RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Push for Convention of States Gains Steam - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Push for Convention of States Gains Steam Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is online   LongKnife 

  • Don't start none, won't be none.
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 2,691
  • Joined: 10-November 04

Posted 15 May 2017 - 10:51 AM

Push for Convention of the States to rein in government gains steam

Fox News
Doug McKelway
May 15, 2017

WASHINGTON – When Democrats launched into a spontaneous chorus of "Na na na na, hey hey, goodbye" on the House floor after the passage of the American Health Care Act last month, it may have marked a modern-day low mark in open hostility on the House floor.

It and numerous other cultural barometers – from cable news contributors losing their cool, to contentious town halls, to street fights – are signaling tectonic rumblings in America's political health.

In 1804, Vice President Aaron Burr and former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton settled their bitter political feud with a pistol duel that took Hamilton’s life, but Article Five of the Constitution offers a more civilized resolution – a Convention of the States.

It is an option not exercised since before the signing of the Constitution. But it's gaining new strength and new adherents.

"It is the only process that is available to address what Washington is doing. Washington is not going to fix itself," said radio talk show host and author, Mark Levin.

In his book, The Liberty Amendments, Levin dissects the remedy of a Convention of the States. With 9 million listeners a day on radio and a devoted following that shows up by the thousands for his book signings, Levin has helped increase its popularity, and lent grass-roots energy to the Convention of States Project. It claims 2.8 million volunteers, and is expected to grow to 10 million by the end of this year, with district directors in every congressional district.

While 11 state legislatures, most recently Texas, have already supported a convention of the states, that number is far short of the 34 states the Constitution requires before a convention can be called.

Story
0

#2 User is online   mjperry51 

  • My Brain Hurts!!
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 11,039
  • Joined: 13-September 03

Posted 15 May 2017 - 11:17 AM

View PostLongKnife, on 15 May 2017 - 10:51 AM, said:

While 11 state legislatures, most recently Texas, have already supported a convention of the states, that number is far short of the 34 states the Constitution requires before a convention can be called.

This is misleading.

Current status of the COS campaign is here. Only six states have taken NO action.
0

#3 User is online   gravelrash 

  • I wish they all were punk rock girls
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 11,055
  • Joined: 24-June 03

Posted 15 May 2017 - 11:20 AM

View PostLongKnife, on 15 May 2017 - 10:51 AM, said:

WASHINGTON – When Democrats launched into a spontaneous chorus of "Na na na na, hey hey, goodbye" on the House floor after the passage of the American Health Care Act last month, it may have marked a modern-day low mark in open hostility on the House floor.





View PostLongKnife, on 15 May 2017 - 10:51 AM, said:

In 1804, Vice President Aaron Burr and former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton settled their bitter political feud with a pistol duel that took Hamilton’s life, but Article Five of the Constitution offers a more civilized resolution – a Convention of the States.


Don't even get me started. But you know what I'm referring to.


We don't need a Convention of States. Just sit back and let PRESIDENT Donald J. Trump continue to trash the establishment.
0

#4 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,029
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 15 May 2017 - 11:26 AM

View Postmjperry51, on 15 May 2017 - 11:17 AM, said:

This is misleading.

Current status of the COS campaign is here. Only six states have taken NO action.

Interesting. So we might know by the end of 2017 what the chances are. If it's going towards supporting the COS, watch the media completely not cover it.
0

#5 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 45,976
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 15 May 2017 - 11:40 AM

Such a convention bears a grave danger, as explained in every one of these threads: The fact that lots of things you don't want to happen are equally likely.

Look, I'd love to see about 95% of our current federal interference eliminated. And if this Convention of States could guarantee that nothing else would happen, I'd be the first in line to sign up. But no such guarantee is possible. In fact, it would be extraordinarily unlikely.

Don't forget the millions of Hillary voters last November. Millions. Literally millions. Undeniable proof there are still millions of extremely dumb voters, many of them gathered rather tightly in large, politically powerful areas. Suppose there was a Convention of States and they were successful on some key issues? Re-writing (or eliminating altogether) the 2nd Amendment, for just a single example. Don't kid yourself it "couldn't possibly happen".

It could.

B)
0

#6 User is offline   baldeagle 

  • Old Salt of the Sixth Fleet
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 1,579
  • Joined: 24-September 03

Posted 15 May 2017 - 12:54 PM

You are absolutely right, Monty.
The conditions prevailing during the constitutional convention of 1787 would be impossible to replicate today.
No.1 being the quality of the Founding Fathers. Does anyone remotely believe there is anyone in Washington today comparable?
No.2 being the activism and influence of special interest groups and lobbyists. They would all have their special agendas and could/would exert tremendous pressures on the delegates.
No.3 would be the pressure from the national media in the era of instantaneous and 24 hour news coverage.

What we would eventually get from such a fustercluck none of us would desire.
0

#7 User is online   mjperry51 

  • My Brain Hurts!!
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 11,039
  • Joined: 13-September 03

Posted 15 May 2017 - 01:38 PM

View PostMontyPython, on 15 May 2017 - 11:40 AM, said:

Such a convention bears a grave danger, as explained in every one of these threads: The fact that lots of things you don't want to happen are equally likely.

Look, I'd love to see about 95% of our current federal interference eliminated. And if this Convention of States could guarantee that nothing else would happen, I'd be the first in line to sign up. But no such guarantee is possible. In fact, it would be extraordinarily unlikely.

Don't forget the millions of Hillary voters last November. Millions. Literally millions. Undeniable proof there are still millions of extremely dumb voters, many of them gathered rather tightly in large, politically powerful areas. Suppose there was a Convention of States and they were successful on some key issues? Re-writing (or eliminating altogether) the 2nd Amendment, for just a single example. Don't kid yourself it "couldn't possibly happen".

It could.

B)



View Postbaldeagle, on 15 May 2017 - 12:54 PM, said:

You are absolutely right, Monty.
The conditions prevailing during the constitutional convention of 1787 would be impossible to replicate today.
No.1 being the quality of the Founding Fathers. Does anyone remotely believe there is anyone in Washington today comparable?
No.2 being the activism and influence of special interest groups and lobbyists. They would all have their special agendas and could/would exert tremendous pressures on the delegates.
No.3 would be the pressure from the national media in the era of instantaneous and 24 hour news coverage.

What we would eventually get from such a fustercluck none of us would desire.

Not true.

Convention of States is not the same as a full Constitutional Convention. It is limited in scope -- learn more here. . .
0

#8 User is offline   imposter 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 100+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 1,353
  • Joined: 05-November 04

Posted 15 May 2017 - 02:08 PM

"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 don't see anything in the constitution that limits amendments proposed in a convention of the states to a single topic, in spite of what all the convention of the states proponents say. The only limits I see are that amendments before 1808 can't affect certain clauses (having to do with slavery and direct taxes) and that amendments can't cause states to be deprived of equal votes in the senate without their own consent. Nothing in there saying a convention called to restrain government can't propose, for example, an amendment mandating universal federal health care coverage.
0

#9 User is online   mjperry51 

  • My Brain Hurts!!
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 11,039
  • Joined: 13-September 03

Posted 15 May 2017 - 02:38 PM

View Postimposter, on 15 May 2017 - 02:08 PM, said:

"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 don't see anything in the constitution that limits amendments proposed in a convention of the states to a single topic, in spite of what all the convention of the states proponents say. The only limits I see are that amendments before 1808 can't affect certain clauses (having to do with slavery and direct taxes) and that amendments can't cause states to be deprived of equal votes in the senate without their own consent. Nothing in there saying a convention called to restrain government can't propose, for example, an amendment mandating universal federal health care coverage.

What exactly are you concerned about? If California or NY proposed something that benefits them to the detriment of the rest of the States do you think West Virginia or Indiana is going to support it? Each state gets only one vote. A proposed Amendment requires a 3/4 majority to pass. Frankly Mark Levin had it right in the Liberty Amendments -- if the COS does something so absurd it destroys the Republic we were already broken.

A typical Constitutional Convention throws open the entire Constitution; the COS is an amendment process only. . .
0

#10 User is offline   imposter 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 100+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 1,353
  • Joined: 05-November 04

Posted 15 May 2017 - 03:34 PM

View Postmjperry51, on 15 May 2017 - 02:38 PM, said:

What exactly are you concerned about? If California or NY proposed something that benefits them to the detriment of the rest of the States do you think West Virginia or Indiana is going to support it? Each state gets only one vote. A proposed Amendment requires a 3/4 majority to pass. Frankly Mark Levin had it right in the Liberty Amendments -- if the COS does something so absurd it destroys the Republic we were already broken.

A typical Constitutional Convention throws open the entire Constitution; the COS is an amendment process only. . .


There's no difference between a constitutional convention and a convention of the states: an amendment only process can be used to change the entire constitution. There's no constitutional way to limit a convention of the states to a single topic. And of course people (and states) will vote for things that hurt them. How do you think we ended up with 8 years of Obama?

We ARE already broken. The government is already violating the plain meaning of the constitution constantly. However, in some cases congress or the courts do still pay attention to the constitution and limit government actions. There are some good representatives and judges. A convention of the states runs the risk of eliminating even those limited cases. I don't trust that votes couldn't be found to further destroy our already broken system.
0

#11 User is online   mjperry51 

  • My Brain Hurts!!
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 11,039
  • Joined: 13-September 03

Posted 15 May 2017 - 03:56 PM

View Postimposter, on 15 May 2017 - 03:34 PM, said:

There's no difference between a constitutional convention and a convention of the states: an amendment only process can be used to change the entire constitution. There's no constitutional way to limit a convention of the states to a single topic. And of course people (and states) will vote for things that hurt them. How do you think we ended up with 8 years of Obama?

We ARE already broken. The government is already violating the plain meaning of the constitution constantly. However, in some cases congress or the courts do still pay attention to the constitution and limit government actions. There are some good representatives and judges. A convention of the states runs the risk of eliminating even those limited cases. I don't trust that votes couldn't be found to further destroy our already broken system.

You've thrown in the towel -- okay. . .
0

#12 User is offline   Italian Biker 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 3,220
  • Joined: 13-November 03

Posted 16 May 2017 - 11:38 AM

View PostMontyPython, on 15 May 2017 - 11:40 AM, said:

Such a convention bears a grave danger, as explained in every one of these threads: The fact that lots of things you don't want to happen are equally likely.

Look, I'd love to see about 95% of our current federal interference eliminated. And if this Convention of States could guarantee that nothing else would happen, I'd be the first in line to sign up. But no such guarantee is possible. In fact, it would be extraordinarily unlikely.

Don't forget the millions of Hillary voters last November. Millions. Literally millions. Undeniable proof there are still millions of extremely dumb voters, many of them gathered rather tightly in large, politically powerful areas. Suppose there was a Convention of States and they were successful on some key issues? Re-writing (or eliminating altogether) the 2nd Amendment, for just a single example. Don't kid yourself it "couldn't possibly happen".

It could.

B)

I would not mind a rewrite of the second amendment. Here is my proposal. "Though a militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And to fully clarify the meaning in this amendment, that the phrase "right of the people" earlier in this amendment means the individual citizens, as the original founders truly meant it to be, no matter some liberal troll on a political forum claims it means"

This post has been edited by Italian Biker: 16 May 2017 - 11:44 AM

0

#13 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 45,976
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 16 May 2017 - 12:10 PM

View PostItalian Biker, on 16 May 2017 - 11:38 AM, said:

I would not mind a rewrite of the second amendment. Here is my proposal. "Though a militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And to fully clarify the meaning in this amendment, that the phrase "right of the people" earlier in this amendment means the individual citizens, as the original founders truly meant it to be, no matter some liberal troll on a political forum claims it means"


LOL

:2up:

But all kidding aside, I stand by my earlier comments: This proposed convention would most likely be disastrous.

B)
0

#14 User is offline   imposter 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 100+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 1,353
  • Joined: 05-November 04

Posted 16 May 2017 - 07:35 PM

View Postmjperry51, on 15 May 2017 - 03:56 PM, said:

You've thrown in the towel -- okay. . .

No, just believing that it's much more likely to make things worse than make things better. I don't go for the idea that "we have to do something" and this is "something" so we have to do it. There may be ways to improve things, but this isn't likely to be it.
0

#15 User is online   mjperry51 

  • My Brain Hurts!!
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 11,039
  • Joined: 13-September 03

Posted 17 May 2017 - 09:26 AM

View Postimposter, on 16 May 2017 - 07:35 PM, said:

No, just believing that it's much more likely to make things worse than make things better. I don't go for the idea that "we have to do something" and this is "something" so we have to do it. There may be ways to improve things, but this isn't likely to be it.

1. Your state correctly things are bad.
2. You state emphatically this WON'T work, and that it can only make things worse. You fail to acknowledge the difficulty in getting 3/4s of the States (REQUIRED) to change anything, yet you run from the potential solution because NY or CA may force their agenda on the rest of the delegates.
3. You offer no other solution.

You objections are flimsy, and other than a complete insurrection I see no other solution. Do you?? Time is of the essence; how do you fix it?

The only way evil can triumph is when good men stand by and do nothing. . .
0

#16 User is offline   johnnybravo 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 3,619
  • Joined: 16-July 03

Posted 17 May 2017 - 09:43 AM

There are 32 state legislatures controlled by Republicans and 6 that are split leaving only 12 controlled by Dems. It is virtually impossible for any leftist agenda to get passed. I would rather go this route than through the corrupt congress that sits in DC.
0

#17 User is offline   johnnybravo 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 3,619
  • Joined: 16-July 03

Posted 17 May 2017 - 09:48 AM

View Postgravelrash, on 15 May 2017 - 11:20 AM, said:






Don't even get me started. But you know what I'm referring to.


We don't need a Convention of States. Just sit back and let PRESIDENT Donald J. Trump continue to trash the establishment.


Yes, this is working so well with keeping the same bloated budget and being on the side of Trump/Ryancare. Here is me rolling my eyes.

Everything else aside, a convention of states or article V convention, whatever they are going to call it, won't get rid of government run healthcare or other unconstitutional things the congress has given themselves control over. I'm still for Texas splitting ways and controlling our own destiny.
0

#18 User is offline   hpy4me 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 100+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 149
  • Joined: 21-May 15

Posted 18 May 2017 - 12:43 AM

Quote

It and numerous other cultural barometers – from cable news contributors losing their cool, to contentious town halls, to street fights – are signaling tectonic rumblings in America's political health.


To street fights, to mass rioting, to executing police, to mass anti-White hate crimes, to government supported domestic terrorist hate groups (BLM/ANTIFA), to pushing children down stairs because their parents might have voted Trump, to social media giants supporting the perpetuation of calls for violence against the Right, to masked terrorists beating people with bats and bottles, to any of the thousand other examples of the Left's civil war.
0

#19 User is online   LongKnife 

  • Don't start none, won't be none.
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 2,691
  • Joined: 10-November 04

Posted 18 May 2017 - 08:35 AM

View Postjohnnybravo, on 17 May 2017 - 09:43 AM, said:

There are 32 state legislatures controlled by Republicans and 6 that are split leaving only 12 controlled by Dems. It is virtually impossible for any leftist agenda to get passed. I would rather go this route than through the corrupt congress that sits in DC.

One of the fears opponents to the convention have is that the agenda would be too conservative. Sounds to me like a good reason to do it now.
0

#20 User is offline   imposter 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 100+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 1,353
  • Joined: 05-November 04

Posted 18 May 2017 - 09:26 PM

View Postmjperry51, on 17 May 2017 - 09:26 AM, said:

1. Your state correctly things are bad.
2. You state emphatically this WON'T work, and that it can only make things worse. You fail to acknowledge the difficulty in getting 3/4s of the States (REQUIRED) to change anything, yet you run from the potential solution because NY or CA may force their agenda on the rest of the delegates.
3. You offer no other solution.

You objections are flimsy, and other than a complete insurrection I see no other solution. Do you?? Time is of the essence; how do you fix it?

The only way evil can triumph is when good men stand by and do nothing. . .


The 3/4 requirement that makes it more difficult to pass something harmful also makes it difficult to pass something good -- only 25% need to object to the "good things" we want to stop them. For anything amendment to pass it will need to be some kind of bipartisan compromise, which will necessarily include things that make the situation worse. I don't know the solution, but a convention of the states is not it. With the make-up of the electorate we have today, the only possible results are that nothing can be passed or things get worse. Nothing passing is the most likely, which just means lots of money and political effort wasted. Doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing.
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users