.
No it isn’t. If me and George Soros like the color purple, is that an interesting data point?
Reason is everything and I doubt seriously that my reasons for opposing a Cos are the same as his.
quote:
And you're wrong about these people not having substantive positions on the issue. It's a big thing for Soros (follow the money), and McConnell has thrown his weight around bigly in Kentucky to keep that state off the roster of states that have passed a COS resolution.
Taking a position doesn’t make that position substantive.
Posted on 1/22/23 at 3:33 pm to Jjdoc
Why did you repost the same post? Go read and respond to my reply when you posted it the first time.
Nothing Congress ever has or will do can survive an amendment cancelling that action. 38 states can very easily just remove Congressional restrictions on the COS. There is no Article V language preventing it. Only acts of congress, which are powerless against the constitution.
Nothing Orrin Hatch or anyone else has ever said or passed in Congress changes that.
No it isn’t. A convention can amend the constitution and cancel any limitations or any other action ever taken by congress via constitutional amendment.
No act of Congress will ever defeat a constitutional amendment. Everything you cited can be ignored/legally abrogated by the COS once convened because they can amend the Constitutuon.
Nothing Congress ever has or will do can survive an amendment cancelling that action. 38 states can very easily just remove Congressional restrictions on the COS. There is no Article V language preventing it. Only acts of congress, which are powerless against the constitution.
Nothing Orrin Hatch or anyone else has ever said or passed in Congress changes that.
quote:
The application and it is limited.
No it isn’t. A convention can amend the constitution and cancel any limitations or any other action ever taken by congress via constitutional amendment.
No act of Congress will ever defeat a constitutional amendment. Everything you cited can be ignored/legally abrogated by the COS once convened because they can amend the Constitutuon.
This post was edited on 1/22/23 at 3:39 pm
Posted on 1/22/23 at 3:42 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
My assumption is that the delegations are never doing anything at the COS that the people who sent them there don’t agree with. Modern reality makes that a certainty.
You're connecting dots that do not belong connected. And you're stuck on this, but it makes no sense.
Taking your argument forward, you're essentially saying anything, literally anything, advanced from a COS would be ratified by states. Crazy.
quote:
No, my argument is that the States can reign Congress in better than they can reign themselves in.
It's not clear what you mean here, but in either case - states can rein congress in better than congress can rein itself in, or states can rein congress in better than they can rein themselves in - it doesn't make sense given the balance of your position. You seem to be making a point for my side.
quote:
No it isn’t. If me and George Soros like the color purple, is that an interesting data point?
If the subject is colors, sure, particularly if Soros is spending loads of cash to convince everyone that purple is the best color ever.
quote:
Reason is everything and I doubt seriously that my reasons for opposing a Cos are the same as his.
And this is where the gaslighting comes in. You understand that, right?
quote:
Taking a position doesn’t make that position substantive.
A few pages ago, didn't you suggest that I wasn't responding to what you posted?
Did I argue that Soros and McConnell just willy-nilly expressed a position on a COS, or did I explain that they're spending a lot of money (Soros) and throwing their political weight around (McConnell) to keep a COS from being called?
Posted on 1/22/23 at 3:45 pm to David_DJS
quote:
You're connecting dots that do not belong connected.
How are the delegations and the entities that sent them not connected? The delegates will only act with the support and consultation of the people who sent them there. You act like this COS will happen in a locked room inside a Faraday cage or something. Do you not follow any legislative politics at all?
No Convention is passing amendments that doesn’t have the votes for ratification. It would be the biggest waste of time and resources imaginable. Any given amendment being palatable to a State’s legislature is going to be a requirement for that State’s delegates to support said amendment at the Convention. It’s the same goddamn people
quote:
Taking your argument forward, you're essentially saying anything, literally anything, advanced from a COS would be ratified by states.
How would anything else result? You think the delegates are some serene, disinterested body of people who aren’t acting on behalf of the State legislature that sent them there? That is nonsense and ignores reality.
quote:
And this is where the gaslighting comes in. You understand that, right?
No, because I didn’t even know any of those people had a position on a COS, this gaslighting is totally irrelevant.
This post was edited on 1/22/23 at 3:49 pm
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News