Two States Away from Constitutional Convention?


PDA






Thin Black Line
December 12, 2008, 04:55 PM
How possible is this?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83364

What actually happened in OH this week?

Isn't then an old saying about an agreement only being as good as the paper
it's written on?

What happens when someone doesn't want to preserve the paper?

If you enjoyed reading about "Two States Away from Constitutional Convention?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Zundfolge
December 12, 2008, 04:59 PM
There is zero way a new Constitutional Convention won't end in outright civil war.

Thin Black Line
December 12, 2008, 05:04 PM
At this point I just wondering about whether there will be a Con Con.

indoorsoccerfrea
December 12, 2008, 05:05 PM
This would cause no end of bloodshed, this is not the thing to do now, if ever

Zundfolge
December 12, 2008, 05:20 PM
What actually happened in OH this week?
That's my question. I don't really trust World Net Daily's journalist integrity (even though I often agree with their editorial positions).

Did something happen to cause this to come up?

Cyborg
December 12, 2008, 05:25 PM
Question: If a state has called for a convention, can it withdraw its call? I.e., could one of the states already on record as calling for a con con change its collective mind and resind the earlier call for a con con? Also, is there a time limit on getting enough calls similar to the time limit for ratification of an amendment? The so-called Equal Rights Amendment (which I GUARAN-FRAKKING-TEE would be in any new constitution written by the folks coming into power now) comes to mind. It failed to get enough states ratifying it in the required time.

On the other hand, as a friend of mine who teaches physics says "even protons decay". Protons are the most stable, longest lived things in the universe so far as we know. Even they decay over time. That's a science geek's way of saying "nothing last forever". I would hate to be in the U.S. Armed Forces if a new constitution were written the way most here expect it would be. Gonna put those brave folks in a real bind. It would definately be hard times. I only have 25 years or so - likely less - left to me so I don't expect to see all of it. My grandchildren, though.

DRAT!!!!

:cuss::cuss::cuss:

CACA!!!!

:cuss::cuss::cuss:

ORGANIC FERTILIZER!!!!

:cuss::cuss::cuss:

GUANO!!!!

:cuss::cuss::cuss:

HONEYBUCKET DUMPINGS!!!!

:cuss::cuss::cuss:


Boy I wish I wasn't a tea totaler. News like this'd be a good excuse to go on a 4 day bender.

armoredman
December 12, 2008, 05:27 PM
My, what vulgarities! :D

Zundfolge
December 12, 2008, 05:29 PM
I.e., could one of the states already on record as calling for a con con change its collective mind and resind the earlier call for a con con?
It is my understanding that a state CAN rescind its earlier call for a con con.

This site lists the states that have called for one http://www.sweetliberty.org/standing_calls.htm

and it mentions that 3 states have rescinded their calls.


So since my state of Colorado is on that list of states with a standing call for a con-con, how do I as a Coloradoan get the state to rescind their call?

Certainly our leftist Governor won't do it, but could we get the state legislature to do it?

Tyris
December 12, 2008, 05:37 PM
There is zero way a new Constitutional Convention won't end in outright civil war.

What is the logic behind that statement?

As long as football, american idol, and beer flow freely nothing of the sort will happen. Think of them as adult-pacifiers.

We've just elected an openly socialist president, congress and senate have taken a sharp turn left, our country teeters on debt default with a president elect talking about "deficits dont matter". Bankers have just embezzled 700B of our tax dollars without any oversight. Corporations, states and cities deep in debt are going to washington hat in hand asking for dope money.

I've come to the conclusion we're diving head first into socialism mixed with great-depression-2. What difference will it make if we codify it into a new constitution? No one will lift a finger.

There will be no civil war, have you look at the list of states asking for the con-con ?? Who would fight back?

-T

guntotinguy
December 12, 2008, 05:37 PM
We should not consider Nevada's purge, nor the rescissions of Alabama, Florida and Louisiana as a safety margin.

And why not?This is crazy...

Zundfolge
December 12, 2008, 05:56 PM
And why not?This is crazy...
The thinking there is that there is no provision in the bits of the constitution that are related to constitutional conventions to rescind a call once a state has made it.

So the thinking is that even if these states rescind their call for a con-con that they'll be forced into one anyway.

legaleagle_45
December 12, 2008, 06:15 PM
I, for one, am not overly concerned. Even if a con con is convened and even if a runaway convention does occur and they rewrite the constitution, totally eliminating the Bill of Rights and the other protections contained in the US Constitution, it still must be ratified by 3/4ths of the states in order to become valid. Dire predictions of woe are similar to "the sky is falling".

Sheesh, congress has the power to do exactly what a con con can do... Which is to propose changes in the Constitution, and although I have trepedations every time Congress convenes, their ability to propose wholesale changes in the Constitution is the least of my worries.

mordechaianiliewicz
December 12, 2008, 06:36 PM
legaleagle 45 is correct. A change (let alone a new constitution) isn't an easy thing to get, or for some fool to make happen.

The Constitution is deliberately dificult to change. That is on purpose. It was known by our founders that though you might want to tweak it, you wouldn't want to change it overnight with mere majority vote.

I agree, this would only end in Civil War II. And as much is known by the current crop of political leaders. Quite simply, we aren't Europe or Canada. We still care about sovreignty, and this is a center right country (still) politically.

Obama was elected because Bush erred, not because the majority of this country's citizens want us to become Sweden.

mljdeckard
December 12, 2008, 06:36 PM
I agree. Even if some leaders WANT to write it out on a fresh sheet of paper, They aren't that stupid.

This is why I don't go to WND anymore, I get tired of avoiding the pieces of falling sky.

DMF
December 12, 2008, 08:28 PM
Why do some folks still put stock into information that comes from the World Nut Daily? :rolleyes:

Cyborg
December 12, 2008, 09:12 PM
this would only end in Civil War II
Actually it would result in the FIRST Civil War. The little set-to they had back in the 1860s was not a civil war. Civil wars are about who will control a country. The War Between The States - more properly known as The War Of Northern Agression - was a war of conquest pure, plain and simple. The CSA had no desire to do anything but go their own separate way. They did not wish to control the country. Only to be left to their own devices. Lincoln launched a war of conquest to forcibly reintegrate the cedeeding states back into the union. After the CSA was conquered, legitimate governments in the south were overthrown and troops of the victor garrisoned the conquered territory for years (decades?).

And lest you think I am making this up out of whole cloth, Michael Medved is the one who taught me the true definition of a civil war. The French had a civil war. The conflict in the 1860s was a war of conquest - not a civil war.

Funny about that word "civil". Funny how UNcivil anything styled "civil" usually is. Civil wars are usually as bloody as wars come. And how really civil are "civil court" proceedings? For that matter, how many "civil servants" have you ever met who were either? :rolleyes::evil:

legaleagle_45
December 12, 2008, 10:21 PM
Originally Posted by Cyborg:
The War Between The States - more properly known as The War Of Northern Agression

I prefer, The War of Southern Rebellion.:neener: After all them Northern dudes were merely sitting in a federal fort, bought and paid for with federal funds when them sneaky Southern dudes decided to try to steal federal property and started shooting at them!:scrutiny:

ArmedBear
December 12, 2008, 10:24 PM
There is no reason the FedGov would do it. They can change the Constitution at will, in less time and with less effort than a literal change takes. Hell, they don't even bother with petty Amendments any more.

SwearNoAllegiance
December 12, 2008, 10:25 PM
Let's do it and dissolve the gov't.

cbrgator
December 12, 2008, 10:28 PM
Won't happen. It's a fear-mongering article to further enrage conservatives about liberal policies faced today and may soon face in the future. WND isn't exactly unbiased...

What we should be more worried about is SCOTUS denying certiorari to Philip Berg and not force Obama to prove his eligibility. I'm not hoping to see him removed (because I don't know how he'd be replaced and Biden scares me more than Obama) but I'd like to know that somebody cannot ascend to the Presidency without being properly vetted. The fact that we have no procedure in place to guarantee eligibility is absolutely beyond me. Same thing with Hillary. She is constitutionally barred from becoming Secretary of State, yet nobody is stopping her.

mljdeckard
December 13, 2008, 01:13 AM
I don't agree at all with the definition of a 'civil war' being exclusively to grab control of a nation. It was Americans killing Americans, the bloodiest war we have ever fought. That's a civil war.

Audrey
December 13, 2008, 10:16 AM
Anyone who thinks that elected US representatives are not looking out for the best interest of their constituencies is living in fantasy land. The problem lies in understanding that "we the people" are not the constituencies, but rather the global crime cartel known as the banks and their vast holding.

Don't believe for one minute that the Constitution isn't under threat. If the Supreme Court actually decides to uphold it against this syndicate and invalidate Obama you will see the Con-Con and can wave goodbye to life as you know it.

And World Net Daily was one of the only websites decrying the loss of civil liberties when the Patriot Acts were rushed through Congress, much as the Banker Bailout Bill was.

Thin Black Line
December 13, 2008, 10:22 AM
Again, status of Ohio?

Art Eatman
December 13, 2008, 10:26 AM
Either answer TBL's question or don't post. Most posts so far are more political than legal, which will get the thread closed.

Audrey
December 13, 2008, 03:52 PM
I assume since you are able to post on THR you also have access to search engines. The first response in Scroogle is this:

http://www.ohiofreedom.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2181

The Judiciary Committe vote was scheduled for 10 December, but was postponed when opponents of the Con-Con attended and voiced their concerns.

If you would like to do further research, House Joint Resolution 8, or HJR8 is a decent search string.

ConstitutionCowboy
December 13, 2008, 04:31 PM
For what ever cause a convention is called, any additional causes would have to receive the required 2/3 vote(34 states agreeing) to send that cause to the several states for ratification.

In other words, if a convention is called to add a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, it might pass the 2/3 rule and be forwarded to the several states for ratification. Suppose a couple of the states bring up some limit they wished to add to the Second Amendment during that convention. That new amendment would have to receive the necessary 2/3 votes to be forwarded to the several states same as the balanced budget deal. No 2/3 vote, no passing it on to the several states for ratification. It isn't like adding it on as a rider to "sneak it past".

Woody

mbt2001
December 13, 2008, 04:31 PM
IMO,

Having a Con Con would bring up the question of the 2nd Amendment for debate and places like California and New York WOULD NEVER agree with Texas and Alabama... There is just to big a divide anymore.

Further to that, I think the Russian prediction of the US breaking up into 6 or so blocks of states with an Article of Confederation type law governeing / linking / alliance of the 6 would come to pass.

For the US as we know it, it is a decidedly BAD idea. Once that particular hurdle is reached, YOU CAN COUNT on the enemies, users, etc... of this country to FLOOD the delegates with pressure, demands, money to pass or stall or whatever our process.

akodo
December 13, 2008, 05:06 PM
2/3rds of the states must pass a resolution in both bodies of their legislative branch asking for a constitutional convention. It is a state's power thing in case the House of Reps and the Senate would someday side with a tryanical Executive branch.

Many states have put forth resolutions in their state constitutions demanding a balanced budget, and it has worked pretty well. So many said 'we should modify the Constitution of the United States as well in the same fashion' and the method of doing this was to call for a Con-Con, as some folks like to call it.

2/3rds is 33.3 so 34 states make the call, and it goes. I guess there is like 28 states who did this, or 31, but 4 took it back, but not everyone thinks you can take it back. Hence, 3 more states call for one and it triggers.

legaleagle_45
December 13, 2008, 05:47 PM
The constitution is silent on the numerical support which must be achieved at a con con for the product agreed upon at the con con to be referred to the states for ratification. Thus, conceivably a bare majority of the delegates could send out something to the states for ratification. However, the Constitution is quite clear that 3/4ths of the states must ratify the proposal before it becomes law... 3/4ths of 50 = 37.5... so we need 38 states to ratify. Only 13 states are needed to block ratification. Can you say Texas, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, Oklahoma, Utah, Colorado, Nevada, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Florida, North Dakota, South Dakota....

It aint gonna happen, folks. The sky will not fall.

Docgmt
December 13, 2008, 05:48 PM
We already have a growing session movement here in Virginia, a con con would just set it off. Except for northern VA this is still a mostly red state. That is, our face turn red every time we get the latest news from D.C. :fire:

Audrey
December 13, 2008, 07:17 PM
The constitution is silent on the numerical support which must be achieved at a con con for the product agreed upon at the con con to be referred to the states for ratification. Thus, conceivably a bare majority of the delegates could send out something to the states for ratification. However, the Constitution is quite clear that 3/4ths of the states must ratify the proposal before it becomes law... 3/4ths of 50 = 37.5... so we need 38 states to ratify. Only 13 states are needed to block ratification. Can you say Texas, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, Oklahoma, Utah, Colorado, Nevada, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Florida, North Dakota, South Dakota....
It aint gonna happen, folks. The sky will not fall.

List of 32 states who have ALREADY passed their Con Con/BBA Resolutions:

http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1987/sept87/psrsept87.html

This includes Texas, Wyoming, Alaska, Oklahoma, Utah, Colorado, Nevada, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Florida, North Dakota, South Dakota.

It will obviously surprise you to learn of the states that have NOT passed their resolutions yet:

http://www.democratic-disaster.com/index.php?topic=1787.0

California
Montana
Connecticut
New Jersey
Hawaii
New York
Illinois
Ohio
Kentucky
Rhode Island
Maine
Vermont
Massachusetts
Washington
Michigan
West Virginia
Minnesota
Wisconsin

Furthermore, according to Corpus Jurus Secundum 16 C.J.S 9, the Constitutional Convention delegates are not limited in any way:

"their power may not in any respect be limited or restrained by the legislature."

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/corpus.htm

Because you THINK it won't happen doesn't mean it won't. There is obvious a movement underway to make it happen, and this required vigilance by everybody just like that happening in Ohio.

legaleagle_45
December 13, 2008, 07:24 PM
Originally Posted by Audrey
List of 32 states who have ALREADY passed their Con Con/BBA Resolutions:

True dat, Audrey... BUT the product of the con con still must be RATIFIED by 38 states. That ratification process occurs only AFTER the con con meets and drafts amendments. Those proposals are then sent to the states for their review and approval, just as if the amendments had been proposed by Congress instead of a con con.

mordechaianiliewicz
December 13, 2008, 09:30 PM
WND went a bit too far here, upon further study. Not saying this can't happen. But it's just not likely at all. Atleast under the current political climate.

Now, there are some things on the horizon... but, as has been said, the political consequences of this kind of legal maneuver.... You better believe that the politicians know very well what could happen in the event that there is a Con-Con that doesn't fit some part of the country's concepts of what kind of nation we should have.

Basically, it's better to pretend we still have a constitution everyone is happy with than to rewrite it, and admit the schism that has been forming for a while in this nation.

Samuel Adams
December 13, 2008, 10:12 PM
The Bills died in both houses of the Legislature. The word is that it will be reintroduced in the next session.

ConstitutionCowboy
December 13, 2008, 10:39 PM
I don't understand why any liberals would want a Con Con. They are doing quite well with simply ignoring or misconstruing the Constitution. Wouldn't they have to admit their ignorance and/or misconstrual first in order to rightly say why they want or need to change it to meet their wishes?

Just sayin'...

Woody

"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole of the People, is sacredly obligatory upon all."

George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796.

Audrey
December 14, 2008, 12:03 AM
All we have anymore in this country are "liberal" politicians who liberally infringe on our civil liberties, inalienable rights, and freedoms.

I believe the president was George Bush while the Patriot Acts were enacted, so the "libs" don't hold the monopoly on ruining your life.

Don't get caught up in the left/right divide. They are two sides of the same phoney (literally) coin.

Rockefeller and Brzezinksi are surrounding Obama with the same neocons, criminals and buffoons that have given us the last eight wonderful years.

Thin Black Line
December 14, 2008, 08:07 AM
Thanks all for the input.

If you enjoyed reading about "Two States Away from Constitutional Convention?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!