State Of Your State?

B

Bella

New member
I do believe our Federal Government is out of control. There are some that feel that having a Constitutional Convention might be the only solution. They think that we need some amendments to help control our government.

One amendment would put term limits on all elected federal offices. This is one I am completely in favor of. I am tired of career politicians. But having a Constitutional Convention also makes me nervous. The second amendment comes to mind. What if its amended, or god forbid, repealed.

It would take three-fourths of the states to agree on any changes. In other words, 13 states could block any changes. Would that be enough to protect the second amendment?

Could we count on the state you live in to protect the second amendment should a Constitutional Convention be convined?

I live in Nevada. To be honest, I am not sure if it could be counted on.

Our gun laws are very reasonable. We have a pro second amendment Republican governor. Then again, we went blue on the last two presidential elections. And one of our US Senators is Harry Reid. I used to live in California. I don't think I need to say much about their stand on protecting our gun rights.

So, do you think we could count on your state?
 
I expect the secession of Texas is more likely than passing anything on a constitutional convention supporting gun rights. One party has demonstrated their ability to resurrect Nixon-era-like "dirty tricks" and pervert the will of the people, but amazingly they haven't successfully target gun rights ... Yet.
 
The State of New Jersey is abysmal.

The state legislature is controlled by overpopulated North Jersey (suburban NYC) and changes the state constitution on a whim. So don't count on those idiots to protect the U.S Constitution.
 
The thought of a constitutional convention scares me snotless. The 2A would not be the only missing item. I have no doubt that we would end up with far fewer freedoms. And more than likely a socialist government.

The constitution is not broken. Our government, that always looks for a way around it, is the problem. If you are looking for ways around it, you are not defending it. And we all know what that is called.
 
The constitution is not broken nor our government.
It’s the people we elect that are broken.
Their primary interest is not what is good for the country but what is good for them and their constituents.
We need un-paid patriots in Washington not paid politicians.
We need men and women that put their country ahead of their interests and their constituents.
I have said enough on this topic.
 
I have to disagree about the government not being broken. The design of the gov't is just fine, but the implementation of it is indeed broken. The separation of powers has been weakened. The gov't ignores laws almost at will.

The constitution is not the gov't, it is the blueprint. The gov't, made up of people, is broken because in many ways it has ceased to follow the blueprint.
 
The anti-gunners are getting more vocal here in Vermont, one of the last bastions of second amendment rights. I don't think they have a lot of power or influence at this point, but we have to be vigilant.

Across our borders to the north, east, south, and west, handgun laws are pretty restrictive, with New Hampshire being the least so.
 
Machineguntony noted:
The government isn't out of control, it works according to the checks and balances that the original founders intended.
Click to expand...
I'll take exception with that one Tony.
When the President overtly breaks laws, after announcing he was going to, when the head of a nuclear weapons lab says he intends to ignore certain regulations, when whistle blowers become the hunted, and even the Department of Justice subverts investigations into clearly felonious activities by its' own, the government, via the bureaucrats overstepping their legal authority, is clearly out of control.

Yes Tony, by fiat, the US Government is out of control.

FYI, I am a bureaucrat, seeing a lot more from the inside than most.
 
I am not crazy about the idea of a Constitutional Convention either, but how else is the Federal Government going to be reined in? Our founding fathers did put the mechanisms into the constitution in case our government becomes too tyrannical.

They also put in the requirement that three-fourths of the states have to approve of any changes. Do we have at least thirteen sane states?
 
Bella stated:
...but how else is the Federal Government going to be reined in?
Click to expand...
IF the penalty for Official Oppression and Abuse of Process / Power was PERSONALLY painful without ability for other bureaucrats to step in, this crap would stop.

Good luck getting that passed.
 
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.

A constitutional convention would most likely be a disaster. Once it opens, everything will be on the table.

We are "the system." If we think the system is broken, it's because we are. We elect our representatives. We have the final say at the ballot box. If some of us aren't happy with how things are working it means we're failing to get enough people to go along with our values and beliefs. We're failing to inspire. The Constitution does not bestow wisdom. It's up to the body politic to be wise.

If our side apparently lacks the savvy to operate within the existing political process to better further our interests and values, what makes us think that we will be able to successfully do so in that political maelstrom of a Constitutional Convention.

The system is working as intended, but the reality is that we live in a pluralistic, political society, and not everyone thinks as you do. People have varying beliefs, values, needs, wants and fears. People have differing views on the proper role government. So while you may be using the tools the Constitution, our laws and our system give you to promote your vision of how things should be, others may and will be using those same tools to promote their visions.

The Constitution, our laws, and our system give us resource and remedies. We can associate with others who think as we do and exercise what political power that association gives us to influence legislation. We have the opportunity to try to join with enough other people we can elect legislators and other public officials who we consider more attuned to our interests. And we can seek redress in court. And others who believe differently have the same opportunities.

We can't expect everyone to agree with us.
 
If the point is discussing Article 5 of the Constitution,that being a Convention of the States to Ammend the Constitution,I think there may be a misconception.
I suggest Mark Levin's book,"The Liberty Ammendments"

I have not read it,but I have listened to Mr Levin discuss it at length.

Article 5 is not about rewriting the Constitution.

It is a process the authors of the Constitution provided where the states can over ride an out of control federal government.

Independent of the federal government,the states may convene to ratify an amendment,such as term limits,it becomes law,just as if Congress and the President passed an amendment.

It has nothing to do with re-writing the Constitution,it is excersizing a state right and responsibility that is written into the Constitution.

Of course,as a challenge to the status quo power structure...both parties,it will be subject to mis-information ,propaganda,and opposition to keep the states from getting uppity.

IMO, it is long past time.
 
...Article 5 is not about rewriting the Constitution.

It is a process the authors of the Constitution provided where the states can over ride an out of control federal government.

Independent of the federal government,the states may convene to ratify an amendment,such as term limits,it becomes law,just as if Congress and the President passed an amendment.

It has nothing to do with re-writing the Constitution,it is excersizing a state right and responsibility that is written into the Constitution....
Click to expand...
Article V of the Constitution reads (emphasis added):
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.
Click to expand...

While Article V relates to amendment of the Constitution, there is no limitation on how broad or sweeping such amendments might be (except for an amendment adopted before 1808 or any amendment which might affect a State's suffrage in the Senate). So under the plain language of Article V, once a constitutional convention convenes, pretty much everything is up for grabs.

There might be a question of whether the call for a convention could somehow effectively limit its scope or whether if the convention proposed amendments exceeding that scope, which amendments were ratified in accordance with the adopted ratification method, the federal courts could rein things in. But since nothing like that has been done before, it's unclear how things would turn out.
 
But isn't the 3/4's requirement help stop anything stupid from happening? Let's say a convention is initiated and someone proposes that the second amendment be repealed. 34 states would have to agree on that before a vote for ratification could be done. Then it would take 38 states to agree on repealing the amendment.

All I was asking is weather there would be enough states to prevent any changes to the second, or for that matter any part of the bill of rights to be concerned.
 
HiBC wrote;
Independent of the federal government,the states may convene to ratify an amendment,such as term limits,it becomes law,just as if Congress and the President passed an amendment.
Click to expand...

That was my understanding as well, Thus;

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.
Click to expand...

So, if 38 States agree, among themselves, that (as an example) term limits should be imposed, it would/could be ratified as law. No doubt any opposition would challenge such in court.
 
Bella said:
But isn't the 3/4's requirement help stop anything stupid from happening?...
Click to expand...
The super-majority requirement is indeed intended to make things difficult and thus keep things from getting out of hand. But the point still is that once we convene a convention, it's not clear that we can limit the scope of what changes are proposed.

And probably considering how polarized we've become as a nation, it's unlikely that any proposal would garner enough support.
 
Last edited:
Frank,
Thanks for that enlightenment. Question: if a convention were convened, are all the amendments voted up or down in a single vote, (all pass or all fail) or are the taken individually?
 
I do not read law well.It appears there is something about not being able to mess with what was written before 1808.So,would not the parts from 1791 be as safe in the hands of the states as they are in the hands of the feds?
IMO,the separation and limitations of power have been so corrupted,with disdain for the Constitution,that some tuning is necessary to remain a Government of,by,and for the People.

IMO,it is now a government of,by,and for the government.

I fear,if not redirected by such a well planned device as Article 5,tyranny....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top