Indiana Senate calls for U.S. constitutional convention

[Nukeman]

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/ind-senate-calls-for-u-s-constitutional-convention/article_c3d1c52b-9147-5be8-833f-ada7688c9f56.html


Frustrated by what they perceive as federal government overreach on taxes and regulation, the Republican-controlled Indiana Senate on Tuesday approved three measures calling for a limited U.S. constitutional convention.Article V of the U.S. Constitution requires Congress call a constitutional convention when two-thirds of state legislatures request one. Senate Joint Resolution 18, which now goes to the House, formalizes Indiana's request.
Senate President David Long, R-Fort Wayne, sponsored the resolution. He said a convention is needed to re-balance the powers of the federal government with the rights of the states.
"States' rights are in danger of disappearing altogether, and we have it within our power to stop it from happening with a process that is legal, that is constitutional and that, if done correctly, will be effective," Long said.
For more than 50 minutes, senators debated whether a constitutional convention is truly needed and could be limited to just taxes and regulation without endangering other parts of the constitution, such as the Second Amendment right to bear arms.


About f-ing time someone started to stand up to the fed. I can say with pride this guy is from my home town and look forward to seeing if this pans out or not. I am surprized this has NOT been anywhere other than local coverage....

[gabosaurus]

I doubt you are going to have two-thirds of state legislatures agree on anything.

[Little-Acorn]

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/ind-senate-calls-for-u-s-constitutional-convention/article_c3d1c52b-9147-5be8-833f-ada7688c9f56.html


Frustrated by what they perceive as federal government overreach on taxes and regulation, the Republican-controlled Indiana Senate on Tuesday approved three measures calling for a limited U.S. constitutional convention.Article V of the U.S. Constitution requires Congress call a constitutional convention when two-thirds of state legislatures request one. Senate Joint Resolution 18, which now goes to the House, formalizes Indiana's request.
Senate President David Long, R-Fort Wayne, sponsored the resolution. He said a convention is needed to re-balance the powers of the federal government with the rights of the states.
"States' rights are in danger of disappearing altogether, and we have it within our power to stop it from happening with a process that is legal, that is constitutional and that, if done correctly, will be effective," Long said.
For more than 50 minutes, senators debated whether a constitutional convention is truly needed and could be limited to just taxes and regulation without endangering other parts of the constitution, such as the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

About f-ing time someone started to stand up to the fed. I can say with pride this guy is from my home town and look forward to seeing if this pans out or not. I am surprized this has NOT been anywhere other than local coverage....

What a hoot. Modifying the Constitution would only help if the Const weren't already adequate to the task to laying out Federal and State roles in government. The thing is, the Const IS already adequate.

The Fed is becoming overly dominant because it is VIOLATING the Constitution, not because the Constitution isn't worded correctly or whatever. The nature of the Constitution is that it gives the Fed NO powers except the ones explicitly spelled out in its text (including amendments of course). And in case that wasn't clear enough, the 10th amendment even spells out that restriction, too, saying flatly that any power not given explicitly to the Fed, is reserved to "the States or the People".

If this Constitutional Convention you're dreaming about, adds a bunch more restrictions on the Federal government, what gives you the idea that the Fed wouldn't violate those as quickly and easily as it violates the restrictions that are already in it? Almost daily the Fed violates the 10th, carefully misinterprets the Welfare and Commerce clauses, violates the 2nd, the 5th, and a host of others. A few more would be no big deal with them.

And they would justify it by pointing out that if they didn't, teachers would be fired, air traffic controllers furloughed, seniors wouldn't get their SS checks, and children would miss out on their school lunches, etc. etc. (most of which the Fed govt isn't supposed to be involved in anyway according to the Constitution).

The only way the Fed can be reined in, is for American citizens to stand up to them (not state legislatures) and start voting out the ones who are doing the violating. And I don't see that happening.

Forget the state legislatures and grandiose conventions. Start at the grass roots. Or pack up and go home.

[Nukeman]

What a hoot. Modifying the Constitution would only help if the Const weren't already adequate to the task to laying out Federal and State roles in government. The thing is, the Const IS already adequate.

The Fed is becoming overly dominant because it is VIOLATING the Constitution, not because the Constitution isn't worded correctly or whatever. The nature of the Constitution is that it gives the Fed NO powers except the ones explicitly spelled out in its text (including amendments of course). And in case that wasn't clear enough, the 10th amendment even spells out that restriction, too, saying flatly that any power not given explicitly to the Fed, is reserved to "the States or the People".

If this Constitutional Convention you're dreaming about, adds a bunch more restrictions on the Federal government, what gives you the idea that the Fed wouldn't violate those as quickly and easily as it violates the restrictions that are already in it? Almost daily the Fed violates the 10th, carefully misinterprets the Welfare and Commerce clauses, violates the 2nd, the 5th, and a host of others. A few more would be no big deal with them.

And they would justify it by pointing out that if they didn't, teachers would be fired, air traffic controllers furloughed, seniors wouldn't get their SS checks, and children would miss out on their school lunches, etc. etc. (most of which the Fed govt isn't supposed to be involved in anyway according to the Constitution).

The only way the Fed can be reined in, is for American citizens to stand up to them (not state legislatures) and start voting out the ones who are doing the violating. And I don't see that happening.

Forget the state legislatures and grandiose conventions. Start at the grass roots. Or pack up and go home.The point that YOU so blatantly missed is that it will draw ATTENTION to the FACT that the FEDERAL govt is overstepping its bounds. I understand YOU know that but a vast amount of people DON'T. If you don't understand that there are woefully ignorant people out there you're a bigger fool than I give you credit for!!!!!!!!!

IF as you say the contitution is adequate why are we having this discussion and why is the fed ABLE to overstep there bounds.. Care to elaborate on that!!!!!!??????

[Voted4Reagan]

I doubt you are going to have two-thirds of state legislatures agree on anything.


They vote against it at their own peril... Not just Republicans are against all these wild gun control laws and out of control taxes.

If Liberals want to be re-elected there is going to be a huge problem for them.. The second amendment.


Article #5 States:


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.


WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

Republicans took 23 states in 2012

Many states taken by democrats were taken by very narrow Margins.

States like Florida, Indiana,Colorado, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Virginia and New Hampshire were all won by only 5 or 6%.

the Above 7 states all have tremendous populations of gun owners in BOTH PARTIES and Hunting is big in all of them.

those 7 states ... won by Democrats in 2012 will see a huge up swing in Republican voting if this is about the 2nd Amendment. For the State legislators to vote against a Constitutional Convention based on these issue will be political suicide for Democrats in Rural districts and states where Hunting is a way of life.

Want to try it and see?

Go ahead... lose those 7 states and it will be an easy 2/3's vote.

[fj1200]

What a hoot. Modifying the Constitution would only help if the Const weren't already adequate to the task to laying out Federal and State roles in government. The thing is, the Const IS already adequate.

If that were true then the Amendments, and the amendment process, would have not have been necessary. Your reference of the 10th belies your opening statement. Also if we consider that future amendments weaken the original document then there should be action taken to correct past ills. I speak of the 17th which upset the balance of power between individual and States; a restoration of that would fix some ills if you ask me.

[Robert A Whit]

I doubt you are going to have two-thirds of state legislatures agree on anything.

They won't agree to wipe out the second amendment. That is for sure.

[aboutime]

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/ind-senate-calls-for-u-s-constitutional-convention/article_c3d1c52b-9147-5be8-833f-ada7688c9f56.html



About f-ing time someone started to stand up to the fed. I can say with pride this guy is from my home town and look forward to seeing if this pans out or not. I am surprized this has NOT been anywhere other than local coverage....


Nukeman. While I tend to totally agree with your assessment of the Fed. If you think hard about this. It appears this kind of movement is exactly what the Democrats, and Obama were hoping for all along.
You see. Once they get their foot in the door, and just happen to get two thirds of the states to convene a Constitutional Convention. That will be the DEATH NELL of this nation as Obama, and the Dems already know. They have more than 50 Million, Uneducated, Easily led, Easily Bribed...with Welfare, Foodstamps, and Free stuff...to fully support the Reversal of more than One constitutional Amendments. In other words.
A constitutional convention while OBAMA is in office means THE FORMER U.S.A. will fail to exist.

[Robert A Whit]

Nukeman. While I tend to totally agree with your assessment of the Fed. If you think hard about this. It appears this kind of movement is exactly what the Democrats, and Obama were hoping for all along.
You see. Once they get their foot in the door, and just happen to get two thirds of the states to convene a Constitutional Convention. That will be the DEATH NELL of this nation as Obama, and the Dems already know. They have more than 50 Million, Uneducated, Easily led, Easily Bribed...with Welfare, Foodstamps, and Free stuff...to fully support the Reversal of more than One constitutional Amendments. In other words.
A constitutional convention while OBAMA is in office means THE FORMER U.S.A. will fail to exist.

Interesting way to view this. Based on the two past elections, it is very difficult to see any flaw in the just above argument.

[fj1200]

A constitutional convention while OBAMA is in office means THE FORMER U.S.A. will fail to exist.


Interesting way to view this. Based on the two past elections, it is very difficult to see any flaw in the just above argument.

Except that Republicans have been dominating state level elections which would be where a CC is proposed and ultimately where ratification would occur.

[aboutime]

Except that Republicans have been dominating state level elections which would be where a CC is proposed and ultimately where ratification would occur.


Is that the only excuse you could come up with fj?

Typically liberal of you.

[fj1200]

Is that the only excuse you could come up with fj?

Typically liberal of you.

What does that even mean? :dunno:

[aboutime]

What does that even mean? :dunno:


Think about what you said. If your previous statement was entirely true. Obama probably wouldn't have won a second term.

[fj1200]

Think about what you said. If your previous statement was entirely true. Obama probably wouldn't have won a second term.

You should do a little research into the Electoral College as well as how many state government's are led by Republican majorities and governors.

[Robert A Whit]

You should do a little research into the Electoral College as well as how many state government's are led by Republican majorities and governors.

That is a very good point as well.

California would extinguish the 2nd amendment if our government had it's way. I suspect NY as well.

[aboutime]

You should do a little research into the Electoral College as well as how many state government's are led by Republican majorities and governors.


Sure thing. You mean...like California, and New York...just for starters.

[fj1200]

Sure thing. You mean...like California, and New York...just for starters.

Are you really this daft? Honest question.

There are currently 30 Republican governors and 27 Republican dominated legislatures.

[aboutime]

Are you really this daft? Honest question.

There are currently 30 Republican governors and 27 Republican dominated legislatures.


AND FIFTY-PLUS Million Americans who went to the polls to vote for Obama.

[fj1200]

AND FIFTY-PLUS Million Americans who went to the polls to vote for Obama.

Pay attention, we're talking about (equal) States ratifying an Amendment, not the unequal process of electing the POTUS.

[Voted4Reagan]

Are you really this daft? Honest question.

There are currently 30 Republican governors and 27 Republican dominated legislatures.

those numbers dont look too good...

If you're a liberal

[aboutime]

pay attention, we're talking about (equal) states ratifying an amendment, not the unequal process of electing the potus.



wrong.

[fj1200]

those numbers dont look too good...

If you're a liberal

Exactly.


wrong.

Do you even know what this thread is about?

[Nukeman]

wrong.You do realize that EACH state gets ONE vote in a CC. It isn't like a election. EVERY state has equal share so who gives a rip if NY and CAL go one way if you look at the election map on a county level Obama lost hands down what he did do was when high density areas that carried the election his way... Not going to happen in a CC....... People have a lot more at stake than whos in charge............

[fj1200]

EVERY state has equal share...

The only counter to that is that BO carried 26 of 50 states which surprised me as he won states where Republicans clearly won state elections recently; Michigan as example. I think that's an aberration as a typical election will see the Republican carrying more states; I wonder how much of that is due to Romney's Mormonism.

[Abbey Marie]

The only counter to that is that BO carried 26 of 50 states which surprised me as he won states where Republicans clearly won state elections recently; Michigan as example. I think that's an aberration as a typical election will see the Republican carrying more states; I wonder how much of that is due to Romney's Mormonism.

Amazing what a pact with the devil will accomplish. ;)

[mundame]

They won't agree to wipe out the second amendment. That is for sure.

Oh, they might. They may well. They could decide ANYthing in a Constitutional Convention, anything. That's why people so urgently refuse to have one. It can be a total remaking of the whole government, the whole constitution. I don't think it's a good idea.

When France did exactly that in 1789, a constitutional convention, it lead directly, and quickly, to the French Revolution and the Terror, in which tens of thousands were guillotined and the streets of Paris ran with blood from the heads piled in baskets.

[aboutime]

You do realize that EACH state gets ONE vote in a CC. It isn't like a election. EVERY state has equal share so who gives a rip if NY and CAL go one way if you look at the election map on a county level Obama lost hands down what he did do was when high density areas that carried the election his way... Not going to happen in a CC....... People have a lot more at stake than whos in charge............


Course. But think about this. How long has it been since the LAST constitutional convention was actually held?

With the way politicians play fast, and loose with ignoring the laws, rules, and constitution.
We simply cannot afford to allow the Power Hungry people presently in office to get any more control.
A Constitutional convention now would be devastating to this entire nation.
If anyone doubts that. Let the Obama administration, and things like Obamacare be your guide.

[mundame]

A constitutional convention could vote for a communist country, totalitarian laws. It could, why not? And remember that Obama won the last two elections easily, so I don't know why anyone supposes conservatives would do anything but lose MORE ground if the government was redesigned.

[Robert A Whit]

Oh, they might. They may well. They could decide ANYthing in a Constitutional Convention, anything. That's why people so urgently refuse to have one. It can be a total remaking of the whole government, the whole constitution. I don't think it's a good idea.

When France did exactly that in 1789, a constitutional convention, it lead directly, and quickly, to the French Revolution and the Terror, in which tens of thousands were guillotined and the streets of Paris ran with blood from the heads piled in baskets.

That is a good point given this country has no history of going that far. My basis is when they tried to get the ERA and beat it back.

[Robert A Whit]

The only counter to that is that BO carried 26 of 50 states which surprised me as he won states where Republicans clearly won state elections recently; Michigan as example. I think that's an aberration as a typical election will see the Republican carrying more states; I wonder how much of that is due to Romney's Mormonism.

Sadly some few people are still prejudiced against my church.

[Missileman]

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/ind-senate-calls-for-u-s-constitutional-convention/article_c3d1c52b-9147-5be8-833f-ada7688c9f56.html



About f-ing time someone started to stand up to the fed. I can say with pride this guy is from my home town and look forward to seeing if this pans out or not. I am surprized this has NOT been anywhere other than local coverage....

I don't want Pelosi or Reid or McCain or Boehner or Waters or Jackson-Lee or ...you get the idea, anywhere near the framing of a potential new amendment to the COTUS. They can't even craft a bill that's worth a damn.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I don't want Pelosi or Reid or McCain or Boehner or Waters or Jackson-Lee or ...you get the idea, anywhere near the framing of a potential new amendment to the COTUS. They can't even craft a bill that's worth a damn.

Nobody in our government is qualified to draft a new COTUS. We do not need a new Constitution, what we need is for the chumps to start obeying the one we have now!!
Now they act like the clock is broken because it says 6 o'clock when they want it to be 9 o'clock. The problem with that is it's really just 6 o'clock!!-Tyr

[logroller]

I found it notable, and have emphasized in the following text, that no amendments have resulted from a constitutional convention.

The Constitutional Amendment Process
The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.


The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.


The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.


A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.


In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist's certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive.


In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President. President Johnson signed the certifications for the 24th and 25th Amendments as a witness, and President Nixon similarly witnessed the certification of the 26th Amendment along with three young scholars. On May 18, 1992, the Archivist performed the duties of the certifying official for the first time to recognize the ratification of the 27th Amendment, and the Director of the Federal Register signed the certification as a witness. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

[fj1200]

A constitutional convention could vote for a communist country, totalitarian laws. It could, why not? And remember that Obama won the last two elections easily, so I don't know why anyone supposes conservatives would do anything but lose MORE ground if the government was redesigned.

No.

[fj1200]

I don't want Pelosi or Reid or McCain or Boehner or Waters or Jackson-Lee or ...you get the idea, anywhere near the framing of a potential new amendment to the COTUS. They can't even craft a bill that's worth a damn.

Well in a CC they wouldn't, besides the more important question is what would the amendment say. Gotta get the horse to ride in the cart so it can take you to the water hole as they say.

[logroller]

A constitutional convention could vote for a communist country, totalitarian laws. It could, why not? And remember that Obama won the last two elections easily, so I don't know why anyone supposes conservatives would do anything but lose MORE ground if the government was redesigned.
While I understand your hesitation, I believe the OP had a blurb in it regarding the constitutional convention being limited to consideration of only certain facets of legislation: taxes and such, iirc.

[cadet]

A constitutional convention could vote for a communist country, totalitarian laws. It could, why not? And remember that Obama won the last two elections easily, so I don't know why anyone supposes conservatives would do anything but lose MORE ground if the government was redesigned.

Only if they were dumb enough not to realize how quickly they'd have a revolution on their hands. :laugh:
Heck, there's plenty of talk of one already if you listen to the right channels of people.

[logroller]

Only if they were dumb enough not to realize how quickly they'd have a revolution on their hands. :laugh:
Heck, there's plenty of talk of one already if you listen to the right channels of people.
....listening to people that consider treason necessary?

[logroller]

Well in a CC they wouldn't, besides the more important question is what would the amendment say. Gotta get the horse to ride in the cart so it can take you to the water hole as they say.
I've never heard them say that...and, tbh, it doesn't make any sense. If the horse is in the cart, it can't very well take you anywhere...perhaps that's the point.:dunno:

[cadet]

....listening to people that consider treason necessary?

Just the civil war reinactors. Bucha rednecks with firepower. And from what i hear, they're big enough to create quite a military force. Plenty in every state. And they're all beer swillin hill jacks with A LOT of unregistered guns.

[logroller]

Just the civil war reinactors. Bucha rednecks with firepower. And from what i hear, they're big enough to create quite a military force. Plenty in every state. And they're all beer swillin hill jacks with A LOT of unregistered guns.
Civil war II? The only movie sequel worth a damn was terminator 2...and that was fictional. The reality of sequel wars is far less promising. Moot point really, taking guns from people will have the obvious effect that no one desires. The civil war wasn't even about taking anything, it was preventing its spread into new territories(states)-- We're well past that...

[Voted4Reagan]

Just the civil war reinactors. Bucha rednecks with firepower. And from what i hear, they're big enough to create quite a military force. Plenty in every state. And they're all beer swillin hill jacks with A LOT of unregistered guns.

in most States, Long Guns dont need to be registered.

Pistols do...

Whats the point youre trying to make?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

....listening to people that consider treason necessary?

Not treason --IF- the people are defending the Constitution....

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Civil war II? The only movie sequel worth a damn was terminator 2...and that was fictional. The reality of sequel wars is far less promising. Moot point really, taking guns from people will have the obvious effect that no one desires. The civil war wasn't even about taking anything, it was preventing its spread into new territories(states)-- We're well past that...

Actually it was about taking something. As far as the Southerners were concerned it was about taking their way of life and their freedom to choose and a question of states rights. We must remember that a mob of citizens did not just start rioting and start the war over somebody getting arrested or beaten up by police. -Tyr

[fj1200]

I've never heard them say that...and, tbh, it doesn't make any sense. If the horse is in the cart, it can't very well take you anywhere...perhaps that's the point.:dunno:

Perhaps.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I've never heard them say that...and, tbh, it doesn't make any sense. If the horse is in the cart, it can't very well take you anywhere...perhaps that's the point.:dunno:

The genius just got it wrong. He should have researched it better. A horse riding in a cart goes nowhere(not even to water) unless other horses pull the cart and that is how the genius mistakenly worded it. Of course he being a certified expert on old sayings indicates he can never be wrong. Even when he tells the poster what they intended.
Just as I just did for him.:laugh:-Tyr

[fj1200]

The genius just got it wrong.

Are you that bad at recognizing satire? Well, that would explain a lot.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Are you that bad at recognizing satire? Well, that would explain a lot.

You screw up your wording of an old saying and suddenly it is satire.-:laugh:
Such lame denial explains so much about you. Must be why you always like to follow a hero leader.-:laugh2:-Tyr

[fj1200]

You screw up your wording...

:laugh: OMG! You didn't even notice that I combined two sayings into the one post. :laugh:

http://cdn3.hark.com/images/000/004/211/4211/original.jpg

I'd ask you how I follow the "hero leader" but you'd fail there too.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:laugh: OMG! You didn't even notice that I combined two sayings into the one post. :laugh:

http://cdn3.hark.com/images/000/004/211/4211/original.jpg

I'd ask you how I follow the "hero leader" but you'd fail there too.

I noticed you ff'd up same as log noticed. Now rather than admit your mistake you want to ride the horse in the cart further down the road. Who is pulling the cart now genius, you?:laugh:
Your lame ass excuses don't cut it with me pedro.-Tyr

[mundame]

While I understand your hesitation, I believe the OP had a blurb in it regarding the constitutional convention being limited to consideration of only certain facets of legislation: taxes and such, iirc.

This was discussed in print years ago during the ERA thing. Limits to a constitutional convention? Can't happen. There ARE no limits to a constitutional convention --- people can bring up and promote anything they want.

That's sure what happened when the French did it. It's all limited to getting the King more taxes because he really needs more taxes for his wars, sez the organizers............................ Uh-huh.

Pretty soon they're all whooping it up in an indoor tennis court making Roman salutes of loyalty to the French people, pretty soon the King has no more veto and then no more power, and the Church can't have any monestaries and all clerics have to swear a loyalty oath that they won't obey the Pope, and no more aristocrats are allowed, everyone is equal, lots of price controls, lots of goods confiscations, and pretty soon they march on Versailles, and then there are heads on pikes, really, and after that, well, after that things got really bad.

So I'm thinking the idea of a "limited" constitutional convention is a non-starter, as the British say. The last one they had here sure wasn't limited.

[fj1200]

I noticed you ff'd up same as log noticed. Now rather than admit your mistake you want to ride the horse in the cart further down the road. Who is pulling the cart now genius, you?:laugh:
Your lame ass excuses don't cut it with me pedro.-Tyr

Yeah, he noticed the intentional nature of it. You? A brick wall takes information better. You didn't even take up the mistaken sayings challenge I put out there like tailfins did. Oh never mind, you probably thought that they were all correct. :laugh:

[Nukeman]

This was discussed in print years ago during the ERA thing. Limits to a constitutional convention? Can't happen. There ARE no limits to a constitutional convention --- people can bring up and promote anything they want.

That's sure what happened when the French did it. It's all limited to getting the King more taxes because he really needs more taxes for his wars, sez the organizers............................ Uh-huh.

Pretty soon they're all whooping it up in an indoor tennis court making Roman salutes of loyalty to the French people, pretty soon the King has no more veto and then no more power, and the Church can't have any monestaries and all clerics have to swear a loyalty oath that they won't obey the Pope, and no more aristocrats are allowed, everyone is equal, lots of price controls, lots of goods confiscations, and pretty soon they march on Versailles, and then there are heads on pikes, really, and after that, well, after that things got really bad.

So I'm thinking the idea of a "limited" constitutional convention is a non-starter, as the British say. The last one they had here sure wasn't limited.
Would you care to show the precedence for that statement!!!!!! Give you a hint... There is none. So how can you say that if there has never been a CC before how it can be handled. Hell why not set precedent with the first one to ONLY allow a limited manipulation of the constitution!!!!!!

[glockmail]

What does this make, 36 states calling for a con-con now. I say lets get 'er done.