The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Tucker on September 23, 2011, 09:38:02 AM
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1989220
Literate Dragon (16 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Sep-22-11 11:53 PM
Original message
Constitutional Convention, anyone?
I encountered something very interesting to me today: http://news.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/2011_09... /
As we should all know, the U.S. Constitution contains two different procedures by which amendments may be proposed to the states for ratification. The first method, and the only one that has ever actually been used, is for amendments to pass both houses of Congress by a 2/3 majority. Congress does not actually PASS the amendment, it only proposes it, and 3/4 of the states must then ratify the amendment before it becomes part of the Constitution.
The other method, which has never been used, is for 2/3 of the states to call for a Constitutional convention, similar to the one that took place when the Constitution we have now was adopted. If 2/3 of the states call for such a convention, Congress MUST call for it, and the states must then send delegates. The convention would then propose amendments (up to a completely new constitution) which would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states just as if they had come from Congress. If a convention is called, no limits can be placed on the changes they can propose to the states. Just as the original convention, called for the purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation, ended up scrapping the whole thing and starting over, so might a new constitutional convention scrap our current governing document and start fresh with a new one (although I suspect any likely convention would want to keep many aspects of the existing government).
Why would we wish to do this, and create the danger of truly radical change? Because we are against the wall. Our democracy has been suborned. Both parties, for the most part, serve the corporate interests, not the public interest. This means that no solution to the terrible problems we face as a nation can be achieved by electoral politics within the existing system. No viable alternative will be offered to the people for a vote. All must pass the corporate veto. Since the ordinary way of effecting real change is denied to us, we must take a more radical approach, and a constitutional convention -- if we can pull this off -- has the advantage of being nonviolent and avoiding the consequences of revolution.
The U.S. Constitution represents a compromise among divergent interests and values. It compromised the interests of big states with those of small ones, of democracy with the propertied class' fear of the mob, of slave-owners with abolitionists. Any new Constitution, or any lesser scope of amendments to come from a convention, would have to represent a similar compromise. We could not get a left-wing paradise from such a procedure. Nor could the Tea Partiers get a theocracy or a government of libertarian principles or anything else outrageously radical that we would not approve. But that doesn't make the process futile. There are few points of agreement between the Tea Party right (or at least its younger members) and the insurgent left, but one of them seems to be that government corruption and control of the government by corporate interests needs to go. Although there are many changes to the Constitution that might be proposed to make it more modern and genuinely democratic (starting with the abolition of the Electoral College and going on through proportional representation in the House, and perhaps an expanded House so that each Representative represents a smaller number of people), the one thing that must change if we are to retake our government and restore democracy is an amendment something like this:
The right of free speech does not imply an unlimited right to amplify one's speech or that of another through the purchase of media outlets, or through monetary contributions made to political campaigns.
This simple provision would permit the imposition of sensible and democracy-protecting campaign finance laws and legislation that would set aside the Citizens United decision. It cannot possibly come from Congress, corrupt beyond redemption as that body is. And until it becomes law, Congress will remain corrupt and incapable of passing other legislation necessary to restore prosperity and national health.
For this measure alone, a Constitutional convention would be a worthy risk to take, a worthy cause to pursue. Or so it seems to me. What do the rest of you think?
This picture comes to mind.
(http://us.mg201.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=1%5f11456%5fAILHjkQAAIUsTnm9wgBkiS%2bf5qg&pid=2.2&fid=Inbox&inline=1)
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Sep-22-11 11:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. I've been saying we need a Constitutional Convention for years and decades,
But I doubt it is going to happen.
You're right.
If we're so bad, why does every other country envy us?
If we're so bad, why do illegals sneak across the border to get here?
If we're so bad, how is it that you're still alive after saying some of the things you say?
Selatius (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Sep-23-11 07:48 AM
Response to Original message
11. Likely, a constitutional convention would lead to the US dissolving like the Soviet Union did.
Edited on Fri Sep-23-11 07:55 AM by Selatius
Because conservatives would not want the US Senate to be touched. Think about it. The Senate was originally proposed to balance out the views of small states with larger more populous states. This is why Georgia gets two seats to California's two seats even though California is far larger in terms of population.
Another hang-up would be over which changes will be implemented.
I can think of several that would automatically be opposed by corporatist/conservative elements:
1. Implementation of publicly financed elections at the federal level
2. Implementation of majority voting with a run-off mechanism
3. Implementation of ability to recall sitting legislators/presidents
There are others, such as abolition of the Electoral College. I'm in favor of many proposals to make our country more democratic, but at the same time, the nut jobs on the right wing will also have a seat at the table.
In such a situation, I think the best solution would be to end "the American Experiment" once and for all, rather than risk letting the totalitarian elements force through some of their changes at the expense of some of our changes in the interests of "compromise."
The fear is the corporate elements would game the system by getting state legislatures to send pro-corporate delegates to the convention to write draft amendments, and then they would get their stooges in the several state legislatures to vote to approve these pro-corporate measures. They control plenty of state houses already. In such a situation, I'd vote to leave the Union.
So, if you can't get your way, just dissolve the whole thing! WOW. You are stupid beyond reason.
-
That's some special kind of stupid.
-
Selatius (1000+ posts) Fri Sep-23-11 07:48 AM
Response to Original message
11. Likely, a constitutional convention would lead to the US dissolving like the Soviet Union did.
I think the best solution would be to end "the American Experiment" once and for all
I'd vote to leave the Union.
Thanks, DUmmy Selatius, for explaining democrat party patriotism so succinctly.
-
Literate Dragon (16 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Sep-22-11 11:53 PM
Original message
Constitutional Convention, anyone?
I encountered something very interesting to me today: http://news.bostonherald....ews/politics/view/2011_09... /
As we should all know, the U.S. Constitution contains two different procedures by which amendments may be proposed to the states for ratification. The first method, and the only one that has ever actually been used,1 is for amendments to pass both houses of Congress by a 2/3 majority. Congress does not actually PASS the amendment, it only proposes it, and 3/4 of the states must then ratify the amendment before it becomes part of the Constitution.
The other method, which has never been used,1 is for 2/3 of the states to call for a Constitutional convention, similar to the one that took place when the Constitution we have now was adopted. If 2/3 of the states call for such a convention, Congress MUST call for it, and the states must then send delegates.
1 This is technically not true, but considering your virtual domecile on Skin's Island of Misfit ****-ups and what that says about your level of intelligence, I'll let it slide. For the record, though, the method in which we GOT our present Constitution was by this very same means that you say has never been used. The Constitutional Convention was called originally to REVISE the existing Articles of Confederation: The states didn't just call a Convention, send delegates to Philly, hand out blank sheets of paper and tell everybody to start writing. :mental:
The reason this is a bad idea, even for a DUmbass such as yourself, is exactly what happened at the LAST Constitutional Convention; you'll send your delegates to the convention, thinking they'll revise that hoary old document, and the next thing you know, they'll turn out something completely unprecidented and new for reviews and signatures. Once you open a convention, there is NO control or limiting barriers to WHAT goes up for edit.
Secondly, given that moonbats such as yourself DO NOT control a majority of the States at the Gubernatorial and Legislatural level, and that you're generally opposed to giving the individual States that degree of authority in the first damned place, what the **** leads you to think that calling for a Constitutional Convention would let you get the gub'mint goodies and unquestioned political upper hand in this country, when all is said and done again? :confused:
-
Literate Dragon (16 posts) Fri Sep-23-11 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. ...Mind you, the amendment we really need is indeed to the First Amendment, ...
Meaning, I can say whatever I want, YOU shut the **** up.
-
You can hear the goosestepping all the way from thier island. In HELL Hitler is smiling at his little goons.
-
You can hear the goosestepping all the way from thier island. In HELL Hitler is smiling at his little goons.
A Constitutional Convention is one thing they really ought not wish for, their belief that their so-called 'Progressive' creed is widely-shared is utterly delusional. In the unlikely event the Convention actually produced something besides lots of name-calling and bad blood, I am pretty sure the DUers really wouldn't like the result.
-
Even though this thread is dressed up in pretty words and phrases that sing 'True Democracy', there is only one thing this primitive wants -
To increase the power and representation of big blue cities in big blue states, at the expense of what the primitives call 'flyover country'. Once the primitives get this, they will control it all indefinitely.
-- Its funny, the primitives refer to proposals such as a flat tax as a 'regressive' policy that unfairly burdens the little people, yet they would love nothing more than to employ that same regressive ideology nationally.
-
Even though this thread is dressed up in pretty words and phrases that sing 'True Democracy', there is only one thing this primitive wants -
To increase the power and representation of big blue cities in big blue states, at the expense of what the primitives call 'flyover country'. Once the primitives get this, they will control it all indefinitely.
-- Its funny, the primitives refer to proposals such as a flat tax as a 'regressive' policy that unfairly burdens the little people, yet they would love nothing more than to employ that same regressive ideology nationally.
Maybe.
I do know that the very first thing addressed would be the elimination of the 2nd Amendment. The fear of a slaughter is the only thing that keeps them in line.
-
Maybe.
I do know that the very first thing addressed would be the elimination of the 2nd Amendment. The fear of a slaughter is the only thing that keeps them in line.
As a teenager (50 yrs ago) I worked with a fellow that used to get hot under collar over politics. He used to say, "You kmow what we need to do to straighten Washington out? We need to go up there and kill half the politicians and if the other half don't straighten out, we go back and kill them too." I used to laugh at him but I'm beginning to think he had the right idea....truly, a man before his time... :-)
-
You know, I've always been in favor of expanding the House of Representatives a little bit.
Four hundred and thirty-five has been the number since the Wilson administration (1913-1921), and the population's grown quite a bit since then. (Before then, the number of congressmen changed, increased, after every census, since 1790).
And some other tidying up.
The little stuff first; give all non-federal real-estate in Washington, D.C. back to Maryland, making the residents residents of that state. That might, or might not, increase the congressional delegation of the turtle state by one, and it'd be another raving moonbat, but it at the same time would prevent making the District of Columbia susceptible to statehood and two U.S. Senators, inevitably (D)s.
No representatives from territories; states only.
Now, by increasing the number of congressmen from 435 to 450, just fifteen more, would give more equitable representation to small red states. It'd increase, for example, the delegation from Montana from one to two, and from Utah, from four to five. There might be a blue state or two who'd gain an extra congressman, but that gain would be wiped out by all the congressmen red states would get, with an additional fifteen members.
Of course, I'm only dreaming.....
-
OK replace it with the ten comandments and the stipulation of.......
Those that will not work shall not eat.
Or you happy now DUmmies?
:lmao: Be careful of what you wish for.. :lmao:
-
Selatius (1000+ posts) Fri Sep-23-11 07:48 AM
In such a situation, I'd vote to leave the Union.
DUfus Selatius, why don't you leave the rest of us out of it and vote with your feet?
-
OK replace it with the ten comandments and the stipulation of.......
Those that will not work shall not eat.
Or you happy now DUmmies?
:lmao: Be careful of what you wish for.. :lmao:
Grasshopper, meet ant.