Conservatives zero in on constitutional convention plan

[ProVobis]

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

You’re probably right. A lot of that can be, of course, balanced out by pro-life language of some kind. How much is each side willing to give in order to get their agenda passed is the real question.

 

[bibcat]

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/

We need a ConCon simply because there are just way too many loose ends in the document as written, and because the 1789 Constitution is just so doggone difficult to amend, that we have to rely on unelected SCOTUS justices to amend it de facto. A ConCon would be a messy, noisy affair, with both left and right yelling and screaming, but in the end, hopefully, the most controversial constitutional questions would be settled for the next 200 years.

 

[JonNC]

You’re probably right. A lot of that can be, of course, balanced out by pro-life language of some kind. How much is each side willing to give in order to get their agenda passed is the real question.

I’m not willing to budge an inch on enumerated rights, which means, or course, that I am also not willing to see an expansion of government power. Rights, by definition, are antecedent to government, and non-negotiable.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

We need a ConCon simply because there are just way too many loose ends in the document as written, and because the 1789 Constitution is just so doggone difficult to amend, that we have to rely on unelected SCOTUS justices to amend it de facto. A ConCon would be a messy, noisy affair, with both left and right yelling and screaming, but in the end, hopefully, the most controversial constitutional questions would be settled for the next 200 years.

The only loose ends I see are the abuses of the commerce clause and “promote the general welfare” clause. On these, both should be strictly narrowed to only what is in the enumerated powers already granted in the Constitution.

Jon

 

[bibcat]

I’m not willing to budge an inch on enumerated rights, which means, or course, that I am also not willing to see an expansion of government power. Rights, by definition, are antecedent to government, and non-negotiable.

Jon

I wouldn’t be willing to see enumerated rights restricted or compromised in any way. The big problems is unenumerated rights like privacy, which the SCOTUS simply pulled out of thin air, with the help of a megaton of bootstrapping, in Griswold v. CT. If there are–or if we need-any rights that are not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, I’d like to see them laid out in black and white, and clearly defined. So, if there is a right to privacy, for example, let’s see what it is, and what its limits are. And for the enumerated rights, I’d like to see them not restricted of course, but better defined. Is the security theatre we go through in an airport a violation of the 4th Amendment? I’d like the Constitution itself, not some court, to tell us if it is or isn’t. Concealed-carry laws? I’m fine with that. But I’d like to see the 2nd Amendment say that. Right to not serve “sodomites”? Fine with that too. But I’d like to see the 1st Amendment say so.

 

[RACJ]

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

To my knowledge, Jon, NO ONE is proposing a Constitutional Convention. The Article V convention of the states is completely different. If we can’t find 13 (!) states to reject a proposed amendment such as repeal of the 2nd Amendment, we are doomed anyway! Rob

 

[JonNC]

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.

I agree. Obama’s, “I have a phone and a pen” approach to governance is evidence of the growing progressive tyranny, though I’m not sure if a constitutional convention would end it, or aid it.

Jon

 

[bibcat]

I agree. Obama’s, “I have a phone and a pen” approach to governance is evidence of the growing progressive tyranny, though I’m not sure if a constitutional convention would end it, or aid it.

Jon

No, it’s evidence of the fact that the modern Presidency has too much power. Remember, Truman and every President since (except perhaps Carter) waged war against sovereign nations without a Congressional declaration. That’s far more tyrannical than an executive order about smokestacks or some such, and yet no one in Congress ever seriously tried to put a stop to this. Maybe the problem isn’t so much an overly powerful Presidency, although Congress had a chance to really neuter Presidential power back in 1974 and dropped the ball; rather the problem is a lazy, irresponsible Congress, that’s willing to let the President make big, even unconstitutional decisions, so if things go wrong, it’s all on the Oval Office.

 

[GaryTaylor]

To my knowledge, Jon, NO ONE is proposing a Constitutional Convention. The Article V convention of the states is completely different. If we can’t find 13 (!) states to reject a proposed amendment such as repeal of the 2nd Amendment, we are doomed anyway! Rob

newsmax.com/US/constitutional-convention-Boehner-balanced-budget/2014/04/11/id/565155/

34 States Call for Constitutional Convention — and Possible Rewrite

 

[JonNC]

No, it’s evidence of the fact that the modern Presidency has too much power. Remember, Truman and every President since (except perhaps Carter) waged war against sovereign nations without a Congressional declaration. That’s far more tyrannical than an executive order about smokestacks or some such, and yet no one in Congress ever seriously tried to put a stop to this. Maybe the problem isn’t so much an overly powerful Presidency, although Congress had a chance to really neuter Presidential power back in 1974 and dropped the ball; rather the problem is a lazy, irresponsible Congress, that’s willing to let the President make big, even unconstitutional decisions, so if things go wrong, it’s all on the Oval Office.

I would agree with most of this,though I would categorize domestic executive orders as possibly at least as tyrannical as foreign military incursions. Let’s also remember that 1974 was a reaction to domestic abuse of power.

The other issue is that Congress, more than simply being lazy, has often been complicit in the eroding of individual liberty and states rights, in exchange for the growing of federal power.

Jon

 

[GaryTaylor]

I imagine we will hear much of this with Rand Paul in the coming days as he was always an advocate. Even if not a final candidate it will be interesting dialogue since he will have to connect the liberal young and conservation and against the Washington optics of government.

 

[bibcat]

I imagine we will hear much of this with Rand Paul in the coming days as he was always an advocate. Even if not a final candidate it will be interesting dialogue since he will have to connect the liberal young and conservation and against the Washington optics of government.

I like Rand Paul when it comes to his views on America’s role in the world (limited, republic not empire) and government surveillance of Americans (as little as possible). Just wish he hadn’t fumbled the ball on vaccinations and dodged a question on how old the world is. Scott Walker did the same thing, and it was embarrassing. Christie too, at least on vaccinations.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I like Rand Paul when it comes to his views on America’s role in the world (limited, republic not empire) and government surveillance of Americans (as little as possible). Just wish he hadn’t fumbled the ball on vaccinations and dodged a question on how old the world is. Scott Walker did the same thing, and it was embarrassing. Christie too, at least on vaccinations.

He’s on now and already mentioned amendment.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m not willing to budge an inch on enumerated rights, which means, or course, that I am also not willing to see an expansion of government power. Rights, by definition, are antecedent to government, and non-negotiable.

Jon

Yes, but the whole idea behind a constitutional convention is to show that the ultimate power still belongs to the states, not the Supreme Court nor Congress nor the Presidency.

 

[Graubo3]

Yes, but the whole idea behind a constitutional convention is to show that the ultimate power still belongs to the states, not the Supreme Court nor Congress nor the Presidency.

, and I believe that is the crux of it. OP uses a very poor piece of “rolling stoned” journalism that makes it sound all too doom and gloom, but it is not biased.

 

[stevegravy]

I vote YES, and hope the convention dissolves the federal government. If it is too cowardly for that, then opts to eliminate the income tax, bans redistribution of income, prohibits the direct election of senators and make senators appointees of the State government, dissolves the Federal Reserve, and ctreate a proscription against illegal immigrants allowing the Army to round them up and ship them home.

 

[RACJ]

newsmax.com/US/constitutional-convention-Boehner-balanced-budget/2014/04/11/id/565155/

Extremely inaccurate pull quote, Gary.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, but the whole idea behind a constitutional convention is to show that the ultimate power still belongs to the states, not the Supreme Court nor Congress nor the Presidency.

If that’s the way it goes, I’m fine and good with it.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I vote YES, and hope the convention dissolves the federal government. If it is too cowardly for that, then opts to eliminate the income tax, bans redistribution of income, prohibits the direct election of senators and make senators appointees of the State government, dissolves the Federal Reserve, and ctreate a proscription against illegal immigrants allowing the Army to round them up and ship them home.

All good thoughts, except I am uncomfortable with the Army among the citizens for any purpose. I also think the illegal alien situation is far more complicated than simply “rounding them up”.

Jon

 

[RGCheek]

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.

I don’t know what leaves people so clueless about how this would work. Of course there are not any provisions in the Constitution about how such a convention would be done BECAUSE THAT CONVENTION WOULD BE A HIGHER AUTHORITY THAN THE CONSTITUTION.

The states would hold their convention like the one that led to the Revolution and the one that led to our current constitution. The leaders agree on where to meet and once there things roll according to Roberts rules of order.

The federal government is out of control and shows no sign of slowing down. There is not one single institution that limits the President in practical terms. He can effectively rewrite any law he wants by issuing an Executive order to let some facets of current law go unenforced (like immigration) while he uses the power of the government to harass anyone he sees fit (like gun stores and pawn shops).

Since the GOP backed down from the POTUS illegal immigration amnesty, the rule of law is effectively over in this country. One man can do whatever he wants and the law is bent to his preference and no one can or will stop him.

Of course we all know that if a GOP President was doing this, the Democrats would be howling in the streets, Congress would be voting on impeachment and the GOP Congressmen would be trying to decide who can safely vote with the Dems so they could put this problem behind them and get back to cutting pork.

We MUST have a State Convention or this nation is DEAD, a zombie walking.