Constitutional Convention

Posted by livefreely 10 years, 4 months ago to Politics
75 comments | Share | Flag

I was fascinated to discover that John A is putting together people to bring about a constitutional convention. What ideas do you have for this?
SOURCE URL: http://m.nationalreview.com/article/382555/two-cheers-constitutional-convention-stephen-moore


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 10 years, 4 months ago
    The key question to ask is how many avenues are open to those who oppose America's descent into a socialist dictatorship before resorting to armed insurrection?

    Voting has failed - more than 90% of politicians who run for re-election do so successfully. We no longer can vote them out.

    Petitioning the government for redress of grievances? Sorry, the 546 numnuggets and their 3 million employees are no longer listening to us.

    A revolution would destroy millions of lives and alter America forever, not necessarily for the better. Therefore, an Article V convention is a worthwhile endeavor and I thank John and Mark for their efforts.



    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by BambiB 10 years, 4 months ago
      The problem is that the voting majority (women) are only too happy to vote themselves "bread and circuses". Their penchant for social welfare programs accounts for most of the current $17+ trillion in debt and almost all of the $211 trillion in additional unfunded mandates coming due over the next 50 years. (Yeah. An average of $4 + trillion MORE than we're spending now.)

      A Constitutional Convention would be an opening that would allow them to codify the penchant for "I still have checks in my checkbook - how could I be broke??" governance.

      Presently you have tension between credible, responsible government (the Constitution) and insane, profligate, socialism (the current voting public). Wouldn't a Constitutional Convention just be handing the keys to the store over to the criminals who want to rob it? Put another way: How do you think FDR or Obama would change the Constitution if they had the opportunity?

      America's headed for a financial crash. It may be headed for an armed revolt. The blueprint for governmental recovery is the Constitution. It's the only GOOD thing we have left. Why risk it?

      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 4 months ago
        No, the problem is with the moral code in this nation. It was once a veil of shame that people were on welfare. Today it is a multi-generational way of life. Pregnant teenagers used to go to "visit aunt Sally" where they bore their child, gave it up for adoption, and returned home. Today, we put them on TV and glamorize them. In the past, opium dens were in the poor parts of town, now you can buy it on most street corners, and we've essentially legalized marijuana.

        Don't get me wrong, I'm all for liberty and don't believe that those things should be illegal, but there should be a morality that makes them undesirable for most people. Today, there is no moral condemnation of those making poor choices. If anything, society supports their decisions by reducing the consequences.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by BambiB 10 years, 4 months ago
          Well even the Founders said that the form of government they'd created was suitable only for a moral people.

          Bad men cannot make good citizens. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience are incompatible with freedom. - Patrick Henry

          Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams

          Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature…. If the next centennial does not find us a great nation … it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces. - James Garfield

          So when and how did the depravity begin? Was it with the women's vote, when governments suddenly began spending more money than they had as a matter of course? Was it with the women's movement in the 1960s? Where we fostered the lie that women were equal to men? (I grant they're similar. Not equal.) Was it with Roe v. Wade? Wickard v. Filburn? The Vietnam War? The establishment of the Federal Reserve? Feel free to offer your own start points for the fall of America.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 4 months ago
            The fall began at the beginning. It has merely accelerated more and more over time. I firmly believe that freedom is not the natural state of mankind, even those handed a free society. They seem to want to be enslaved and will either willingly accede to a ruler, or they will bring about the mechanisms to enslave themselves.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by j_IR1776wg 10 years, 4 months ago
        Voila problem solved! Lets round up all females in America and ship em to Guatemala. That'll solve the deficit:-)

        The Constitution has become the Maginot Line for the Obama Administration. The Germans defeated it by ignoring it. The Marxists are doing the same to the Constitution.

        An Article V convention might be the last peaceful avenue open to lovers of Liberty.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by BambiB 10 years, 4 months ago
          Shipping females to Guatemala. Hmmm. Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Harry Reid, Biden, Obama, Eric Holder... Shipping those bitches to Guatemala might be a good start. For us. Not for Guatemala.

          In all likelihood, such a convention would be the mechanism for removing the last "legal" impediment to authoritarian socialism. At this point, if someone started shooting people who had disgraced their oath to preserve and defend the Constitution, there would be those who would cheer and support them. But once the criminality is codified in the Constitution itself, then you are talking about legitimizing what they're already doing.

          Your Maginot Line metaphor should include the resistance of the French to the Nazi invasion. What resistance? EXACTLY!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zero 10 years, 4 months ago
    I'm in.

    I'm already on record for a Balanced Budget Amendment - (www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/842f5ba/g...) - and this is the only way that can happen.

    Will it happen? Hell, who knows. I never thought I'd see the fall of the Berlin Wall.

    The dangers? I think you underestimate how many "Americans" there are.
    The left is in power but they do not dominate. Obama is hated as much as worshipped.
    And both sides have to clear that same high bar to get anything passed.

    But more to the point, what other choice do we have? There is precious little left to loose.

    In fact, unless we can make profound changes, the damage already done is enough to destroy us.
    We have - in fact - already - lost it all. It's just not gone yet.

    The executive branch now has carte blanche to stride over every constitutional protection, the media colludes openly with those it favors, and our financial state is in an unalterable spiral to ruin.


    AR said it was not time to revolt until you are silenced.

    When free speech is lost there is no chance for meaningful discussion. When you cannot discuss you cannot persuade.
    And there is the rub, for it is OUR responsibility to PERSUADE - not to dictate from our own Ivory Tower.

    Your friends and neighbors, co-workers and fellow citizens are not stupid.


    This IS our last chance. Do we fight the good fight - the LAST fight for America?

    Or do we just shrug and leave?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 4 months ago
      Problem with a balanced budget amendment is that it can be achieved in multiple ways. Printing money borrowed from the future, taxing the citizens, and actually spending less than the existing taxes taken in.

      I would prefer a maximum budget of X% of GDP (14%?) with a growth rate no greater than that of the GDP and if the GDP falls, a shrinkage rate twice that of the shrinkage of the GDP. That way, if the economy starts to go south, there is an "automatic" stimulus in the form of more money left with the people. Of course, mechanisms to ensure that GDP and growth/shrinkage rates were rationally measured would need to be in place, as well as what was calculated in the gov't budget.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by MiJo 10 years, 4 months ago
        Of course, this would be buggered the same way that Social Security is. Note that the current index of inflation does NOT include food or fuel! So who computes the GDP? People who include prostitution and marijuana sales? (Did you catch those recent stories?)

        I think a fundamental problem with the current government is that voters have abdicated their role as watchdogs. Instead, they somehow think that making a new "rule" will fix things. This is the wrong approach. To rein in government requires the People to look for dishonesty and irresponsibility, and vote it out of office.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 4 months ago
          Like I said, the means of calculating would need to be honest. And as far as I'm concerned, commerce is commerce, legal or illegal (and shouldn't it all be legal in any case?).
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by MiJo 10 years, 4 months ago
            That's not really the issue.

            The issue is that you can't disallow the commerce one period, then allow it the next and claim that GDP "increased". It's like removing fuel and food from the computation of inflation. Hey! Food's up 400% and fuel's up 300%, but there's no inflation, right?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zero 10 years, 4 months ago
        Just to be sure I understand... would there be a surplus?

        Go you propose a means of paying down the current debt?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 4 months ago
          An honest budget would have to include a line item to pay off existing debt.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Zero 10 years, 4 months ago
            A line item paying off debt (not just interest) without a second line item borrowing an even greater amount. - That works. That's a balanced budget.

            I don't see anything in what you've said that mandates that, however. I don't see anything that regulates the amount of borrowing, only the amount that can be spent.

            Am I being a goof? Is it something obvious I'm looking right past?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 4 months ago
              Well, I take it as a given that a balanced budget gets there by "honest" means - as I said, without mechanisms to prevent it, this can be achieved by increasing taxes and borrowing from the future. I assume that borrowing from the future (deficit spending) would be prohibited, in addition there would need to be mechanisms to ensure that taxation and overall gov't spending is held in check.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ProfChuck 10 years, 4 months ago
    The greatest problem with a Constitutional convention is that those who wish to write a collectivist form of government into law will make every effort to determine the outcome and they will probably succeed. The greatest threat to liberty is when people do not appreciate what liberty means.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ rockymountainpirate 10 years, 4 months ago
    Liberty Amendments. I've heard Mark Lavine talk about and it seems much safer that a Constitutional Convention. I'd be interested in hearing more.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -2
      Posted by $ MikeMarotta 10 years, 4 months ago
      Read all you want about the Liberty Amendments
      http://www.marklevinshow.com/common/page...
      but to be enacted, either we do it with Congress and two-thirds of the states or we do it without Congress and three-fourths of the states. Silver bullets are for the Lone Ranger. Like learning geometry, there is no Royal Road. Nothing worthwhile is easy.

      As for Levin, when you are through learning, you are through; so he may well be on a long road of enlightenment. He did work as chief of staff for Edwin Meese. That should be a warning that he wants a government just big enough to fit in your bedroom.

      [And it is LEVIN, the easy spelling, from the plural of LEVI a household of ancient Jewish priests. (Nothin' personal, just sayin'... and I am the first to admit that I know _how_ to mount a horse, but never understood _why_ you must mount from the left. We all know what we know. Now you know: Levin.) "He pronounces his name with the stress on the second syllable, leVIN." -- Wikipedia.]
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ rockymountainpirate 10 years, 4 months ago
        Do you have more information? What does the Lone Ranger have to do with this, other than he reads John Locke?

        As an aside, you mount a horse on the left, the on side, because you wear your sword on your on the left.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 10 years, 4 months ago
        quit being an ass. likely that was her spell check. pirate is well familiar with Levin. all that other bullshit you added is NOISE. She asked for more information. DO YOU HAVE ANY?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Notperfect 10 years, 4 months ago
    Article V. Enough said. Check out Mike Church.com, Tom Woods, Jack Hunter, Kevin Gutzman, Ron Paul. These men know what an Article V convention will provide. The main problem is those in D.C. have forgot what the constitution stands for much less what its definition is. When a representative quotes we can pass this bill or law through the good and plenty provision then the constitution is ignored and We are threatened.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by MiJo 10 years, 4 months ago
    You can't fight the government by rules established by the government. The government is way past behaving Constitutionally. It routinely violates the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and with less frequency, the Sixth and Eighth Amendments. (Not aware of any violations of the Third Amendment lately - but I'd not be surprised to learn of them.)

    In short, the government has repudiated its agreement with the People. The Constitution is, as much as anything, a contract between the States, the People and the Federal Government. The Federal Government has not honored its commitments under the contract. The States and the People should no longer feel bound to obey ANYTHING Federal in nature. No Federal laws. No Federal taxes. No Federal institutions.

    The states should coin their own money, tell the Feds to stay our of their states, close down any Federal authorities in the states and tell the Feds to piss up a rope.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bassboat 10 years, 4 months ago
    And then there is the idea of allowing voters to vote nationwide by computer. I.D.'s would be required. Why have polling booths that have machines with broken tabs and local chicanery? This process could be tabulated second by second as people voted across the nation. It could be used on city, county, state and national elections. The people should have their say about a matter as opposed to bought off politicians.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 10 years, 4 months ago
      no, electronic voting is open to hacking and manipulation (I have a video link somewhere to just how easy its accomplished - paid for by the government no less). The best way to vote is as we do in Arizona. You draw a line to connect the arrow from your selection to the position. No chads, no pre-packed voting machines and no controversy. The cost of this process is well worth the lack of drama. Now if we can only get the fedgoc off our ass about requiring ID to vote then we can get the illegals, cartoon characters, and dead people out of our elections.

      No computer voting is no solution if you want an accurate election.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 4 months ago
        I think that those machines still optically scan the votes (even though a hard copy is maintained). So it could still be manipulated. And I can't remember hearing of votes being tossed out after the fact because a hand-count and an electronic count didn't match. They just use that info to "improve" the next cycle.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by BambiB 10 years, 4 months ago
      Two problems with that:
      First, I don't think you want to make voting too easy. Make it so that people who are motivated can easily vote, while those who aren't can sit at home and collect their welfare payments right up until those who are motivated to stop paying the taxes vote welfare out of existence.

      Second: It's a big step away from a Republican government. Democracy is a nice term for "mob rule". We already have a problem with the majority of voters being stupid enough to elect Obama (twice) - with women being 20% more likely to be stupid than their male counterparts (that being the gender gap in the last election). Now you want to make their emotional snap-judgments the source of governance? Holy crap! We've already got $211 trillion in social welfare lined up (over the next 50 years) for which there's no budgetary source! Add in the fact that statistically, women are less conscious of the differences in orders of magnitude in mathematics and you could have them voting for a $100 trillion program to "save the chil-l-l-l-l-ldrens". A real-time vote-from-home system sounds good on first thought. But deeper analysis would show that it's a system that could respond too fast - that would be like a machine with a slow feedback loop.

      Imagine such a system in place on 9/12/2001. Someone says, "Iraq did it! Nuke Iraq!!" 50 million Americans shout, "Hell yeah" - jab the keyboard on their computers and Iraq disappears in a radioactive cloud.

      A week later we find out Iraq had nothing to do with the attack.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by barwick11 10 years, 4 months ago
    They don't follow the Constitution we do have, I'm not sure what the solution is
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by BambiB 10 years, 4 months ago
      The solution is to make enough people suffer enough that they get fed up with the system enough to actually change it.

      Of they could get so fed up they elect Hitler (or Obama) out of sheer frustration and stupidity.

      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 10 years, 4 months ago
    I have always figured that a runaway con-con produced the truncated system of government consisting of a unicameral Legislature and a seemingly all-powerful executive branch with the generically named Head of State we see in Atlas Shrugged. Does John A really know what he's doing?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 4 months ago
      We essentially have a unicameral leg now. The house passes bills and the senate doesn't vote on them. One house rules. We have lost our rule of gov't and taken on the rule of party. Whichever party holds power rules, regardless of where that power resides.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Storo 10 years, 4 months ago
    There is a Convention of States Project that was begun by Citizens For Self Governance. There is a web site conventionofstates.com although I was unable to open it this morning for some reason. 34 States - the number required for a convention to be called - have thus far requested a convention. Under Article 5 of the Constitution if 2/3s of the states ask for a convention, Congress has no choice.
    The question is and always has been, if a convention is called can it be limited to a narrow set of issues, or is everything in the Constitution on the table. The States appoint delegates. What happens if the States appoint a bunch of progressives who proceed to demolish our Constitutional rights and put in place their vision of a "document of positive rights" a la Obama?
    While I generally support a convention to address things like a balanced budget amendment, I shiver to think what could happen. The well thought out principles of our Constitution by the Founding Fathers could be replaced with a socialist document that results in the elimination of the rights of the individual, and the furtherance of the socialist agenda.
    We MUST answer these questions.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Susanne 10 years, 4 months ago
    What a wonderful way to scuttle what rights and liberties we have, and put into existance a neofascist dictatorship that would then comply with the glorious new people's democratic nationalistic free constitution...

    It would be the end of America. There is a reason this has lasted so long without interruption; by stopping that it removes the limits of absolute power they so desperately lust over. Power to own you. Power to take what is yours. Power to enslave you, all good and primed for our national debtholder's achieving their glorious conquest of the anti-Marxist empire. Power to finally remove the Great Satan.

    Best brush up on your Mandarin. Or Arabic. Likely the official version of the new constitution will be in that language.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 years, 4 months ago
    Currently, a waste of time. Perhaps after 2016 if all goes well, but not a chance until then. Have the discussions, but don't start implementing until there's a chance to succeed.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 10 years, 4 months ago
    It is important to have the discussion. Even if not all Red states approve and even if some Blue states do, it takes two-thirds to call the convention and three-fourths to ratify. As noted in the NR article, that is a high barrier, and rightfully so. Nonetheless, it is important to have the discussions. The real enemy is apathy.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by BambiB 10 years, 4 months ago
      Apathy won't be a problem once the unbearable pain threshold is reached. When women see their children starving, they're gonna want change. And this time, not the Obama version.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 4 months ago
    It's like "comprehensive immigration reform".

    The problem isn't in the Constitution, just as it's not in our immigration laws.

    The problem is in the people in office not OBEYING the law.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 4 months ago
    A constitution convention by the states reminds me of the definition of democracy - two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

    We can't figure out how to enforce the one we've got, how is changing it going to make a difference?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 4 months ago
      By the establishment of different processes. If you change the SOP by which a proposed regulation becomes Law then you can introduce barriers to - for example - proposed regulation that exceeds its budget, utilizes a budget already earmarked for a different purpose, lacks transparency, or violates an aspect of the Constitution.

      I think that this is the logical fist step: obey the existing Constitution. The problem is that you might have to change that very document in order to enact such an overwhelming and politically unpopular SOP.

      Jan
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 10 years, 4 months ago
      I have suffered "the wolves of democracy" while working with engineers. You get that with _any_ group decision. Even working with one other person - heck, being married - if you argue "my way or the highway" it is you out on the highway. Yet, we have huge corporations larger than most governments, membership in those being voluntary. If you want to work with someone, you do. As for the sheep, just get the wolves to argue over who gets the best portions and when and they might never come to a decision or just turn on each other. If the sheep is a _ram_, he is not without resources of his own, which is why it takes more than one wolf. The analogy is that planfully competent individuals can and do protect themselves.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo