Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Brad Johnson on January 08, 2016, 04:57:17 PM
-
Oh, if only...
http://gov.texas.gov/news/press-release/21829
Gov Abbott's suggestions for restoring states' rights and reigning in fed lunacy, and a call for a Convention Of States ratification.
Brad
-
He's bucking to be our next paraplegic president, I guess. Keep it coming.
-
Writeup from Dallas Morning News:
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2016/01/gov-greg-abbott-calls-for-constitutional-convention-to-take-back-states-rights.html/
. In an editorial lambasting Rubio’s plan, USA Today‘s editorial board warned that such a process could invite mayhem and further poison the nation’s vitriolic political scene.
Cry me a f*ckin' river. Let's get this rodeo started.
Writeup from AoSHQ:
http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=360960
Personally, I've been hoping for the ball to get kicked this direction for a few years, and I predicted it would come from Texas. Better Texas, with its huge economy and independent spirit than one of the former slaveholding, now welfare-dependent ones like my own South Carolina, or NC, or AL.
The grassroots of this country has come a long way since I posted this back in 2009:
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=18843.msg351707#msg351707
Haven't seen the actual document yet, it wasn't linked any of the three places I looked.
-
I don't for half a microsecond think a Convention of the States/Constitutional Convention would turn out to be the Libertarian wet dream it's prophesied to be.
If they managed to pull one together I suspect we would end up with a whole new constitution and come out looking more like a socialist EU wannabe country with a gutted Bill of Rights.
Would we get the needed number of states to ratify it? Probably, The overwhelming majority of politicians on both sides of the aisle are hard core power hungry statists. Some "wear" red, some "wear" blue, what ever it takes to get elected in their home base.
-
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=50553.0 (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=50553.0)
Maybe we could get these threads merged.
-
I don't for half a microsecond think a Convention of the States/Constitutional Convention would turn out to be the Libertarian wet dream it's prophesied to be.
If they managed to pull one together I suspect we would end up with a whole new constitution and come out looking more like a socialist EU wannabe country with a gutted Bill of Rights.
Would we get the needed number of states to ratify it? Probably, The overwhelming majority of politicians on both sides of the aisle are hard core power hungry statists. Some "wear" red, some "wear" blue, what ever it takes to get elected in their home base.
Are the Libertarians pushing this?
You're singing the same party line I've heard from conservative org's for years. At an Eagle Forum event a few months ago they were solidly against it. What's changed? Is it because the Republicans have so many statehouses and governor's shacks that righties think this is a good idea now?
-
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=50553.0 (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=50553.0)
Maybe we could get these threads merged.
And it didn't require an constitutional convention to get it done....
-
And it didn't require an constitutional convention to get it done....
Well that's right nice of you
-
Are the Libertarians pushing this?
You're singing the same party line I've heard from conservative org's for years. At an Eagle Forum event a few months ago they were solidly against it. What's changed? Is it because the Republicans have so many statehouses and governor's shacks that righties think this is a good idea now?
Do you really have enough faith in any group of elected politicians to not totally *expletive deleted*ck things up with the Constitution given half a chance?
The same majority of morons that elected Obama twice would be voting on ratification of anything that came out of a convention. The same morons that continue to re-elect Pelosi, made De Blasio and Emanuel Mayors, Christie and Jay Nixon governors. The same "conservative" politicians that made Paul Ryan speaker of the house...
You realize "We The People" get no real voice in the final outcome of a convention, it can all be done by the legislatures of the states don't you?
I don't trust them.
Art. V
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.
Personally, I've been hoping for the ball to get kicked this direction for a few years, and I predicted it would come from Texas. Better Texas, with its huge economy and independent spirit than one of the former slaveholding, now welfare-dependent ones like my own South Carolina, or NC, or AL.
Texas is rapidly getting californicated, the libtards have already pretty well ruined the big cities and while TEXAS BY DAMN! and it isn't quite the bastion of freedom it's made out to be.
-
Do you really have enough faith in any group of elected politicians to not totally *expletive deleted*ck things up with the Constitution given half a chance?
The same majority of morons that elected Obama twice would be voting on ratification of anything that came out of a convention. The same morons that continue to re-elect Pelosi, made De Blasio and Emanuel Mayors, Christie and Jay Nixon governors. The same "conservative" politicians that made Paul Ryan speaker of the house...
You realize "We The People" get no real voice in the final outcome of a convention, it can all be done by the legislatures of the states don't you?
I don't trust them.
My question is, "what changed?" Why do so many conservatives seem enamored of a CC right now, when they were opposed to it for so long?
-
Governorships - 31R 18D 1I (leans Right)
State Senates - 36R 14D
State Houses - 33R 16D (Nebraska is unicameral and is counted in the Senate numbers above)
-
RKL has it right. Nearly all politicians want the same things: to be reelected and to have more power.
-
My question is, "what changed?" Why do so many conservatives seem enamored of a CC right now, when they were opposed to it for so long?
My guess is that the *let's not go there* think they have enough control to Institute their brand of totalitarianism now.
-
We have a Constitution and Bill of Rights that are extremely conservative. Politicians have been twisting it for decades and the People have been more than happy to accept such perversions. Do we really want those perversions written into a new Constitution?
I have no faith in the people or the politicians to draft anything better than what we have now, or even uphold the good parts of what would be drafted and ratified.
-
Wow...
Something that could, even if not peferred, could at the very least be used as a rallying point and you guys can't wait to tear it apart. No wonder conservatives can't get Jack Schytte done, we rush to eat our own young.
Libs don't need to do anything to defeat us. All they have to do is wait and we'll do it to ourselelves.
Brad
-
I was gonna say. What is the alleged purpose of this convention of states?
Because with respect, I trust Republican politicians as far as I can throw them. Dems? They stab you in the chest, whenever they can. Maybe a nerf toy they think is real, maybe a potato peeler, maybe a butcher knife. But they stab you in the chest, everytime. Republicans stab you in the back. Every. Damn. Time. Unless you keep your eye on them every second of the day, and threaten, badger, etc. Even then, they love to give you the slip and happily stab you in the back with higher taxes, more regulations, more restrictions, more government authority, etc. Okey, it's generally a SMALLER knife than the Dems. Usually, not always.
I'd trust neither party to run a daycare, let alone rewrite the Constitution. Hopefully this is a PR stunt that does nothing.
-
Page 67-70 of the full document discuss a "runaway convention" and why the Governor thinks it unlikely: http://gov.texas.gov/files/press-office/Restoring_The_Rule_Of_Law_01082016.pdf The argument for a convention seems sound, but I also have a lot of respect for Murphy and his law.
-
Wow...
Something that could, even if not peferred, could at the very least be used as a rallying point and you guys can't wait to tear it apart. No wonder conservatives can't get Jack Schytte done, we rush to eat our own young.
Libs don't need to do anything to defeat us. All they have to do is wait and we'll do it to ourselelves.
Brad
Brad, what makes you think that things would go in our favor, and not in favor of liberals?
-
I was gonna say. What is the alleged purpose of this convention of states?
Because with respect, I trust Republican politicians as far as I can throw them. Dems? They stab you in the chest, whenever they can. Maybe a nerf toy they think is real, maybe a potato peeler, maybe a butcher knife. But they stab you in the chest, everytime. Republicans stab you in the back. Every. Damn. Time. Unless you keep your eye on them every second of the day, and threaten, badger, etc. Even then, they love to give you the slip and happily stab you in the back with higher taxes, more regulations, more restrictions, more government authority, etc. Okey, it's generally a SMALLER knife than the Dems. Usually, not always.
I'd trust neither party to run a daycare, let alone rewrite the Constitution. Hopefully this is a PR stunt that does nothing.
While I don't disagree with any of this, I'm of the same mind as Jocassee. Let's do this now while there is at least a chance of reining in the fed gov. If things go south, we just wind up where we are already headed faster.
-
I was gonna say. What is the alleged purpose of this convention of states?
Because with respect, I trust Republican politicians as far as I can throw them. Dems? They stab you in the chest, whenever they can. Maybe a nerf toy they think is real, maybe a potato peeler, maybe a butcher knife. But they stab you in the chest, everytime. Republicans stab you in the back. Every. Damn. Time. Unless you keep your eye on them every second of the day, and threaten, badger, etc. Even then, they love to give you the slip and happily stab you in the back with higher taxes, more regulations, more restrictions, more government authority, etc. Okey, it's generally a SMALLER knife than the Dems. Usually, not always.
I'd trust neither party to run a daycare, let alone rewrite the Constitution. Hopefully this is a PR stunt that does nothing.
The situation needs to be nudged, one way or another. Right now people are getting pissed off enough to break into federal buildings and create "standoffs."
If it makes it worse--so be it. I'm willing to take that chance. All the better if it goes horribly wrong and pushes us towards full rodeo.
-
Brad, what makes you think that things would go in our favor, and not in favor of liberals?
While relevant, the question is moot until conservatives collectively realize that nothing will go in our favor, ever, until we stop destroying ourselves from within. This was an opportunity to bring conservatives together at a greater-than-grassroots level. Yet do we discuss it as such? No. We rip it to shreds for no reason other than general butthurt.
Brad
-
While relevant, the question is moot until conservatives collectively realize that nothing will go in our favor, ever, until we stop destroying ourselves from within. This was an opportunity to bring conservatives together at a greater-than-grassroots level. Yet do we discuss it as such? No. We rip it to shreds for no reason other than general butthurt.
Brad
Just because we disagree with your libertarian wet dream view of the outcome of a constitutional convention doesn't make it "butthurt".
The only display of butthurt I'm seeing is coming from you because not everyone agrees with you.
You're welcome to support it all you want. I'm going to oppose it all I can.
-
While relevant, the question is moot until conservatives collectively realize that nothing will go in our favor, ever, until we stop destroying ourselves from within. This was an opportunity to bring conservatives together at a greater-than-grassroots level. Yet do we discuss it as such? No. We rip it to shreds for no reason other than general butthurt.
Brad
Just because we disagree with your libertarian wet dream view of the outcome of a constitutional convention doesn't make it "butthurt".
The only display of butthurt I'm seeing is coming from you because not everyone agrees with you.
You're welcome to support it all you want. I'm going to oppose it all I can.
I am more positively disposed toward a convention of the states than RKL (enough such that I might support it as a "hail mary" pass to renew our american nation), but he makes a good point. There are some serious and substantial objections that need to be faced. That is not butthurt, that is reality and experience talking. Things that conservatives used to take into account. ["Paging GK Chesterton..."]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence
If being "conservative" (scare quotes or otherwise), means anything, it should mean having the cognitive ability to look at potential consequences to changes in traditional practice & significant actions in general. We deride lefties for not foreseeing unintended consequences enough that we ought to make the effort to think beyond "Phase One."
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fartcarden%2Ffiles%2F2011%2F07%2F300px-Gnomes_plan.png&hash=d46a5cfb1717ff8878820c73c8d44974d6dfa15d)
-
This thread is a pefect example of why conservatism is in such a shambles. If we can't agree that simply coming together in discussion can be positive, even if the premise of the discussion isn't something to our liking, then conservatism as a notion (much less a political ideology) is doomed.
Libertarian, constructionist, constitutionalist... I don't care. I was just thrilled that someone on our general side of the tracks was putting forth some effort to bring people together around something. I see now what a waste of time it's going to be since our side will destroy it from the inside no matter what it is.
Brad
-
If they were proposing simply "coming together for a serious discussion" then I'd be OK with that. What they are proposing is a Constitutional Convention with the intended purpose of "fixing" the Constitution.
The Constitution isn't what needs fixing.
While we only have one historical example of how it has worked before, remember that the first constitutional convention wiped out the Articles of Confederation and gave us the document we have today. And while I will concede the remote possibility that a new convention would yield us a document as much better than our current Constitution that it is better than the original Articles of Confederation that it replaced.
The level of possibility I give it is the same level that I assign to the existence of bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster.
-
*shrug*
The only positive thing I could see from a convention of states would be just putting teeth into the Constitution. Add another amendment that any significant, knowing violation of the Constitution by any elected or unelected persons in government service is a felony. Or subject to fine. Or hell, nothing other than being unable to hold another government position for the rest of their life. I'd be fine with letting bad actors walk away unscathed if it meant they would be unable to harm anyone in the future.
Let's rephrase this to address Brad's concerns. What do folks want to exactly add to the Constitution? What needs fixing? I pointed one serious hole in the Constitution is any meaningful punishment for violating it. There could be others, but I'm leery to put it mildly. Our current Constitution does have flaws, but the price of fixing them may be unreasonably high.
Another thing to recall is that any small group's utopia is a living hell for the vast majority. That's why we didn't get a utopian Constitution, we got a roughly practical one. Perhaps too practical in some regards, but still...
-
Article 5 Convention of States is not a concon.
Most of the states that have started state deliberation have legislated rules and guidelines for participation. conventionofstates.org FAQ with other reading material on it.
-
Article 5 Convention of States is not a concon.
Most of the states that have started state deliberation have legislated rules and guidelines for participation. conventionofstates.org FAQ with other reading material on it.
Neither was the concon in 1787. Its "sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation" and not tossing them aside completely.
I still think it worth trying, so if/when it fails no one can say we did not try every option before pulling the ripcord.
-
I still think it worth trying, so if/when it fails no one can say we did not try every option before pulling the ripcord.
This right here.
-
"ripcord" So that may be where we all get to all caps on all?
-
This is my opinion of the suggestions:
Governor Abbott offered the following constitutional amendments:
1)Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.
Good.
Require Congress to balance its budget.
Good.
Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.
Good.
Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law.
Good.
Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
NO!!!!
Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.
Like Heller v. DC???? NO! This would make the Supreme Court impotent.
Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.
That would be great, but... they are going to pass the 10th amendment again?
Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.
Good.
Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.
Good.
-
Re 2/3 of states can override the Supreme Court. There's already a process for that. It's called an "amendment".
-
Re 2/3 of states can override the Supreme Court. There's already a process for that. It's called an "amendment".
Well, 3/4, but your meaning is clear. Wickard v. Filburn has destroyed the commerce clause. We don't fix that, we don't fix anything. Remove the prefatory clause to the 2nd. Might want to revisit the 14th, and somehow codify "equal protection". Establish explicit rules for eligibility to vote in Federal elections, starting with limiting the franchise to taxpayers.