States Trigger Constitutional Convention?

[Marnoot]

Saw this on FoxNews.com:

Did Michigan just trigger 'constitutional convention'? Bid gains steam

Basically the article suggests that since Michigan's legislature just passed a resolution to request a constitutional convention (being the 34th state to do so since the last convention) that it triggers this portion of Article V of the constitution:

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

It's noted that it's a gray area, as some of the 34 states have since rescinded their resolutions. Article V makes no provision for rescinding the propositions. I predict nothing happens as a result of this, but we'll see. What think ye?

[roo_ster]

Federales would never let it happen, even if all resolutions were good to go.

COTUS is mere toilet paper nowadays. 

[Nick1911]

Federales would never let it happen, even if all resolutions were good to go.

COTUS is mere toilet paper nowadays. 

This.

Pragmatically, it doesn't matter.  No way the feds would let it happen.

[AJ Dual]

The Feds would just do end-runs around any balanced budget amendment unless it had some very serious teeth anyway. And anything without loopholes wouldn't get passed.

The productive class needs to go Galt en-masse and just switch over to BitCoin, gold, or something and starve the fed.gov and irresponsible state ones if it's to ever change, which of course in of itself is rather unlikely.

[charby]

If it does happen time to push for term limits for House and Senate.

[Fly320s]

If it does happen time to push for term limits for House and Senate.

And their retirement/pension packages. Make them do it just like everyone else.

[AmbulanceDriver]

Hell, just eliminate all the exemptions they've written themselves from the laws they've passed.

[Tallpine]

Repeal everything except the first five words of the First Amendment 

[RoadKingLarry]

I've seen a constituional convention talked about like a libertarians wet dream because we could get all our freedoms and rights restored and protected.
Probably far more likely to get screwed by the pants wetting liberal elite gutting the Bill of Rights.

[Marnoot]

Probably far more likely to get screwed by the pants wetting liberal elite gutting the Bill of Rights.

That's my fear. A convention opens up opportunities for statist and liberty-oriented amendments alike, and there seems to be more likelihood of the former . . .

[Balog]

"The right to free healthcare and high speed internet shall not be infringed."

"The second amendment is repealed."

[Jocassee]

I fear that any constitutional convention will be hijacked by the Marxists and America haters (at the risk of over-stating).

[Bigjake]

I've seen a constituional convention talked about like a libertarians wet dream because we could get all our freedoms and rights restored and protected.
Probably far more likely to get screwed by the pants wetting liberal elite gutting the Bill of Rights.

Ayup. 

There's no way this can end well.

[Boomhauer]

I fear that any constitutional convention will be hijacked by the Marxists and America haters (at the risk of over-stating).

This is pretty much my view.

For all of the excesses of our .gov, there are still some limitations and protections for us. 

After a constitional convention that goes hard left what is left of our protections will be no more...unless you are one of the favored classes.

[charby]

This is pretty much my view.

For all of the excesses of our .gov, there are still some limitations and protections for us. 

After a constitional convention that goes hard left what is left of our protections will be no more...unless you are one of the favored classes.

Its ratified by states right? We have more red states then blue states?

[KD5NRH]

Its ratified by states right? We have more red states then blue states?

Exactly; the biggest fear should be that it would be an all-or-nothing deal.  If it was a series of Amendments that could be individually ratified or not, then I would expect a good result.  Then again, that's how I feel about most legislation; this country was founded on four handwritten pages, and any law longer than a paragraph needs to be tossed and rewritten.

[Balog]

Its ratified by states right? We have more red states then blue states?

I've seen what some of those "red" states vote for. Start threatening to cut their pork and we will see how fiscally conservative they are. I'm betting the answer is "not very."

[Waitone]

I really want to think Mark Levin is right and the states will control the convention.  That said, a true constitutional convention would draw every political and social pathology out of the woodwork in an effort to help correct what used to be known as the US.  Does anyone with two functioning brain cells thinks the likes of Soros would sit this one out?  Not hardly.  More likely is Soros and the like would proceed to empty their bank accounts in an effort to buy anyone at any level having any thing to do with the convention. 

I will say I have not read Levin's book, yet, but listening to him describe what will happen is like listening to a boxing match where the participants are bound to the Marquis of Queensbury rules.  The reality is a constitutional convention would be the Mother of All Knife Fights where there are no rules.  I'm not much for showdown fights.  I'd rather fight barricade to barricade.  A constitutional convention  strikes me as a showdown fight.

[seeker_two]

The Feds don't follow the Constitution we have now....why do you think they would follow a new one?

[RoadKingLarry]

If "they" got their way with a constitutional rewrite .gov would just be better able to justify using it a a bludgeon to stifle dissent. Not that the .gov feels any particular need to justify stifling of dissent.

[roo_ster]

Cotus as written is fine and dandy.  Govt does not follow it because those in govt do not fear the consequences.  Rather than a convention an educational set of horrible warnings would be more likely to result in limited govt.

[Waitone]

^^^^^ What he said.  I've long maintained a number of the constitutional problems we face would be cleared up with a good dose of fear of the taxpayers by the ruling class.  Reintroducing fear into the relationship would yield more predictable results than a convention.

[RevDisk]

I've seen a constituional convention talked about like a libertarians wet dream because we could get all our freedoms and rights restored and protected.
Probably far more likely to get screwed by the pants wetting liberal elite gutting the Bill of Rights.

Ayep. A lot of people seem to drool over the concept of a constitutional convention. Why they think they'll get a BETTER version than the existing version, I'll never understand. Just like the folks who dream of another civil war. They never stop to consider that they'll lose spectacularly and things will end up even worse.  As written, the Constitution is pretty good to go. While far from perfect, it's good enough. But when all three alleged checks and balances collude, well. No kidding. Even if libertarians got their constitutional convention (unlikely) and got a more libertarian constitution (BWAHAHAHAHA), how do said libertarians care to enforce it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonacquiescence

Yes, that's right, Lil' Libertarian. They will ignore your fancy new Constitution and do what they want to do anyways.

"The decision of the supreme court has fell still born, and they find that it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate."

[AJ Dual]

Just like the folks who dream of another civil war. They never stop to consider that they'll lose spectacularly and things will end up even worse. 

I hold zero illusions.

If it gets to that point, I know I'll have to satisfy myself with the knowledge that a bunch of the people responsible will (hopefully) be made to pay with their lives, and that even if everyone loses, at least they didn't "win".

[SADShooter]

Echoing most of the above...

1) We do not have better minds nor hearts than the Framers, so why assume superior results from a new Constitution?

2) COTUS is at root a set of principles. The failure is not in the principles, but in not living by them.

3) The only reason to revisit the COTUS is to acknowledge that we now adhere to different, I would argue inferior, principles. The solution is a return to the originals. Our present path certainly isn't moving in that direction.