OT: New Constitutional Convention

[Son of Wasatch]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/greg-abbott-texas-rubio-constitutional-convention/index.html

Anyone here think this would be a good idea?

In my opinion, I think this would be a disaster that our country would never recover from. We want to trust our leaders to re-frame the basis of our government. I don't trust them to to make a peanut butter and Jelly sandwich if I spotted them the bread and Jelly.

They talk about expanding states rights, I say it opens the door to things like losing our rights to bear arms, expanding the role of central government. Expanding the role of the President and diminishing the role of congress. What would you say to Abortion as a constitutional right, and lose your right to own a gun.

I can't believe we would even consider this.

 

[oldhorn2]

Son....I could not agree more.My opinion is that they need to limit congressmen to one 4 year term...and at the end of that term they need to bus them all straight to Federal Prison. I have more respect for drug dealers than I do congressmen and senators....I didnt write this as a joke. I believe it to the bottom of my feet.

 

[clob94]

Mehhhhhhh....... if 8 years is enough for a president, it should be enough for a senator or congressman. I mean, do I like the idea of smaller government and less intrusion into my life? Of course. Our elected officials track record just sucks. But ask yourself this: congress has a 12% approval rating...... yet over 85% of them were re-elected last cycle. This is simply explained by "congress sucks but MY congressman is different. He/she is awesome. It's YOUR congressman that is the problem!".

No no no. ALL are the problem. Clean house, start over. Term limits. People need to read more about Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin's thoughts on overbearing governments.

 

[Godz40Acrez]

It's actually not a "new constitutional convention" - it's a convention of the States which Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution allows to propose and vote on new amendments to the Constitution, leaving the federal legislative branch out of the process. Most of the Framers were concerned that the federal government could become an uncontrollable leviathan and that the States would eventually lose their authority to govern themselves.

Sadly, they were correct.

 

[oldhorn2]

It's actually not a "new constitutional convention" which Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution allows - it's a convention of the States to propose and vote on new amendments to the Constitution, leaving the federal legislative branch out of the process. Most of the Framers were concerned that the federal government could become an uncontrollable leviathan and that the States would eventually lose their authority to govern themselves.

Sadly, they were correct.

wow!....thats different. I like the idea of being able to vote in amendments that completely bypass congress

Things like....It will be illegal to vote yourself pay raises...and it will be a Capitol offense to have a law that says pay raises will be automatic unless a special vote is called to not have the raise FOR THAT YEAR....you know....the way it is now.

Things like it will be the law of the land that Congress gets no special treatment not afforded the rest of the country and thus will have to be under the same social security system as the rest of the country instead of retirement at full wages with COLA for life...instead..give them all life at Attica

Things like it will be the law of the land that whatever medicare system they foist on the public will apply to congress as well and no longer will they get lifetime FREE medical at Walter Reed

 

[swVAHorn]

Usually "States Rights" is code for taking someones rights away not giving extra. Why is a crime in Va any different than a crime in Idaho? 2 U.S. citizens do the same crime and get different punishments...I disagree with that. We are either 1 country or we are not....I do not like the idea of 50 small countries in an "alliance"....Our military has people from every state fighting for it. Should some states be able to say to the U.S. "you can't draft our citizens"???? NO of course not! As much as I love Texas and Virginia, I love my country more.

 

[ryan_sublett]

I think this whole thing about "small government" is a myth. I say that because it sounds good as a line in a speech but poll after poll shows no one has any interest in cutting things that would actually make government noticeably smaller. Yeah a person has a particular department they'd cut or whatever but nothing substantial. So I've pretty much stopped listening to the "small government" stuff.

My opinion on the constitution i don't beleive that when the founders wrote the constitution they intended for it to remain unchanged forever. The world has changed so much in the last 240 years it probably could use some tweaking(no need for an overhaul.

I mean for example they had a Harvard professor on tv about this Ted Cruz being eligible for president thing. And he said that although we all assume that he probably is this issue has never come up in court and the law isn't real clear on what the term"natural born" citizen means. Someone could take it in the literal sense and say you aren't born in this country no dice. I mean ovbiously Ted Cruz is an American citizen but by the letter of the law it's not clear In terms of president.

So could things like that get cleared up? Sure. Problem is we are so divided and have elected leaders so far on each end I dont think it could ever get done. Now if you got really smart bipartisan moderates in a room you could do it but it won't happen that way.

 

[Bottomsuppizza]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/greg-abbott-texas-rubio-constitutional-convention/index.html

Anyone here think this would be a good idea?

In my opinion, I think this would be a disaster that our country would never recover from. We want to trust our leaders to re-frame the basis of our government. I don't trust them to to make a peanut butter and Jelly sandwich if I spotted them the bread and Jelly.

They talk about expanding states rights, I say it opens the door to things like losing our rights to bear arms, expanding the role of central government. Expanding the role of the President and diminishing the role of congress. What would you say to Abortion as a constitutional right, and lose your right to own a gun.

I can't believe we would even consider this.

That's happening right now.

 

[Top Gum]

DOA

 

[topdecktiger]

Usually "States Rights" is code for taking someones rights away not giving extra. Why is a crime in Va any different than a crime in Idaho? 2 U.S. citizens do the same crime and get different punishments...I disagree with that. We are either 1 country or we are not....I do not like the idea of 50 small countries in an "alliance"....Our military has people from every state fighting for it. Should some states be able to say to the U.S. "you can't draft our citizens"???? NO of course not! As much as I love Texas and Virginia, I love my country more.

That's the worst idea ever. If you did that, you would end up with civil war/secession. There are over 300 million people in the country, stretched out across an entire continent. There is no way a "one size fits all" government would ever work. Too many regional differences that would cause irreparable conflict.

 

[misterTeasyEmalcomXf'inAkicksome]

Texts, yesterday, from a friend who was an assistant attorney general under Abbott before he became governor:

"So Abbott has officially lost his mind."

"Lost. His. Mind."​

This kind of thing was easier when I could just write it off as the governor being an Aggie.

If we assume that he actually has a plan here, it's either to stir up anger before the 2016 elections, or to get his "I did crazy media-grabbing, Trump-style shi before I was even running for president!" bonafides for 2020. The odds of the convention actually happening as he ostensibly suggested it should, to ratify the amendments he listed... aren't great. It almost certainly won't work.

 

[Son of Wasatch]

Seriously, if you are a republican, would you trust a democrat to frame the constitution fairly? If you are a democrat do you trust a republican? IF we open up the constitution I want Texas out of this union.

It's not like changing the constitution would bring this country closer together, we are so fractured already there is no way we will ever come together again. Honestly I would love smaller federal government, less entitlements, and lower taxes. Everyone of those things we can do with our current constitution. There is nothing wrong with our constitution, its our leaders we need to change. That is something we the people can change in our voting booth.

 

[swVAHorn]

That's the worst idea ever. If you did that, you would end up with civil war/secession. There are over 300 million people in the country, stretched out across an entire continent. There is no way a "one size fits all" government would ever work. Too many regional differences that would cause irreparable conflict.

A government SHOULD be one size fits all
!!!....??????????????? EVERY citizen gets SAME treatment. What in the world???????

If there is a war can Kansas say "no we ain't going"??? No they can't NOR SHOULD THEY! Is it right to get LIFE in prison for stealing a car in say North Carolina but its probation in Maine?? NO...

Everyone wants lower taxes.....but they want a Strong military, roads, clean water, police, fire dept and on and on. We all want things but no one wants to pay for them....

People that study nothing but the constitution have argued over what it means since its inception....but a few dumb hicks think they know more about it than anyone and they are fighting for it...morons.

I repeat when people talk States rights it means they want to take some rights from somebody they don't agree with.

 

[Son of Wasatch]

A government SHOULD be one size fits all....??????????????? EVERY citizen gets SAME treatment. What in the world???????

The problem is the career politician who think their position is to sell their support to the highest bidder.

Does anyone think Democrates really care for poor people? They care about the lobbyist who make them rich and the votes that keep them in office. It's no different for the Republicans except they have different customers they serve.

 

[swVAHorn]

The problem is the career politician who think their position is to sell their support to the highest bidder.

Does anyone think Democrates really care for poor people? They care about the lobbyist who make them rich and the votes that keep them in office. It's no different for the Republicans except they have different customers they serve.

I agree with the career politicians you speak of....there needs to be term limits. I was just kind of hot that someone thinks states should have the right to say screw the federal government.

There are people who follow politics like it is their sports team. THEY are the biggest problem.

 

[Son of Wasatch]

I agree with the career politicians you speak of....there needs to be term limits. I was just kind of hot that someone thinks states should have the right to say screw the federal government.

There are people who follow politics like it is their sports team. THEY are the biggest problem.

Honestly, our federal government should be responsible for making sure the Constitution is upheld by the states, regulating trades and treaties with other countries, interstate situations and commerce, maintaining our military, and our boarders. That should be it.

Everything else should be done by the states. Including Social Security, taxes, a portion of which should be paid to the Feds for their support, Medicare, and Medicaid, how it allows businesses to run, and citizen welfare.

I know you will point to Mississippi in the 60's as a prime example of why we need strong Federal Government, but the truth is what happened to blacks in American history was a failure of our Federal government to protect the civil rights of a group of people. Something guaranteed by the constitution. The laws were already in place but not followed. Track record says our Federal government has failed this people much more than our state governments have.

 

[Scholz]

If states' rights had remained strong, there would still be slaves in the South today. Yeah, that was good stuff. Let's go back to that.

 

[Scholz]

...or women not being able to vote. Or segregation. Or no racial intermarriage. Or teaching that the world is 6,000 years old in science class.

 

[oldhorn2]

I hate the dead period.....will next weekend EVER get here?

 

[swVAHorn]

Honestly, our federal government should be responsible for making sure the Constitution is upheld by the states, regulating trades and treaties with other countries, interstate situations and commerce, maintaining our military, and our boarders. That should be it.

Everything else should be done by the states. Including Social Security, taxes, a portion of which should be paid to the Feds for their support, Medicare, and Medicaid, how it allows businesses to run, and citizen welfare.

I know you will point to Mississippi in the 60's as a prime example of why we need strong Federal Government, but the truth is what happened to blacks in American history was a failure of our Federal government to protect the civil rights of a group of people. Something guaranteed by the constitution. The laws were already in place but not followed. Track record says our Federal government has failed this people much more than our state governments have.

I disagree.

 

[swVAHorn]

Honestly, our federal government should be responsible for making sure the Constitution is upheld by the states, regulating trades and treaties with other countries, interstate situations and commerce, maintaining our military, and our boarders. That should be it.

Everything else should be done by the states. Including Social Security, taxes, a portion of which should be paid to the Feds for their support, Medicare, and Medicaid, how it allows businesses to run, and citizen welfare.

I know you will point to Mississippi in the 60's as a prime example of why we need strong Federal Government, but the truth is what happened to blacks in American history was a failure of our Federal government to protect the civil rights of a group of people. Something guaranteed by the constitution. The laws were already in place but not followed. Track record says our Federal government has failed this people much more than our state governments have.

Some states are takers and some are givers. Does it make one any LESS of a state? Every state comes to the aid of their country in times of war not to the aid of their state.

I pledged an OATH to my nation NOT my state when I joined the United States Army. I'm an American first.

If social security was state by state EVERYONE would go to the state that paid the best....right? Same for all social programs.

 

[gordo107]

Being in public office is like crack cocaine to these politicians. They will do anything to stay in office, or move up the ladder to bigger things. They love the limelight and life style we (tax payers) provide them with. Well over half of their time in office is geared for running for re-election. This goes for ALL of them. Funny how during a govt shutdown, Congress is sure to be paid. Place a term limit on those people and limit corp contibutions to campaigns.

 

[ryan_sublett]

Yeah states rights are a slippery thing. There are many things in history states have been absolutely wrong about plus if we truly are one country I'm not sure how often we should be allowed to go 50 different directions. The problem to with states rights is to (especially for swing states) is laws would always be changing based on the change of party in control. Not sure you want thst.

 

[ryan_sublett]

Being in public office is like crack cocaine to these politicians. They will do anything to stay in office, or move up the ladder to bigger things. They love the limelight and life style we (tax payers) provide them with. Well over half of their time in office is geared for running for re-election. This goes for ALL of them. Funny how during a govt shutdown, Congress is sure to be paid. Place a term limit on those people and limit corp contibutions to campaigns.

Which is weird. Because a couple terms in public office can make you a nice living in the private sector. Surprised more don't take that route.

 

[clob94]

Why would they take that route? They have free access to a fleet of private jets, their food is paid for at the capital dining facility, they get their arse kissed by the media, see themselves on TV at useless crap like- questioning major league baseball players about steroids- spending 110 million dollars of OUR money to prosecute Roger Clemens (they lost btw)- they get millions and millions given to them annually by lobbyists and super PACs, and speaking of lobbyists- ever seen some of the castles, I mean literally castles, that these lobbyists have access to? Free tickets to redskins games or Ravens games or whatever games..... and because they are elected officials, they don't sit with us pleebs, they have luxury boxes. Want to go visit the American embassy in Paris? They get to go for free on a private jet paid for by you and me.

Ya.......... Let's give that up for the "private sector".

Here's all you need to know about DC. Someone did an article a few years back that showed when Congress was in session that the number of top flight, high end escorts in DC would go up by over 8000%! Not 2 times as many, not 10 times as many but 80. 80 times as many girls selling their hoo ha for a few grand an hour.

That's all ya need to know about the swine we've elected.

 

[swVAHorn]

Yeah states rights are a slippery thing. There are many things in history states have been absolutely wrong about plus if we truly are one country I'm not sure how often we should be allowed to go 50 different directions. The problem to with states rights is to (especially for swing states) is laws would always be changing based on the change of party in control. Not sure you want thst.

Well put....

 

[gordo107]

Best quote on this thread.... About those (swine) we've eleted. We did this, we elected them. We only have ourselves to blame. Give them two term, then thank you bye bye. And no 148.000 ? I think per year for life when they leave office. May need correction on the accuracy of that amount.

 

[topdecktiger]

A government SHOULD be one size fits all
!!!....??????????????? EVERY citizen gets SAME treatment. What in the world???????

If there is a war can Kansas say "no we ain't going"??? No they can't NOR SHOULD THEY! Is it right to get LIFE in prison for stealing a car in say North Carolina but its probation in Maine?? NO...

Everyone wants lower taxes.....but they want a Strong military, roads, clean water, police, fire dept and on and on. We all want things but no one wants to pay for them....

People that study nothing but the constitution have argued over what it means since its inception....but a few dumb hicks think they know more about it than anyone and they are fighting for it...morons.

I repeat when people talk States rights it means they want to take some rights from somebody they don't agree with.

Classic "I know best" thinking. This is what it boils down to. You want to tell everyone else what to do. You want your everything set up according to your own personal values. That's the problem. What you think is right is not necessarily so. What works for you might not work for everyone else. That's the problem. You want right or wrong judged by YOUR values. Of course other people are going to fight that. Every person wants things set up to his liking. If you try to set up everything to your own liking, then you just opened the door for everyone else to pursue that line of thinking.

That said, you are completely wrong. One size fits all governments don't last. History has proven that to be true. They don't work for the reasons I said. They can't adapt to the differences that naturally occur in large, spread-out populations. In those situations, people in different regions naturally develop different values and lifestyles that are frequently at odds with each other.

Your race-baiting is also very trite. There are many people, even on the left, who believe in limited government and local control. I can point out to you plenty of examples where centralized governments committed horrific acts (Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, just to name two). To act like limited governments are the only ones that ever committed abuses is simply intellectually dishonest.

 

[Scholz]

The South has shown time and again what states rights actually means. If we're being intellectually honest and all. There should be a floor for human decency and education in this country and federalism has proven to be the only way to ensure that over the history of the US.

 

[clob94]

The South has shown time and again what states rights actually means. If we're being intellectually honest and all. There should be a floor for human decency and education in this country and federalism has proven to be the only way to ensure that over the history of the US.

With respect Scholz, having to go back to segregation and slavery, well, that was a while ago. I understand that's it not to be treated like a minor blip on the radar of history, but I think that an intelligent person like yourself realizes that life, demographics, cultures and geography are different for many places. There's not a big hunting culture in California because there's just not much to hunt there. Me thinks seal hunting is banned. So other than range shooting (or making any and every movie ever) there's not a big need or desire for gun ownership (legal of course) in cali. But here in texas, we have dove, quail, pheasant, ducks, geese, sand hill crane, deer, pigs..... so there's a cultural difference.

There's rules for surfing on some beaches in Hawaii..... laws actually. Those don't exist in nebraska.

What rubs me wrong Scholz is that some a$$hole in Washington, sitting in his ivory tower, who believes his fecal matter isn't odiferous, believes through some sort of omnipotence that he knows what's best for me. I can write letters, make phone calls, vote differently and it still doesn't change a thing.

"We are all boot makers to Kings".

 

[oldhorn2]

The movie that ought to be required viewing by all high schoolers in order to graduate is "The Distinguished Gentleman" with Eddie Murphy...It is the best showing of true Washington that I have ever seen.

 

[ryan_sublett]

With respect Scholz, having to go back to segregation and slavery, well, that was a while ago. I understand that's it not to be treated like a minor blip on the radar of history, but I think that an intelligent person like yourself realizes that life, demographics, cultures and geography are different for many places. There's not a big hunting culture in California because there's just not much to hunt there. Me thinks seal hunting is banned. So other than range shooting (or making any and every movie ever) there's not a big need or desire for gun ownership (legal of course) in cali. But here in texas, we have dove, quail, pheasant, ducks, geese, sand hill crane, deer, pigs..... so there's a cultural difference.

There's rules for surfing on some beaches in Hawaii..... laws actually. Those don't exist in nebraska.

What rubs me wrong Scholz is that some a$$hole in Washington, sitting in his ivory tower, who believes his fecal matter isn't odiferous, believes through some sort of omnipotence that he knows what's best for me. I can write letters, make phone calls, vote differently and it still doesn't change a thing.

"We are all boot makers to Kings".

We elect those people to do what's best in their view for the country. Imo we the people are part of the problem.

A lot of people cry for term limits for congress. We have elections vote them out but no one does. Polls prove that. Polls show people hate congress but like their person. It's stupid.

To many people vote on one single issue. I understand someone might be pro life or pro gun or whatever but there is more than just those two issues to consider. I think those two things are part of the issue.

 

[topdecktiger]

We elect those people to do what's best in their view for the country. Imo we the people are part of the problem.

A lot of people cry for term limits for congress. We have elections vote them out but no one does. Polls prove that. Polls show people hate congress but like their person. It's stupid.

To many people vote on one single issue. I understand someone might be pro life or pro gun or whatever but there is more than just those two issues to consider. I think those two things are part of the issue.

This is actually the biggest problem. People like to complain about what the politicians do, but actually, the politicians mostly just take whatever position polls the best, relative to their constituency. So really, for the most part the politicians are actually doing what their voters want them to do. The problem is that the public usually is either ill-informed, or has a knee-jerk reaction to a particular issue.

The South has shown time and again what states rights actually means. If we're being intellectually honest and all. There should be a floor for human decency and education in this country and federalism has proven to be the only way to ensure that over the history of the US.

Then I assume you condemn Washington and Colorado for legalizing marijuana, in clear violation of federal law.

 

[swVAHorn]

Classic "I know best" thinking. This is what it boils down to. You want to tell everyone else what to do. You want your everything set up according to your own personal values. That's the problem. What you think is right is not necessarily so. What works for you might not work for everyone else. That's the problem. You want right or wrong judged by YOUR values. Of course other people are going to fight that. Every person wants things set up to his liking. If you try to set up everything to your own liking, then you just opened the door for everyone else to pursue that line of thinking.

That said, you are completely wrong. One size fits all governments don't last. History has proven that to be true. They don't work for the reasons I said. They can't adapt to the differences that naturally occur in large, spread-out populations. In those situations, people in different regions naturally develop different values and lifestyles that are frequently at odds with each other.

Your race-baiting is also very trite. There are many people, even on the left, who believe in limited government and local control. I can point out to you plenty of examples where centralized governments committed horrific acts (Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, just to name two). To act like limited governments are the only ones that ever committed abuses is simply intellectually dishonest.

Instead of you putting words in my mouth I will explain a few things. You said I want right or wrong judged by MY values.....I did not say that at all....what I said was WE SHOULD ALL BE TREATED EQUALLY IN THE EYES OF THE LAW. Understand that weird concept? Crazy I know. How you got I am pushing my values on anyone else is beyond nuts.

I am dumfounded that someone thinks that a citizen of The United States thinks that its other citizens should be treated differently.
Where did I post I wanted my values thrust upon anyone? I think everyone should be treated the same......how is that a bad thing? Everyone in the U.S. ends up voting for the person CLOSEST to what they want that is in the framework of our Nation.

Race baiting?????? Where in the f&*^ did I race bait???? What are you talking about?? Is it because I said people usually want strong States rights want to take rights away? Crack a history book and the Black people in our country were not the only ones this was used against. Don't ever call me a race baiter or racist.

If the U.S. goes to WAR, does any State have the right to say NO? If not Why not? U.S. taxes should be broken into 50 equal amounts paid to the Federal Government? Is that fair? No of course not. Some States take from other States and some States give....that is what makes a Nation. How long do you think 1 single State would be free if the other states did not come to its aid?


Like I said a car thief in one State should get the same time as a car thief in another State.....How does that go against anyones lifestyle and values???? Doesn't that seem the fair thing?

States rights are important. But IN MY OPINON (I did not study law) States rights end when it takes rights away from a U.S. Citizen. You would have to show me where in our whole history a person WANTING STRONG States rights over Federal rights did not want to take rights away from someone else.

 

[swVAHorn]

People that talk about a State leaving the United States and thinking that is ok if the people of the State want that....Does that apply to individual Counties, towns, cities, villages, being able to leave said State if they want to?