One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Is a Tital Wave Brewing - State Conventions Harnessing DC?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Apr 2, 2014 22:29:29   #
ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa
 
Barnini Chakraborty


WASHINGTON – Momentum is building behind what would be an unprecedented effort to amend the U.S. Constitution, through a little-known provision that gives states rather than Congress the power to initiate changes.

At issue is what's known as a "constitutional convention," a scenario tucked into Article V of the U.S. Constitution. At its core, Article V provides two ways for amendments to be proposed. The first – which has been used for all 27 amendment to date – requires two-thirds of both the House and Senate to approve a resolution, before sending it to the states for ratification. The Founding Fathers, though, devised an alternative way which says if two-thirds of state legislatures demand a meeting, Congress “shall call a convention for proposing amendments.”

The idea has gained popularity among constitutional scholars in recent years -- but got a big boost last week when Michigan lawmakers endorsed it.

Michigan matters, because by some counts it was the 34th state to do so. That makes two-thirds.

In the wake of the vote, California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter pressed House Speaker John Boehner on Tuesday to determine whether the states just crossed the threshold for this kind of convention. Like Michigan lawmakers, Hunter's interest in the matter stems from a desire to push a balanced-budget amendment -- something that could potentially be done at a constitutional convention.

“Based on several reports and opinions, Michigan might be the 34th state to issue such a call and therefore presents the constitutionally-required number of states to begin the process of achieving a balanced budget amendment,” Hunter wrote.

“With the recent decision by Michigan lawmakers, it is important that the House – and those of us who support a balanced budget amendment -- determine whether the necessary number of states have acted and the appropriate role of Congress should this be the case."

If two-thirds of the states indeed have applied, the ball is presumably in Congress' court to call the convention.

But Article V is rather vague, and it's ultimately unclear whether 34 states have technically applied. In the past, states like Oregon, Utah and Arizona have quietly voted to approve the provision in their legislature.

But some of the 34 or so have rescinded their requests. Others have rescinded, and then re-applied.

Alabama rescinded its request in 1988 but in 2011, lawmakers again applied for a convention related to an amendment requiring that the federal budget be balanced. It was a similar story in Florida in 2010.

Louisiana rescinded in 1990 but lawmakers have tried several times, unsuccessfully, to reinstate the application since then.

It's unclear whether the applications still count in these scenarios.

Some constitutional scholars like Gregory Watson, an analyst in Texas, say once states ask, there may be no take-backs.

“There is a disagreement among scholars as to whether a state that has approved an application may later rescind that application,” Watson told The Washington Times. “If it is ultimately adjudicated that a state may not rescind a prior application, then Ohio’s 2013 application for a Balanced Budget Amendment convention would be the 33rd and Michigan’s 2014 application would be the 34th on that topic.”

Others say if a state changes its mind, it can no longer be part of the 34.

Even if the requisite number of states have applied, questions remain about how such a convention would work -- and whether, as Michigan wants, such a convention could be limited to only discussing a balanced-budget amendment.

It still may be a long shot, but some analysts are warning about the unintended consequences of such a move.

In Louisiana, Budget Project Policy Analyst Steve Spire argued against the state's resolution, saying the convention could permanently damage the nation’s political system.

The last time there was a successful amendment was more than four decades ago – the 26th Amendment which changed the voting age to 18. States ratified the 27th Amendment on congressional pay increases, but it took more than 200 years to do it.

| Reply
Apr 2, 2014 23:18:49   #
Brian Devon
 
ldsuttonjr wrote:
Barnini Chakraborty


WASHINGTON – Momentum is building behind what would be an unprecedented effort to amend the U.S. Constitution, through a little-known provision that gives states rather than Congress the power to initiate changes.

At issue is what's known as a "constitutional convention," a scenario tucked into Article V of the U.S. Constitution. At its core, Article V provides two ways for amendments to be proposed. The first – which has been used for all 27 amendment to date – requires two-thirds of both the House and Senate to approve a resolution, before sending it to the states for ratification. The Founding Fathers, though, devised an alternative way which says if two-thirds of state legislatures demand a meeting, Congress “shall call a convention for proposing amendments.”

The idea has gained popularity among constitutional scholars in recent years -- but got a big boost last week when Michigan lawmakers endorsed it.

Michigan matters, because by some counts it was the 34th state to do so. That makes two-thirds.

In the wake of the vote, California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter pressed House Speaker John Boehner on Tuesday to determine whether the states just crossed the threshold for this kind of convention. Like Michigan lawmakers, Hunter's interest in the matter stems from a desire to push a balanced-budget amendment -- something that could potentially be done at a constitutional convention.

“Based on several reports and opinions, Michigan might be the 34th state to issue such a call and therefore presents the constitutionally-required number of states to begin the process of achieving a balanced budget amendment,” Hunter wrote.

“With the recent decision by Michigan lawmakers, it is important that the House – and those of us who support a balanced budget amendment -- determine whether the necessary number of states have acted and the appropriate role of Congress should this be the case."

If two-thirds of the states indeed have applied, the ball is presumably in Congress' court to call the convention.

But Article V is rather vague, and it's ultimately unclear whether 34 states have technically applied. In the past, states like Oregon, Utah and Arizona have quietly voted to approve the provision in their legislature.

But some of the 34 or so have rescinded their requests. Others have rescinded, and then re-applied.

Alabama rescinded its request in 1988 but in 2011, lawmakers again applied for a convention related to an amendment requiring that the federal budget be balanced. It was a similar story in Florida in 2010.

Louisiana rescinded in 1990 but lawmakers have tried several times, unsuccessfully, to reinstate the application since then.

It's unclear whether the applications still count in these scenarios.

Some constitutional scholars like Gregory Watson, an analyst in Texas, say once states ask, there may be no take-backs.

“There is a disagreement among scholars as to whether a state that has approved an application may later rescind that application,” Watson told The Washington Times. “If it is ultimately adjudicated that a state may not rescind a prior application, then Ohio’s 2013 application for a Balanced Budget Amendment convention would be the 33rd and Michigan’s 2014 application would be the 34th on that topic.”

Others say if a state changes its mind, it can no longer be part of the 34.

Even if the requisite number of states have applied, questions remain about how such a convention would work -- and whether, as Michigan wants, such a convention could be limited to only discussing a balanced-budget amendment.

It still may be a long shot, but some analysts are warning about the unintended consequences of such a move.

In Louisiana, Budget Project Policy Analyst Steve Spire argued against the state's resolution, saying the convention could permanently damage the nation’s political system.

The last time there was a successful amendment was more than four decades ago – the 26th Amendment which changed the voting age to 18. States ratified the 27th Amendment on congressional pay increases, but it took more than 200 years to do it.
Barnini Chakraborty br br br WASHINGTON – Momen... (show quote)





***********************************************

A tital wave??? I am used to riding those. My wife wears a 42GG bra.

Seriously, though, these fantasies of a new constitutional convention have popped up with surprising regularity since the 19th century. Every state, except Hawaii, has passed one of these resolutions. They always end up in the round file and never go anywhere. The Republican right shouldn't get too excited about this pipe dream. What they really need to do is roll up their sleeves and do the hard work they have been avoiding for years.........find a way to better address the needs of young women and minorities. As long as they keep procrastinating on doing their homework they will never be handed the keys to the White House. Continuing to just preach to their shrinking angry white base is just going to keep them wandering in the wilderness for a very long time.

| Reply
Apr 2, 2014 23:35:05   #
ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa
 
Brian Devon wrote:
***********************************************

A tital wave??? I am used to riding those. My wife wears a 42GG bra.

Seriously, though, these fantasies of a new constitutional convention have popped up with surprising regularity since the 19th century. Every state, except Hawaii, has passed one of these resolutions. They always end up in the round file and never go anywhere. The Republican right shouldn't get too excited about this pipe dream. What they really need to do is roll up their sleeves and do the hard work they have been avoiding for years.........find a way to better address the needs of young women and minorities. As long as they keep procrastinating on doing their homework they will never be handed the keys to the White House. Continuing to just preach to their shrinking angry white base is just going to keep them wandering in the wilderness for a very long time.
*********************************************** br... (show quote)


Brian: keep pissing and moaning about the subject....It is coming to a legislation branch near you..... sooner than you think!

| Reply
Apr 2, 2014 23:44:02   #
Brian Devon
 
ldsuttonjr wrote:
Brian: keep pissing and moaning about the subject....It is coming to a legislation branch near you..... sooner than you think!



***********************************************
You are the one pissing and moaning...not me. It's something you and your wrong-side-of-history ilk have become quite adept at. The last victory you folks ever had was when Georgia had a minor league baseball team named the "Atlanta Crackers".

| Reply
Apr 3, 2014 06:29:30   #
Ve'hoe
 
I am so interested in what you think you added to the conversation with this?????? You said nothing unless it is give up hope, we the left do things for women and minorities, (which has been proven wrong) and the right is only white males,,, which is wrong and provable too......but you don't care??? I suppose,,,


Brian Devon wrote:
***********************************************

A tital wave??? I am used to riding those. My wife wears a 42GG bra.

Seriously, though, these fantasies of a new constitutional convention have popped up with surprising regularity since the 19th century. Every state, except Hawaii, has passed one of these resolutions. They always end up in the round file and never go anywhere. The Republican right shouldn't get too excited about this pipe dream. What they really need to do is roll up their sleeves and do the hard work they have been avoiding for years.........find a way to better address the needs of young women and minorities. As long as they keep procrastinating on doing their homework they will never be handed the keys to the White House. Continuing to just preach to their shrinking angry white base is just going to keep them wandering in the wilderness for a very long time.
*********************************************** br... (show quote)

| Reply
Apr 3, 2014 06:30:25   #
Ve'hoe
 
The leftists racist says,,,,,,,,,,
Brian Devon wrote:
***********************************************
You are the one pissing and moaning...not me. It's something you and your wrong-side-of-history ilk have become quite adept at. The last victory you folks ever had was when Georgia had a minor league baseball team named the "Atlanta Crackers".

| Reply
Apr 3, 2014 09:13:35   #
MrEd Loc: Georgia
 
ldsuttonjr wrote:
Barnini Chakraborty


WASHINGTON – Momentum is building behind what would be an unprecedented effort to amend the U.S. Constitution, through a little-known provision that gives states rather than Congress the power to initiate changes.

At issue is what's known as a "constitutional convention," a scenario tucked into Article V of the U.S. Constitution. At its core, Article V provides two ways for amendments to be proposed. The first – which has been used for all 27 amendment to date – requires two-thirds of both the House and Senate to approve a resolution, before sending it to the states for ratification. The Founding Fathers, though, devised an alternative way which says if two-thirds of state legislatures demand a meeting, Congress “shall call a convention for proposing amendments.”

The idea has gained popularity among constitutional scholars in recent years -- but got a big boost last week when Michigan lawmakers endorsed it.

Michigan matters, because by some counts it was the 34th state to do so. That makes two-thirds.

In the wake of the vote, California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter pressed House Speaker John Boehner on Tuesday to determine whether the states just crossed the threshold for this kind of convention. Like Michigan lawmakers, Hunter's interest in the matter stems from a desire to push a balanced-budget amendment -- something that could potentially be done at a constitutional convention.

“Based on several reports and opinions, Michigan might be the 34th state to issue such a call and therefore presents the constitutionally-required number of states to begin the process of achieving a balanced budget amendment,” Hunter wrote.

“With the recent decision by Michigan lawmakers, it is important that the House – and those of us who support a balanced budget amendment -- determine whether the necessary number of states have acted and the appropriate role of Congress should this be the case."

If two-thirds of the states indeed have applied, the ball is presumably in Congress' court to call the convention.

But Article V is rather vague, and it's ultimately unclear whether 34 states have technically applied. In the past, states like Oregon, Utah and Arizona have quietly voted to approve the provision in their legislature.

But some of the 34 or so have rescinded their requests. Others have rescinded, and then re-applied.

Alabama rescinded its request in 1988 but in 2011, lawmakers again applied for a convention related to an amendment requiring that the federal budget be balanced. It was a similar story in Florida in 2010.

Louisiana rescinded in 1990 but lawmakers have tried several times, unsuccessfully, to reinstate the application since then.

It's unclear whether the applications still count in these scenarios.

Some constitutional scholars like Gregory Watson, an analyst in Texas, say once states ask, there may be no take-backs.

“There is a disagreement among scholars as to whether a state that has approved an application may later rescind that application,” Watson told The Washington Times. “If it is ultimately adjudicated that a state may not rescind a prior application, then Ohio’s 2013 application for a Balanced Budget Amendment convention would be the 33rd and Michigan’s 2014 application would be the 34th on that topic.”

Others say if a state changes its mind, it can no longer be part of the 34.

Even if the requisite number of states have applied, questions remain about how such a convention would work -- and whether, as Michigan wants, such a convention could be limited to only discussing a balanced-budget amendment.

It still may be a long shot, but some analysts are warning about the unintended consequences of such a move.

In Louisiana, Budget Project Policy Analyst Steve Spire argued against the state's resolution, saying the convention could permanently damage the nation’s political system.

The last time there was a successful amendment was more than four decades ago – the 26th Amendment which changed the voting age to 18. States ratified the 27th Amendment on congressional pay increases, but it took more than 200 years to do it.
Barnini Chakraborty br br br WASHINGTON – Momen... (show quote)


This is the biggest mistake that we could make. Once a con con is started, there is no telling where it will go. That last one got us our present Constitution, but do you really believe we have that caliber of people now. There are some that have a new Constitution just waiting for a con con to be called so they can force it off on us.

Another major mistake would be that balanced budget amendment. If you ever read it you will see exactly why I say that. If either one of these occur we can forget about our country and we may just as well hang it up and give them everything they want, because they will take it with these.

http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/balanced-budget-amendment/
This one you should read especially since a lot of people think this is a good idea.........

http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/constitutional-convention/
You may want to follow the link on this one to see just why they are pushing so hard for a con con.
"Q: Who is behind this push for an Art. V convention?
A: The push to impose a new Constitution by means of an Article V convention (and using a “balanced budget” amendment as justification) started in 1963 with the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations."
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/newstates.htm
This is where you wind up if you follow that link. This is the 5th question on this site and will bring you to the new constitution they would very much like to replace the one we have.

Make no mistake, if they do push this new Constitution off on us, they can and will change the way it is approved. Just because we must have 2/3 majority to pass something now does not mean it will remain the same with a new Constitution in place. Once this is passed, our old Constitution is history and we are done for and would take winning a new Civil War to get the old one back.

| Reply
Apr 3, 2014 10:49:49   #
Ve'hoe
 
So, it sounds as the choices are a slow death, a slower death, or a quick death.............none of which are appealing,,, Like Stonewall Jackson said,,,, what is the answer to being surrounded,,,, break out and attack........not necessarily with guns,,,, obama,,, ala putin has shown his lack of backbone... if AG holder et al dont have to follow the law, neither do we, unless we allow that unfair advantage over us...... we are in a tough spot,,, inaction is rarely the answer...



MrEd wrote:
This is the biggest mistake that we could make. Once a con con is started, there is no telling where it will go. That last one got us our present Constitution, but do you really believe we have that caliber of people now. There are some that have a new Constitution just waiting for a con con to be called so they can force it off on us.

Another major mistake would be that balanced budget amendment. If you ever read it you will see exactly why I say that. If either one of these occur we can forget about our country and we may just as well hang it up and give them everything they want, because they will take it with these.

http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/balanced-budget-amendment/
This one you should read especially since a lot of people think this is a good idea.........

http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/constitutional-convention/
You may want to follow the link on this one to see just why they are pushing so hard for a con con.
"Q: Who is behind this push for an Art. V convention?
A: The push to impose a new Constitution by means of an Article V convention (and using a “balanced budget” amendment as justification) started in 1963 with the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations."
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/newstates.htm
This is where you wind up if you follow that link. This is the 5th question on this site and will bring you to the new constitution they would very much like to replace the one we have.

Make no mistake, if they do push this new Constitution off on us, they can and will change the way it is approved. Just because we must have 2/3 majority to pass something now does not mean it will remain the same with a new Constitution in place. Once this is passed, our old Constitution is history and we are done for and would take winning a new Civil War to get the old one back.
This is the biggest mistake that we could make. On... (show quote)

| Reply
Apr 3, 2014 11:26:01   #
ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa
 
Brian Devon wrote:
***********************************************
You are the one pissing and moaning...not me. It's something you and your wrong-side-of-history ilk have become quite adept at. The last victory you folks ever had was when Georgia had a minor league baseball team named the "Atlanta Crackers".


Brian: Your a typical liberal... guilty of jealousy and wasting much time-comsuming energy on a lost disgusting ideology. Our Constitution will eventually bury you!

| Reply
Apr 3, 2014 11:28:24   #
Hungry Freaks
 
We need to amend the Constitution to allow limits on campaign contributions. The money pouring into politics is what causes our tax code to be gamed by the plutocrats and our laws to be titled in favor of those with enough money to influence politicians of both parties.

Right now the multi-nationals are pushing new "free" trade agreements that will simply stripe the US of more industries.And the multi-nationals are pouring tens of millions into the campaign coffers of both parties to get these agreements passed.

Equating money given to candidates as free speech is a twisted interpretation of the Constitution. Sure you can spend your money any way you like-until it corrupts the political system.

Contributors don't give large amounts of cash to candidates out of the goodness of their hearts. They do so to gain undue influence.

On corporate type said unlimited aggregate amounts of campaign contributions "will help the regular people." Who has $45,000 to give to political campaigns? Now that limit is gone.

How will that help "regular people?"

MrEd wrote:
This is the biggest mistake that we could make. Once a con con is started, there is no telling where it will go. That last one got us our present Constitution, but do you really believe we have that caliber of people now. There are some that have a new Constitution just waiting for a con con to be called so they can force it off on us.

Another major mistake would be that balanced budget amendment. If you ever read it you will see exactly why I say that. If either one of these occur we can forget about our country and we may just as well hang it up and give them everything they want, because they will take it with these.

http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/balanced-budget-amendment/
This one you should read especially since a lot of people think this is a good idea.........

http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/constitutional-convention/
You may want to follow the link on this one to see just why they are pushing so hard for a con con.
"Q: Who is behind this push for an Art. V convention?
A: The push to impose a new Constitution by means of an Article V convention (and using a “balanced budget” amendment as justification) started in 1963 with the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations."
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/newstates.htm
This is where you wind up if you follow that link. This is the 5th question on this site and will bring you to the new constitution they would very much like to replace the one we have.

Make no mistake, if they do push this new Constitution off on us, they can and will change the way it is approved. Just because we must have 2/3 majority to pass something now does not mean it will remain the same with a new Constitution in place. Once this is passed, our old Constitution is history and we are done for and would take winning a new Civil War to get the old one back.
This is the biggest mistake that we could make. On... (show quote)

| Reply
Apr 3, 2014 17:31:21   #
Brian Devon
 
ldsuttonjr wrote:
Brian: Your a typical liberal... guilty of jealousy and wasting much time-comsuming energy on a lost disgusting ideology. Our Constitution will eventually bury you!






Like it buried Jefferson Davis, Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee, as well as Joe McCarthy and George Wallace???

| Reply
Apr 3, 2014 20:54:47   #
Ve'hoe
 
No,,, we don't,,, and you are slurring your writing again,,,
Tea time again?????


Hungry Freaks wrote:
We need to amend the Constitution to allow limits on campaign contributions. The money pouring into politics is what causes our tax code to be gamed by the plutocrats and our laws to be titled in favor of those with enough money to influence politicians of both parties.

Right now the multi-nationals are pushing new "free" trade agreements that will simply stripe the US of more industries.And the multi-nationals are pouring tens of millions into the campaign coffers of both parties to get these agreements passed.

Equating money given to candidates as free speech is a twisted interpretation of the Constitution. Sure you can spend your money any way you like-until it corrupts the political system.

Contributors don't give large amounts of cash to candidates out of the goodness of their hearts. They do so to gain undue influence.

On corporate type said unlimited aggregate amounts of campaign contributions "will help the regular people." Who has $45,000 to give to political campaigns? Now that limit is gone.

How will that help "regular people?"
We need to amend the Constitution to allow limits ... (show quote)

| Reply
Apr 3, 2014 22:20:25   #
Retired669
 
Hungry Freaks wrote:
We need to amend the Constitution to allow limits on campaign contributions. The money pouring into politics is what causes our tax code to be gamed by the plutocrats and our laws to be titled in favor of those with enough money to influence politicians of both parties.

Right now the multi-nationals are pushing new "free" trade agreements that will simply stripe the US of more industries.And the multi-nationals are pouring tens of millions into the campaign coffers of both parties to get these agreements passed.

Equating money given to candidates as free speech is a twisted interpretation of the Constitution. Sure you can spend your money any way you like-until it corrupts the political system.

Contributors don't give large amounts of cash to candidates out of the goodness of their hearts. They do so to gain undue influence.

On corporate type said unlimited aggregate amounts of campaign contributions "will help the regular people." Who has $45,000 to give to political campaigns? Now that limit is gone.

How will that help "regular people?"
We need to amend the Constitution to allow limits ... (show quote)


:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Money is the root of all evil and the 5 idiots on the supreme court made things worse for the average person.

| Reply
Apr 4, 2014 06:00:23   #
Ve'hoe
 
Liberalism,, ie stupidty,,, is the root of all evil,,, exhibit a and b,,, you and fleabags....


Retired669 wrote:
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Money is the root of all evil and the 5 idiots on the supreme court made things worse for the average person.

| Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2019 IDF International Technologies, Inc.