Conservatives zero in on constitutional convention plan

[gilliam]

Conservative state legislators frustrated with the gridlock in Washington are increasingly turning to a plan to call a convention to consider a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution – an event that would be unprecedented in American history and one that could, some opponents predict, lead to complete political chaos.

Legislators in 27 states have passed applications for a convention to pass a balanced budget amendment. Proponents of a balanced budget requirement are planning to push for new applications in nine other states where Republicans control both chambers of the legislature.

If those applications pass in seven of the nine targeted states, it would bring the number of applications up to 34, meeting the two-thirds requirement under Article V of the Constitution to force Congress to call a convention.

What happens next is anyone’s guess.

“There really isn’t much of a precedent. We’ll be charting new waters,” said Utah Senate President Wayne Niederhauser, a Republican and a supporter of a constitutional convention. Utah became the 26th state to issue an application last month. North and South Dakota have also approved applications this year.

The problem is that while the Constitution allows amendments to be adopted and sent to the states by a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate, or by a national convention called by two-thirds of the states, the founding document is silent on how such a convention would operate. How many delegates each state would receive, the rules under which a convention would operate and who would set the agenda would be left up to Congress – all of those would be open questions.

Most worrying to some who oppose the convention: There’s no indication that a convention could be limited to just one topic. Hypothetically, delegates could take up any issue they wanted, from reinstating Prohibition to eliminating the direct election of senators. More extreme scenarios envision delegates revisiting the 13th Amendment, which banned slavery, or inserting corporate giveaways into the Constitution.

“There’s no authority establishing in the Constitution above that of a convention. If you call a convention, what you’re doing is opening up the Constitution to whatever the delegates want to propose,” said Michael Leachman, director of state fiscal research at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the center-left think tank that has opposed calls for a convention since the 1980s.

union-bulletin.com/news/2015/apr/06/conservatives-zero-constitutional-convention-plan/

 

[didymus]

Most worrying to some who oppose the convention: There’s no indication that a convention could be limited to just one topic. Hypothetically, delegates could take up any issue they wanted, from reinstating Prohibition to eliminating the direct election of senators. More extreme scenarios envision delegates revisiting the 13th Amendment, which banned slavery, or inserting corporate giveaways into the Constitution.

**“There’s no authority establishing in the Constitution above that of a convention. If you call a convention, what you’re doing is opening up the Constitution to whatever the delegates want to propose,” **said Michael Leachman, director of state fiscal research at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the center-left think tank that has opposed calls for a convention since the 1980s.

union-bulletin.com/news/2015/apr/06/conservatives-zero-constitutional-convention-plan/

Exactly. A new constitutional convention is a very, very bad idea. Remember, the first time was a “runaway convention”, it was called to iron our some glitches in the Articles of Confederation, not propose a whole new system.

 

[TMC]

A balanced budget amendment is a bad idea and a constitution convention is a worse one.

 

[esieffe]

Most worrying to some who oppose the convention: There’s no indication that a convention could be limited to just one topic. Hypothetically, delegates could take up any issue they wanted, from reinstating Prohibition to eliminating the direct election of senators. More extreme scenarios envision delegates revisiting the 13th Amendment, which banned slavery, or inserting corporate giveaways into the Constitution.

“There’s no authority establishing in the Constitution above that of a convention. If you call a convention, what you’re doing is opening up the Constitution to whatever the delegates want to propose.

union-bulletin.com/news/2015/apr/06/conservatives-zero-constitutional-convention-plan/

This is a Pandora’s box that never needs to be opened for any reason.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

In these polarized, identity politics times when Political Correctness and the media-driven political midgets are in charge, a Constitutional Convention would gut and leave unrecognizable what’s left of our republic. Picture Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid re-writing their version of the First Amendment, for starters: if you don’t ordain women, marry gays, and condone abortion, then you aren’t a valid “religion” and have no Constitutional protection for your views. Think about it.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Voted no in the poll as I believe a balanced budget ammendment is a bad idea.

However, I am not opposed to constitutional convention. Whatever is proposed by that convention would still need to be ratified by 2/3 of the states wouldn’t it?

 

[gilliam]

Exactly. A new constitutional convention is a very, very bad idea. Remember, the first time was a “runaway convention”, it was called to iron our some glitches in the Articles of Confederation, not propose a whole new system.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Voted no in the poll as I believe a balanced budget ammendment is a bad idea.

However, I am not opposed to constitutional convention. Whatever is proposed by that convention would still need to be ratified by 2/3 of the states wouldn’t it?

3/4 of the states. Virtually impossible in the current political climate. But I suppose amending the constitution is supposed to be difficult.

 

[meltzerboy]

Conservative state legislators frustrated with the gridlock in Washington are increasingly turning to a plan to call a convention to consider a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution – an event that would be unprecedented in American history and one that could, some opponents predict, lead to complete political chaos.

Legislators in 27 states have passed applications for a convention to pass a balanced budget amendment. Proponents of a balanced budget requirement are planning to push for new applications in nine other states where Republicans control both chambers of the legislature.

If those applications pass in seven of the nine targeted states, it would bring the number of applications up to 34, meeting the two-thirds requirement under Article V of the Constitution to force Congress to call a convention.

What happens next is anyone’s guess.

“There really isn’t much of a precedent. We’ll be charting new waters,” said Utah Senate President Wayne Niederhauser, a Republican and a supporter of a constitutional convention. Utah became the 26th state to issue an application last month. North and South Dakota have also approved applications this year.

The problem is that while the Constitution allows amendments to be adopted and sent to the states by a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate, or by a national convention called by two-thirds of the states, the founding document is silent on how such a convention would operate. How many delegates each state would receive, the rules under which a convention would operate and who would set the agenda would be left up to Congress – all of those would be open questions.

Most worrying to some who oppose the convention: There’s no indication that a convention could be limited to just one topic. Hypothetically, delegates could take up any issue they wanted, from reinstating Prohibition to eliminating the direct election of senators. More extreme scenarios envision delegates revisiting the 13th Amendment, which banned slavery, or inserting corporate giveaways into the Constitution.

“There’s no authority establishing in the Constitution above that of a convention. If you call a convention, what you’re doing is opening up the Constitution to whatever the delegates want to propose,” said Michael Leachman, director of state fiscal research at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the center-left think tank that has opposed calls for a convention since the 1980s.

union-bulletin.com/news/2015/apr/06/conservatives-zero-constitutional-convention-plan/

Yes, let’s have Congress waste even more time with this nonsense.

 

[tabycat]

Exactly. A new constitutional convention is a very, very bad idea. Remember, the first time was a “runaway convention”, it was called to iron our some glitches in the Articles of Confederation, not propose a whole new system.

 

[Neofight]

How about a Congress Do Your Job Amendment; or a Voters Quit Being So Stupid Amendment?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

How about a Congress Do Your Job Amendment; or a Voters Quit Being So Stupid Amendment?

Indeed, I can think of plenty of other Amendments that are more important than this.

 

[ProVobis]

Indeed, I can think of plenty of other Amendments that are more important than this.

Indeed.

The budget is always balanced in the strict sense. When expenses exceed revenues, they simply borrow to make up the difference.

 

[BackHand]

Well this is interesting but I highly doubt that any amendment would pass with the necessary 3/4 of states or 38 states needed to pass a new amendment.

Also republicans should be careful what they wish for it’s all fine and dandy to talk about cutting the budget but to follow through, well that’s a whole different story! What would we cut?

The Military? BAWWHAHAHAHAH,HEE,HEE,HA, oh man, I crack my self up!
Public Education? You must not care about kids!
Medicare? Old people are republicans biggest friends treat them nicely young man!
Foreign aid? Whats that? You want to stop helping Israel!?! You must be a evil anti Semite!
Raise Taxes? Yeah you get the point.

Tea Partiers are the equivalent of a young virgin man talking dirty to his bride on their wedding day, everything goes great right up to the point of consummation, then the only thing that follows is disappointment, while I think its a good idea to have a balanced budget we have the means to do so right now, whats stopping us is the current polarized political climate in are government, lets set aside are differences and compromise then maybe we could find a solution to are budget woes.

 

[didymus]

Voted no in the poll as I believe a balanced budget ammendment is a bad idea.

However, I am not opposed to constitutional convention. Whatever is proposed by that convention would still need to be ratified by 2/3 of the states wouldn’t it?

Three-quarters but I’d go for an amendment to lower it to 2/3 of the states.

 

[RACJ]

I am in favor of a convention of states, but this Balanced Budget Amendment is but a tiny step to heal what ails us. They will simply fudge the figures and declare victory, or carve out exceptions for “emergencies”. Rob

 

[GaryTaylor]

Article 5. I keep telling you its coming. And for good reason it was placed in the Constitution for exactly these situations, when tyranny succeeds in taking control of the states of the union.

The issue is not if this is possible it is well under way. The issue, a convention may focus also on other issues not related to the budget.

 

[JonNC]

Conservative state legislators frustrated with the gridlock in Washington are increasingly turning to a plan to call a convention to consider a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution – an event that would be unprecedented in American history and one that could, some opponents predict, lead to complete political chaos.

Legislators in 27 states have passed applications for a convention to pass a balanced budget amendment. Proponents of a balanced budget requirement are planning to push for new applications in nine other states where Republicans control both chambers of the legislature.

If those applications pass in seven of the nine targeted states, it would bring the number of applications up to 34, meeting the two-thirds requirement under Article V of the Constitution to force Congress to call a convention.

What happens next is anyone’s guess.

“There really isn’t much of a precedent. We’ll be charting new waters,” said Utah Senate President Wayne Niederhauser, a Republican and a supporter of a constitutional convention. Utah became the 26th state to issue an application last month. North and South Dakota have also approved applications this year.

The problem is that while the Constitution allows amendments to be adopted and sent to the states by a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate, or by a national convention called by two-thirds of the states, the founding document is silent on how such a convention would operate. How many delegates each state would receive, the rules under which a convention would operate and who would set the agenda would be left up to Congress – all of those would be open questions.

Most worrying to some who oppose the convention: There’s no indication that a convention could be limited to just one topic. Hypothetically, delegates could take up any issue they wanted, from reinstating Prohibition to eliminating the direct election of senators. More extreme scenarios envision delegates revisiting the 13th Amendment, which banned slavery, or inserting corporate giveaways into the Constitution.

“There’s no authority establishing in the Constitution above that of a convention. If you call a convention, what you’re doing is opening up the Constitution to whatever the delegates want to propose,” said Michael Leachman, director of state fiscal research at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the center-left think tank that has opposed calls for a convention since the 1980s.

union-bulletin.com/news/2015/apr/06/conservatives-zero-constitutional-convention-plan/

I voted “yes” with the huge caveat that no other topic may be explored. I am that much in favor of a balanced budget, but I am opposed to an open constitutional convention. The progressive movement would seek to eliminate basic human rights, such as religious free exercise, the right to keep and bear arms, property rights, the 10th amendment limit on central government power, etc.

Jon

 

[GaryTaylor]

but I am opposed to an open constitutional convention. The progressive movement would seek to eliminate basic human rights, such as religious free exercise, the right to keep and bear arms, property rights, the 10th amendment limit on central government power, etc.

Jon

Fair enough, its what many think and both Rep and Democrats. Problem is what makes us believe the progressive isn’t going to achieve this anyway which is the basis of the Article. What makes you think we are better off waiting? Doesn’t that sound like Obama hope and the progressive point of the modern evolution of civil man who may indeed contend to ban the ancient books or impose sharia law. The Article would limit central government which in effect is what we have with Obama.

 

[ProVobis]

Three-quarters but I’d go for an amendment to lower it to 2/3 of the states.

I think the way it works is that, without Congress, 2/3 are needed to call a constitutional convention to work out the language of the amendment. Then 3/4 are needed to pass the amendment.