Constitutional convention?

Lucrum

Lucrum

It’s about time. According to a report, nearly 100 lawmakers recently met at Mount Vernon to discuss and the possibility of holding a Constitutional convention in the near future.

From the Blaze:

Close to 100 legislators from 32 states met in Mount Vernon, Va., Saturday to discuss the possibility of adding amendments to the U.S. Constitution through a convention of the states.

Such a convention, as outlined in article five of the Constitution, would allow state legislatures to vote on amendments to add.

No constitutional amendment has been added this way, but some say the Constitution specifically allows for states to use the convention as a means to push back against the federal government.

Two-thirds of the state legislatures, or 34, must approve an application for a convention to occur, according to the Constitution’s article five. State legislatures would then send delegates to the convention, each state getting one vote on proposed amendments. For an amendment to pass and become a part of the Constitution, it would have to be approved by three-fourths, or 38, of the state legislatures....

In my opinion, this is probably our best hope of restoring liberty. Sure, there are some who shudder at the mere mention of a convention of the states but it’s time we put those fears to bed. The federal government will continue to grow, regardless of what party is in power, unless the states put a stop to it.

It’s time we stop ignoring the federalism given to us by our founders, and learn to embrace it.

http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/69511367406/100-lawmakers-from-32-states-meet-to-discuss
 
They could eliminate 90% of the mischief by getting rid of the 14th Amendment. It wasn't validly ratified in the first place. It is the most poorly drafted piece of the Constitution, not surprising considering who drafted it.

The next thing I would do is enact an amendment giving states the right to invalidate federal legislation based on a vote of state legislatures. Perhaps require a majority of states to approve such an invalidation petition. This would go a long way toward elimination federal overreaching and the march to socialism.

Finally, I would give states the explicit right to secede. The Founders messed this up and it cost us a Civil War.
 
Constitutional convention?

I guarantee you that I know of a communist who will never allow this to move forward.
 
Quote from BSAM:

We need to amend the constitution to make the USA a direct democracy.
More...

I would argue we should move in the opposite direction, as intended by the Founders who had a well-founded fear of unbridled democracy.
 
AAA, that's my reading as well!

Perhaps a place to begin would be an amendment specifically stating how it is that candidates qualify to run for federal office and how their election campaigns are to be managed and funded, setting a time limit on electioneering, and possibly going as far as disallowing or specifying certain means of campaigning. For example one might want to disallow all political advertising and limit campaigning to direct contact with constituents and a series of nationally broadcast equal time debates.

If the procedure for election campaigns was set down in an Amendment, then it would settle the issues left open by the first amendment with regard to whether corporations have first amendment rights with regard to political campaigns, and trump the Court.

This one amendment might go a very long way toward allowing people to reclaim control of their government, and I am confident it would have very wide support among the people. But of course such an amendment has no chance of being initiated by the Congress. It would have to be initiated by the alternate process that is the subject of this thread.

I have said here numerous times that we should just burn the Constitution and start over. And, indeed, there are many areas where the current Constitution is either obsolescent or silent where it needs to speak. However, as a practical matter, I am somewhat afraid of that process by which an entirely new Constitution would be generated. It would be much less risky to attempt Amendment in key areas as a means of correcting deficiencies than it would be to start over from scratch!

BSAM, perhaps you would settle for the President being elected democratically. In that case, it is easily accomplished by amending the election process to eliminate the Electoral College. Again, something not likely to have much support in Congress, but likely to be widely popular among the people.

I used to laugh at young George Bush going around saying we were bringing democracy to Iraq, when he himself was not democratically elected. I thought it would be better to try it first and see if you like it before recommending it to others.:D
 
I'm all for a Constitutional Convention, we could (possibly) clarify the 2nd Amendment, determine if healthcare should be a right, Congress could try to Amend their enumerated powers (you know for stuff like the nsa, dhs, patriot act, social welfare programs), whether States have the right to secede, etc. But considering the govt doesn't honor the existing document, what's the point?

The first step is getting our house in order.. that can only happen through elections, or revolution (violent or non-violent).
 
how about revoking the amendment which allows for anchor babies. this provision that babies born to illegal aliens in the U.S. get automatic U.S. citizenship, known as birthright citizenship.

it also applies to children, born in the US, of foreign students and temporary legal worker in the US.
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I would argue we should move in the opposite direction, as intended by the Founders who had a well-founded fear of unbridled democracy.
More...

Brother AAA, if I am interpreting your post correctly, I would respond by saying that I have a well founded fear of "bridled" democracy.

I don't believe I need some man "representing" me.
I can represent myself very well.

If the people are given a chance to rule for themselves, they can way more easily reverse and fix any unintended results better than can a small group of whores/thugs who control the whole country.
 
In some ways I agree with you. Look at California, a hotbed of radical liberalism. Yet they voted in referenda to deny benefits to illegal aliens and to ban gay marriage. Both referenda were scuttled by judicial activism aided by the state pols.

The problem with direct democracy is that the people are not always so wise. They elected obama after all. The idea of voting your self the fruits of someone else's labor has lost the stigma it once had in this country. Personal responsibility and self-reliance are unknown concepts among much of the electorate.

The Founders understood all this. Unlike todays leaders, they were Renaisance men, well educated but also experienced in commerce and agriculture. They understood that pure democracy was a road to ruin, so they drafted a Constitution that set forth strict limits on what each Branch of government could do and provided strong protection for property rights. Not least, they limited voting to those with a stake in the system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top