State Of Your State?

TXAZ said:
...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?
Click to expand...
Well, there's never been a constitutional convention to amend the Constitution, so that's probably a procedural matter which would need to be decided, probably as part of the proceeding of the convention.

HiBC said:
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?...
Click to expand...
No, that's not what it says. What it says is that any amendment adopted before 1808 can't change certain things in the Constitution. Since 1808 has past, that phrase in Article V no longer means anything.
 
Was going to voice my views regarding the frequent use of the word "Socialism" in conversations like these, but have decided not to for fear of disapproval.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I understand how you feel because I felt the same way myself. Then California enacted term limits. What you get are a bunch of rookies running the legislature. This leaves them open to the schemes of lobbyists and charlatans. By the time they get enough experience to know what they are doing they're out.

The civil service ignores them even more because they know if they stall long enough (something the civil service is very good at) the annoying legislator will be gone.

Be careful what you wish for.
 
State Of Your State?
Click to expand...

IL. Sucky, but not as bad as NY,NJ, CA, MA. No magazine limits, no approved gun list. Now, at last, shall issue CCW, and state preemption of handgun regulation. Could be worse.

Could we count on the state you live in to protect the second amendment should a Constitutional Convention be connived?
Click to expand...

No.

KABA language was deliberately hamstrung with the nasty clause "subject to the police power", in the new state constitution (1968-ish, IIRC). Which means they could do whatever they wanted.

Our gun laws are very reasonable. We have a pro second amendment Republican governor.
Click to expand...

We have to stay constantly vigilant.
 
Last edited:
constitutional convention

NO to a constitutional convention.We don't need one and it would be useless,or
more likely,harmful.I agree on term limits,but you can pass laws to achieve that.Our constitution,most especially the Bill of Rights,is in good shape. All it
needs from us is reverence and protection.It is our political system that is broken,and I have no idea how to fix it. Just electing different people,of what-
ever political persuasion,doesn't fix the system.New people just get co-opted by the broken system.As someone else commented,maybe if we didn't pay them we might get some real patriots who want to fix the system.
A final thought:the era of centralized federal government may be over.This country may be too big and too diverse to be governed by one central government. I don't know this to be true,just wondering.
 
Last edited:
Allowing a Constitutional Convention is a terrible idea.

Think about this: Are you unhappy with the state of our government? Me, too. OK, so given that "we the people" have voted for this state of affairs, that means that you and I are in the minority, and people who have different values than us are in the majority.

So, if we open up the Constitution, which side do you think is more likely to have the votes to re-write / remove parts of the Constitution, the few or the many?

Now you understand why it's a terrible idea.
 
IMO,the language of Article 5 and the provision for the States,does not place the Constitution in any more jeopardy than a session of Congress does.

Congress has the same power.

I see no reason to trust a supermajority of the States coming together for a common outrage less than we are forced to trust a Federal Congress every year.

I think it is brilliant that the authors of the Constitution foresaw an out of control Federal Government,and gave the States the means to say "No"

In this way,Article 5 has,for the States,something in common with the 2nd Ammendment.
 
Missouri isn't backing down anytime soon. Every year they pass less restrictive gun laws even if that means the state Congress has to override that moron Gov. Nixon. As the sang goes, Go MO!

-Robb
 
From what I understand, each state gets one vote in a convention. This would definitely give the small red states an advantage over the big blue states.
 
IMO,we have far less to be concerned about with a Article 5 Convention of the States than we do a session of the Supreme Court,

Where we can ,at this point,generally count on the deadlock of the polar extremes,and our Liberty in the hands of just one or two individuals deciding which way to swing.

That is scary!
 
Many have mentioned term limits. Though in theory I like them, they have in other countries caused huge corruption and opens the door for these people who have nothing to loose because they will be out of a job soon, to try and take as much money for a vote a certain way as they can get.

I know it already happens, but in a world of either no pay or term limits it would be much much worse.

Same thing happens if you don't pay the guards who work in a prison enough money. If they think they are not making enough money the quick dirty money starts to look good and the risk becomes worth it.

I thing no to a CC. I think we the people need to learn about the issues and vote the way we think is right. We the people need to understand that we can and should hold these people accountable.

That does happen from time to time.

I think we should have campaign reform so good patriots who are not millionaires or backed by one, can run and have an equal shot at winning!

We should require any pay raises or benefits be approved by the voters. This would make them want to do what we want them to do.

Mel
 
Term limits are one topic worthy of debate.Lifetime terms for SCOTUS merit debate.A more disciplined approach to spending,up to the possibility of balanced budget,and originally,our Senators were selected by the State Legislatures rather than the general election.I can see merit in returning to that process,as it returns the Senators responsibility to the State,rather than the Federal Party.

The Federal Government has taken too much power.That needs to be scaled back.The Federal Government will never scale back its own power.

To provide a mechanism short of armed revolution,the Founders wisely wrote in the provision for the States in Article 5.

If it is not now time for the States to rein in our Federal Gorvernment...a Government that has become of the government,by the government,for the government...if it is not now time,when??

Does anyone believe our Federal Government will place itself in check?
 
Pretty much everything mentioned could be implemented without a constitutional convention -- by, in most cases, statute, or by the alternate amendment process. So apparently there is insufficient political support for those changes. So why would anyone expect a constitutional convention to work?
 
there are a great many people who believe that once a Constitutional Convention is called for, EVERYTHING is up for grabs.

And that includes who represents us at the convention, and in what proportion.

From what I understand, each state gets one vote in a convention. This would definitely give the small red states an advantage over the big blue state
Click to expand...

From what I understand, this would only be true if the people framing the convention decide to do it that way. NOTHING forces them to.

Delegates to such a convention will be determined by the legislatures of the states. (those people ALREADY in office, you know, the ones we distrust, and think are doing a horrible job now...)

AND THOSE PEOPLE STAY in office until the convention is over and its new rules ratified.

Everything is open to change, and the people deciding what to vote on, and how to vote are ONLY as responsible to the American public as their personal morals. Even the tiny threat of not re-electing them is meaningless. We would, effectively have NO CONTROL at all.

Term Limits. A double edged sword, with no guard. Main problem? Corrupt, ineffective career politicians. Secondary problem? Corrupt, ineffective term limited politicians.

As long as the problem is "meet the new boss, ..same as the old boss.." how much does it really matter if we get new faces every few years or keep the old ones?

Many, many years ago, I learned the basic truth in the answer to this old soldier's gripe...

young private: "(deleted), Army!...."
old trooper: "It's not the ARMY, its the people in it!"

We have term limits, simply elect someone else.

I don't recall anyone ever promising it would be easy....
 
"I do not read law well."

Neither do I, and I'm sure a lot (if not most) of others don't either. The Constitution as written is readable by us common folks. What do you think a newly written constitution would read like?

That's a scary thought.
 
If you read article 5, it does say that three-fourths of the states have to approve of any changes. Are some of you saying that isn't enough of a safeguard to prevent anything dangerous or stupid from happening?

That is why I originally asked if there are at least thirteen states that would defend the second amendment. Maybe there are not!
 
I imagine there are 13 States that would try and defend the 2A. I question how effective they would be. The real threat is the exemptions people would be tempted to throw onto the existing amendments, and rights.

I can easily see the first, fourth, and fifth amendments taking the real beating.

Free Speech is ok, but not hate speech. Or this speech, or that speech. Which sounds great. We're, most of us, past the time when the KKK "made sense" and don't want to listen to their propaganda. What we forget is that the same protections they're enjoying now was what gave Dr King his voice. So in an attempt to silence the hate groups, we could easily hamper whatever the next civil rights movement could be.

What about the folks at the convention tired of hearing about some criminal getting off on a technicality? I'm sure there are people out there who will read US v Black and be more angry that some felon got away with possession of a firearm than the police seizing and searching someone they shouldn't.

Should we take a poll of all the folks here to see who think Lois Lerner should be compelled to testify against herself before Congress?

We could go about "fixing" a lot of things that didn't "work" the way they "should have" that one time, only to end up breaking them far, far, far worse.

And the fallout, oh the fallout. It would take a generation or more to wade through it all, as previous court rulings get re-challenged, re-interpreted, and revised. Will any changes to the 4A/5A invalidate Miranda? Stop, Question, And Frisk"? Terry Stops in general? Will students still have fewer first amendment protections at school? Fiddle with free speech to silence hate speech, and you can bet Imminent Lawless Action won't be the standard anymore. And while Justice Potter may know it when he sees it, the rest of us might have to wait for the trial to end.
 
I have read and reread article 5 of the US Constitution. It clearly states that three-fourths of the state legislatures have to approve any changes. This was put in there so that states could have a way to combat an out of control Federal Government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top