A framework for our coming discussions.
Search
Archive Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Archives
Categories
- A Government That Can Force You to Buy Health Insurance Can Make You Do Anything (3)
- a protein wisdom philosophy primer (3)
- academics (25)
- armadillo (8)
- Friday Fiction 100 Word Challenge (51)
- from the protein wisdom conceptual series (136)
- identity politics (33)
- If Republicans Win the Senate in 2014 (1)
- in which celebraties comment on current events (67)
- language / intentionalism (88)
- legal (6)
- My brief conversations with inanimate objects (130)
- NSA / FISA (46)
- One Term to Serve, the 2012 Revival (6)
- Overheard in a Fallujah bunker (27)
- Poems from 196x, Revised by the Ghost of Richard Brauti (27)
- protein wisdom's DNC coverage (30)
- protein wisdom's RNC coverage (29)
- protein wisdom: the movie Lists (20)
- Provocateurism (16)
- real-time empirical observations (51)
- red pills found behind the sofa cushions (42)
- Scenes from my driveway (61)
- Talking back to 80s music (41)
- The Martha Stewart Chronicles (58)
- The protein wisdom interviews (10)
- The protein wisdom original poems (142)
- Uncategorized (20,046)
- Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, abridged (34)
Recent Comments
- In The Mailbox: 02.28.23 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain on Hey, longtime pw readers…
- In The Mailbox: 12.23.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll truly IS a sad, embittered psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- In The Mailbox: 07.18.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
An Anchor is what Mark has to drag along behind him — unfortunately — as he makes his way serially through these various interviews. As a measure of both the intense need for the exercise (thinking about the political regime of the United States and how to heal it) as well as indicating the probable time-line of the education necessary to achieve the end sought, the anchor metaphor will prove apt.
I dunno. If you think about it as a proposal to rally around (e.g. the Contract with America) I think it could be a strong horse.
The hard part is going to be keeping the focus on the ideas embodied in the proposed amendments, when the media is naturally going to want to talk about the process of gettng them enacted.
It’s even worse than merely keeping the focus on the specific list Levin proposes (which at least has a kind of solidity in its specificity), in my view Ernst, insofar as his most likely friendly interlocutors aren’t accustomed to thinking of right in the widest terms, and hence aren’t skilled at handling the questions in need of answer (if they can even locate them), which is in a way to say, aren’t generally going to be capable of making reasonable counter-proposals back to Mark and on the basis of his initial sally and their responses, hold an exchange at a high enough political-philosophical level to move forward fruitfully — at the outset, that is. Over time, if there’s enough time available, capable interlocutors may emerge, and the auditors to the conversation may absorb enough learning to keep up with the substance. But that may be a stretch on my part. (I set the media aside for the most part, since the media hasn’t the proper credential in interest to play a helpful role.)
– I set the media aside …
– Not smart since you know damn well thge Legacy media is going to work even harder than normal to target, isolate, marginalize per Alinsky any efffort made to turn the country away from the present march to socialism/Marsism/Communism. The fuckers are as red as the hammer and sickle flag.
Not smart . . .
You could hardly have better made my point.
– At some point, assuming an effective movement cam be raised, something is going to have to be done about a purely treacherous media, and they know that so they’ll use every means to thwart such efforts.
– It will take bloodshed. Are you ready for that?
– In many ways we are more like Egypt than Egypt itself.
– It will take bloodshed. Are you ready for that?
Do you have any reason to thus inquire of me, BBH? Have I not made my view plain enough for even a child to see?
– sdferr, its not always about you. My question was a general one for all anticipating these steps back to federalism/fundementals.
Could we possibly move 3/5 of the state legislatures to agree and act on anything that we’d actually like to see? Color me pessimistic.
Could we possibly move 3/5 of the state legislatures….
– The ongoing breakdowns in society we will see more and more in the coming years will help that along.
Very well, BBH. I apologize for mistaking your thrust, though I do not accede to the suggestion that I believe (not even for a moment) that “it’s always about” me. You can perhaps see how it appeared you were just then in actual conversation with me, since we’re both here, and your phrase was open to the simple assumption to that effect. As a general question, however, it seems useless to the framework Levin would undertake, and in that respect, useless to the discussion we would hold at Levin’s suggestion. But, as in most matters, as you will.
– As I said previously on this subject. Until the Ox is well gored people will hold back. Once they feel the pain to where they cannot hide things will begin to happen, not until.
What did I just say about process?
[wry smirk]
– Ernst, when the handouts start to taper off and enough of the promises are broken and people really feel the pain “the process” will be surprisingly found to be very possible and straightforward.
Maybe think of Levin as a man trudging up to the city from Piraeus in the company of a friend, unaware he’s about to be diverted, and BBH as Thrasymachus, resting fulsomely at Kephalos’ house, unaware he’s about to make Levin’s acquaintance.
– Levins efforts are a good start and a good thing, but they’re not going anywhere until the breakdowns start. As long as the Left can play the pander game things will continue as they’ve been. The Left will always maintain power appealing to the worst instincts of human nature. P.T. said it best. A sucker born every minute etc.
– Even as we watch Egypt falling apart, things are going south in Iraq with much increased car bombing instigated by Hezbella in support of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and Hezbella has been attacked in Lebenon today.
– The old rivalries between Shia and Sunni continue. In Egypt its said that the Muslim brotherhood represented the Conservatives, and the Military cadre and interum government the Liberals, with a much smaller moderate third group, so its a smaller version of what we’re going through here in America.
– Theres a new voice of clarity in town now that Al Jazerra has an English channel, and soon to have Al Jazeera America.
– You learn all sorts of interesting things that the American media seem to “miss”.
– It will hasten the demise of the Communist press.
I have not read Mark Levin’s book. And a 14 minute interview is not enough information to make a definitive call, but I have no problem with the amendments as discussed. And Levin points out that there is a process by which these amendments CAN be passed without having to rely on Congress. The question, as Pablo asked above, is:
Could we possibly move 3/5 of the state legislatures to agree and act on anything that we’d actually like to see?
Simple answer: No.
Are there 22 (+2 for safety’s sake) states that have a liberal-core state government that would send delegates to such a convention that would oppose the types of amendments Levin proposes? Considering more that that number of states went for Obama in the last two elections (27 in ’08, 24 in ’12), I would answer my question as a yes. Some hard-core leftist states (such as my own, MA) could refuse to send delegates, which could then be used to question the legitimacy of such a convention. And if some states don’t send delegates, does that invalidate the convention? How many would it take to do that?
– 2/3’s is 2/3’s. Desention of the remaining would not invalidate anything.
I understand people wanting to talk process because the process is known, whereas Levin’s proposals have yet to be weighed on the merits.
Nonetheless, it’s a mistake.
Not prudent at this junc-tchure even.
. . . people wanting to talk process because the process is known . . .
I’m somehow minded of the fellow I heard yesterday talking about how to plow a straight furrow: “look to the end, and go there” said he. Don’t be distracted by the nearer stuff which will only lead to failure.
As I recall, at least one state didn’t bother to send delegates to the Constitutional Convention.
BBH, 2/3’s of those present? Or 2/3’s of those able to vote? Questions like this come up at stockholder meetings and such all the time, and the rules have to be very clear. How many delegates does a state send? How many votes does a state get? One per state? One per delegate? How many states have to be present to validate the convention (i.e. what a quorum?)?
Let me be clear (Obama has used this enough – I hate saying that!): I don’t know the answers to the questions I just posed – I am asking to get them answered. I’m at work right now and can’t go spend the time to research this.
And what percentage of the states need to approve an amendment? I thought I heard 3/5 (30), but you mentioned 2/3 (33).
My impression is that Levin’s goal is exactly that. His specific proposals are ones he likes naturally, but his point is to educate on the process by which power can be returned to the people.
Then we’re really doing it wrong by obsessing on the (by design) difficulties inherent to the process.
The baby’s only going to get strangled in the crib, so let’s abort it. /sarc
– Scott, all percentages are referrenced to the “total available” whether present or not. Not present would be taken as “abstain”, and as for the 2/3’s, 3/5’s, one is for an amendment to be submitted, the other is to legally pass the amendment into law.
Simple answer: No.
Complex answer: It’s easier to unseat/primary state congresscritters than national ones. None of the state legislatures’ makeups are written in stone.
If 10% of a population is fervent enough, it can win the day. Against an indifferent or confused population, it might even take less.
The Proggs took 100 years for their long march, but they had to move slowly because they knew the population would NOT accept their bold proposals. We don’t have to spend time with concealment, obfuscation, acclimation, and slow iconoclasm.
The push to call such a convention will take more than one attempt. The first attempt will most certainly fail.
After that?
GIVE IN! GIVE IN! GIVE IN!
You’ll feel ever so much better when you quit fighting it.
3/4s, not 3/5s.
– In other words the voting rules and process are essentially identical to those in congress with the state delegates taking the place of Representatives and Senators, and of course there being only one “house” instead of two.
Just to add to what Di said, if Levin’s proposals merit support, and those supporters seek out other supporters, then that’s the basis for a political movement, which can effect state and national elections.
If these amendements become popular enough politically, Congress will act on them. If only to protect their phoney baloney jobs.
If these amendements become popular enough politically, Congress will act on them. If only to protect their phoney baloney jobs.
– Yeah, and we know just how they will “act” on them with grandfather clauses, poison pills, and burried clauses in unrelated bills to hide their systemantic derailing of anything that could possibly effect the ruling class status quo.
. . . his point is to educate on the process by which power can be returned to the people.
The circumstances of this situation do go back quite a ways. A brief story.
Round about 1974 I first became aware that James Madison had written Notes of the Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, and thinking, hmmm, I’ll bet that would be a good book to read, went looking for it. I asked in every bookstore I entered in those days (and I went into a lot of bookstores) and to no avail to hand. No one had it. Wowser, I thought, this is getting weirder and weirder, that in America no one has a copy of Madison’s Notes for sale.
I went to the bookstore at Independence Hall in Philly (among other bookstores in Philly); I went certain the book would be there, if anywhere.
No luck. Now this is nuts, I’m thinking.
Then, sometime just after 1976 and the bicentennial outburst, I got my hands on a Norton paperback reprint of the 1965 re-publication of the book, in the Introduction to which the preparer, Adrienne Koch, says:
*** […] Since all the three interests mentioned converge on Madison’s Notes, why has this invaluable resource become out of print, unavailable for teachers, students, lawyers, journalists, commentators, and “we the people” who care? Thousands of books tumble off the presses annually (as they should); but for this work, the root and origin of “the supreme Law of the Land,” only the affluent may hope to acquire a copy, and then only if they are lucky. It would be interesting to speculate on how and why this oversight [oversight! Inconceivable to her it could have been otherwise! — sdf] was committed by publishers who are eager to increase their offerings in American history — but space forbids and happily the issue may now, with the publication of this volume, be termed academic. ***
Not necessarily. It takes 2/3ds of Congress to propose an Amendment for ratification, or 2/3ds of the states to call for a convention to propose amendments for ratification.
How a convention would propose amendments isn’t specified.
I’m using propose in the sense of offer to the states for ratification here, not in the sense of suggesting to Congress/convention for a vote.
My 12:16 in response to BBH’s 12:05
– What about my 12:05 is “not neccessary”?
“[T]he voting rules and process are essentially identical to those in congress with the state delegates taking the place of Representatives and Senators, and of course there being only one “house” instead of two.”
I’m saying that it’s unclear how a convention would “vote out” amendments to be sent on to the states for ratification. I believe that it would be up to Congress to determine that at the time time they called the convention.
I’m completely open to the idea that my reading of Art. V is wrong.
– Congress need take no part in the process, and as a matter of preference, states would/should most likely ignore any Congressional interference. As far as process, the sovereign states can decide the actual process, other than percentages of vote, at the time they choose to act, again by majority.
If it’s unclear (possibly by an intention of the framers), then it would be useful to enumerate all the possible alternatives, and then attempt to judge which among them is both the best as to the justice of the situation as well as the most probable to be adopted as the best solution to the question, which two aspects may not coincide as to every particular (but then too, may so coincide as well). Better not to preclude possibilities at this early juncture. (wink)
“The Congress … on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which … shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress[.]”
After rereading your 12:38, I guess it’s likely, even proper, that the Convention sets its own rules for itself as the first order of business.
My guess is how representation would be apportioned amongst the several states is going to be a matter of controversey. To say nothing of the delegate selection process.
– Ernst, the limitation of the Congress acting in any capacity in our governance is a self imposed one that can vanish in the snap of a finger if the states were simply aware that the people, and through them the states, hold all the real power.
– That we’re dumb to that reality is our own fault.
– The Left has gained power and continues to operate on a false premise they’ve subtly, and by seditious means, convined the electorate is true, whereas the truth is its a complete fabrication.
– But then if we are willing to accept the lie then we deserve what we get.
and then attempt to judge which among them is both the best as to the justice of the situation as well as the most probable to be adopted as the best solution to the question
Yes, because you can be sure that the statists will do this exact same thing for the outcomes they desire, and work/cheat very hard to get said outcomes.
I first became aware that James Madison had written Notes of the Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, and thinking, hmmm, I’ll bet that would be a good book to read
Admission of these thoughts and feeling in public will bring down the full wrath of the NSA, IRS, DOJ, and DHS upon you. :-)
Annapolis 1786, the [lightly attended and largely forgotten] Convention to call a Convention.
As it happened, it worked, though not without some alterations along the way.
Yes, because you can be sure that the statists will do this exact same thing for the outcomes they desire, and work/cheat very hard to get said outcomes.
I can live without the sarcasm Scott, if you’ll permit me. I’m not unaware of the political left, but have in this case aims of my own to pursue which I believe will be better accomplished if not constantly put to a leftist touchstone for measurement.
34 (2/3) to call for the amendment convention, 38 (3/4) to approve the amendments that come from the convention.
I can live without the sarcasm Scott
????? I was far from attempting to be sarcastic; I am serious. If there is one thing we have come to know about those in power now is that they will use every advantage they can dream up to get their way. I was simply saying they will be figuring out how to get what they want too.
My guess is how representation would be apportioned amongst the several states is going to be a matter of controversey. To say nothing of the delegate selection process.
Arguably it doesn’t really matter from a negative point of view (e.g. “the statists will hijack the convention and propose terrible statisty amendments”), as any ammendments offered ultimately have to get through the massive “3/4ths of the states have to ratify” filter. I contend that there’s nothing the statists (of ‘both’ kinds) want that can leap that hurdle.
So if, at this convention-thingy, the assembled decide that whether or not a proposed ammendment ‘passes’ the convention (to be submitted for ratification by the state legislatures) is to be done proportionally, with California getting 100 times the votes of Wyoming – well, that won’t spell our collective ruin, it’ll just make the process somewhat pointless. (Other than the “getting people talking/thinking” part, which is not to be discounted.)
Of course, such a statist-heavy vote could effectively prevent any ‘good’ ammendments from clearing the Convention, even if they would pass the ratification process… especially if they’d pass the ratification process.
Given that any ammendment will eventually have to go through an “all states get an equal say” ratification process in the end, it would seem incoherent for the voting in the Convention to be anything other than senate-style equal representation as well. Though there’s no reason to think that the statists would let a little incoherence get in the way of “what they want” or “what they want to prevent”, so whatever.
In any event, I contend that point of the exercise is more important than any actual success or failure, and will in and of itself lead to some measure of success. Eventually. Probably not the first time, but you’ve got to start somewhere.
The delegates to be chosen by the Bar Associations of the respective States, as per Congressional directive, for the pupose of considering the proposed amendments, plus any other amendments the convention might care to propose for the consideration of the States.
I’m not saying that’s what will happen. But I’m not discounting the possibility either.
State legislatures are the “whats?” in answer to the question “34 [or 38] whats?”. This would be [would mean] State legislatures — as in a concurrence of both houses of legislature in any one State, though, n’est-ce pas?
And these two in turn — 1) initiating the movement to the (procedurally peremptory, as Hamilton puts it) Federal Congress to call a Convention, in the first instance, and 2) in the approval of the substantive amendment(s) derived from such a Convention, in the second instance — are distinct from the makeup of the Convention itself (i.e., its membership and the determination of its membership), and from any procedures and acts undertaken there . . . or at least, so I conceive the thing at this point, but only tacitly so and am amenable to persuasion otherwise.
The sovereign interests at equity in any such undertaking (that is, as to each step along the way) will have to be explicitly brought forward for consideration, it seems, and without that explicit detail, that is, lacking it, will have run too far, too fast.
Again, leave the leftist Iraqi Army ensconced in their lessor cities, go around them to the terminus at Baghdad and fight the necessary battles on the ground of your choosing, where success can be had without the waste of time and energy taking down the leftists along the way. Levin has in mind the necessary effort to go way over the heads of the sophistic left, straight to the people (who massively outnumber the ruling class); the true source of power in the United States.
I imagine if Levin’s proposals garner enough support to actually get to the point that State legislatures are voting to apply to Congress for a convention, they will succeed.
As a political movement cum political party, that is.
If you’ve got the necessary number of politicians in the necessary number of states, it’s difficult to imagine you wouldn’t also have the necessary membership in Congress for Congress itself to offer up the amendements.
Nothing’s going to work.
All plans are flawed.
Game over, man.
Why don’t you put her in charge?
Jesus in a jalopy.
Welcome to Corporal Hicksville.
You know, I’d pay good money to watch Sarah Palin snarl “get your hands off of her YOU BITCH!” at Hillary Clinton.
Damn good money. Not Obama money.
Or even Private Hudsonville, actually.
I’d give gold to see her foot stomp slewfoot.
Which reminds me.
Uh-oh. Now serr8d is going to photoshop the Alien queen from that movie with cankles.
What has been seen with the mind’s eye cannot be unseen.
You know what? I’d pay extra if Sarah Plain said it right.
If there was a conservative SNL, there’s a great short in there if you dress up Newt as lady liberty.
Hillary Canklehead it is, then.
Hillary/Canklehead 2016
It’s her turn!
It’s John Hayward’s turn.
Happenstance? Coincidence? You might as a crazy outlaw even think it was by purposefully designed enemy action. But then you wouldn’t be fit for polite company.