Indiana calls for U.S. Constitutional Convention

[boozoo]

There's so much fear over what could happen if a convention was called that I doubt we'll ever see one.

I would love to see the government reigned back in but they ignore not just the intent but the actual words of the Constitution.... not sure what amendments would do for us except maybe term limits for Congress. That and the other one that was floating around requiring that Congress can't exempt themselves from the laws they pass for us (was specific to the health care debate).

 

[EvilElmo]

There's so much fear over what could happen if a convention was called that I doubt we'll ever see one.

I would love to see the government reigned back in but they ignore not just the intent but the actual words of the Constitution.... not sure what amendments would do for us except maybe term limits for Congress. That and the other one that was floating around requiring that Congress can't exempt themselves from the laws they pass for us (was specific to the health care debate).

I'd like to see the 17th repealed. Put Senators back under the thumb of the state legislatures so the states have REAL control over the spending.

Of course we don't need a full blown convention to push for that.

 

[Expat]

Don't Be Fooled by Article V Conventions | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

 

[boozoo]

I'd like to see the 17th repealed. Put Senators back under the thumb of the state legislatures so the states have REAL control over the spending.

Of course we don't need a full blown convention to push for that.

Wholeheartedly agree with that one, too. Funny how they used populist sentiment to override an original provision of our government's framing that was meant to resist the populism the House would be subjected to.

Looks like even back then, the Founders were well aware of the Santa Clause effect on politics.

 

[cosermann]

This is one of the ways to amend it as stated in the Constitution. We've only ever used the second way. It doesn't make this way any less legitimate.

So you see no practical difference between the two methods? Really?

 

[AtTheMurph]

I like the idea of LIMITING the interstate commerce clause.

Don't need to limit it at all. Just need to discard the idiotic precedent set by the FDR SCOTUS and return to the common sense meaning of that clause.

It was designed to allow the Feds to deal with disputes between states so that one state could not set up trade barriers, taxes, tariffs, etc to the detriment of another state.

If the intent was to allow the Limited Federal Government to regulate the growing of wheat by a farmer in Ohio for his personal use we certainly would expect that an enumerated power would have been listed to do such a thing. But it most certainly was not.

Since it wasn't enumerated the 10th Amendment clearly states that the Federal Government does not have that power.

 

[Liberty1911]

So you see no practical difference between the two methods? Really?

I'm just pointing out it's actually part of the Constitution and not "fishy" as you stated. I didn't say they were exactly the same.

They almost are though. Amendments that come from Congress or amendments that are proposed from a convention still require 3/4th of the state legislatures to pass.

A convention isn't going to be some closed door, smoke filled room, where they pass an amendment and let you read it after it's already attached to the constitution.

 

[kludge]

I'd like to see the 17th repealed. Put Senators back under the thumb of the state legislatures so the states have REAL control over the spending.

16th and 17th go hand in hand... without taxation apportioned to the states and US senators beholden to the state legislatures... well you get what you have now.

 

[CarmelHP]

Don't need to limit it at all. Just need to discard the idiotic precedent set by the FDR SCOTUS and return to the common sense meaning of that clause.

It was designed to allow the Feds to deal with disputes between states so that one state could not set up trade barriers, taxes, tariffs, etc to the detriment of another state.

If the intent was to allow the Limited Federal Government to regulate the growing of wheat by a farmer in Ohio for his personal use we certainly would expect that an enumerated power would have been listed to do such a thing. But it most certainly was not.

Since it wasn't enumerated the 10th Amendment clearly states that the Federal Government does not have that power.

Exactly, it's a free trade agreement among the states.

 

[poptab]

There was one constitutional convention before.
It didnt go so well for freedom back then.
Anyone that thinks it would go well for freedom today...

 

[CathyInBlue]

So, where's the other prong here? Where's the Constitutional Amendment to reign in Commerce Clause abuses? If the con con fails (and god I hope it fails), then there's the amendment process going in parallel. They want a con con just to reign in Commerce Clause abuses? Great! I'm with ya. Let's see the language you want to add/remove/replace up front.

 

[Expat]

Not just the commerce clause, how about making it illegal for Congress to exempt themselves from all these laws they pass. I am very sympathetic to the idea and Mike Church makes a very good argument that it isn't as dangerous as we think, but I still don't trust them. But we are in a mess. Both parties think they are like royalty these days. They both willingly go along with one power grab after another. They both spend money with abandon. They apparently have no shame in trampling over the Constitution. And unfortunately we would likely end up with these same individuals as our delegates.

 

[rambone]

And unfortunately we would likely end up with these same individuals as our delegates.

Bet on it.

 

[Sfrandolph]

A constitutional convention would be the worst idea in 223 years. There is NO WAY that the current group of "scholars" and "lawmakers" is superior to the Founding Fathers.

Do you think any recent president would step down voluntarily after 2 terms? Neither do I!

This whole idea is big time scary. Quite frankly, I don't trust ANY of the elected officials at the Federal level to do the right thing. They are all just out for their own twisted benefit and agenda.

 

[rambone]

Good op-ed on the Con-Con.

Best intentions can lead to worst results: 'Con con' a dangerous idea

Because Article V is vague, experts believe there’s great danger in a con con. Once it’s convened, everything’s on the table for discussion. Delegates can take any action they desire. Long mistakenly promises the convention could be limited to two topics. In his well-known letter to Phyllis Schlafly, Chief Justice Warren Burger stated, “There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a constitutional convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don’t like its agenda.”

It’s hard to imagine, but it’s true. The convention could radically change our present Constitution or discard it altogether. It’s happened before. When the doors closed on the first constitutional convention in 1787, the intent was merely to revise the Articles of Confederation. When those doors reopened a month later, the articles were scrapped and a whole new document emerged.

 

[Smokepole]

This is a Pandora's box that need not be opened. Once it gets started there's not telling what will come out it. And that concerns me more than just about anything else that is currently going on now. The stuff that is happening now can be corrected over time. But if the Constitution and the BoR, get rewritten and screwed up . . . . you tell me how and how long that will take to fix.

 

[2A_Tom]

Liberty 1911,

Because of the ambiguity of article V it is possible that the entire Constitution could be scrapped and what comes out of the convention might not be anything like we have now.

Libs have been calling for this since I was a kid. What do you think they want to change. How would the states ratify, in the legislature or by popular vote? I think that 47 % or more think that the US is a democracy. It might just be, after a con con.

Then with the electronic voting they could ratify anything they want.

 

[CBR1000rr]

Liberty 1911,

Because of the ambiguity of article V it is possible that the entire Constitution could be scrapped and what comes out of the convention might not be anything like we have now.

Libs have been calling for this since I was a kid. What do you think they want to change. How would the states ratify, in the legislature or by popular vote? I think that 47 % or more think that the US is a democracy. It might just be, after a con con.

Then with the electronic voting they could ratify anything they want.

Aren't we a Democratic Republic?

 

[Llamaguy]

Liberty 1911,

Because of the ambiguity of article V it is possible that the entire Constitution could be scrapped and what comes out of the convention might not be anything like we have now.

Libs have been calling for this since I was a kid. What do you think they want to change. How would the states ratify, in the legislature or by popular vote? I think that 47 % or more think that the US is a democracy. It might just be, after a con con.

Then with the electronic voting they could ratify anything they want.

Reminder: The U.S. Senate Should Be Abolished

I was like:

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Reminder: The U.S. Senate Should Be Abolished

Hamilton Nolan is obviously a product of the modern public school system.