Note: if you hadn’t already, go back and pay particular attention to Levin’s comments about how our justices are “twisting language” to “rewrite” the Constitution on the fly, essentially holding on-going constitutional conventions in which a single justice can, by coming down on one side or another of a given issue (which is oftentimes supposed to be out of their purview), effectively rewrite the document, and leave us no recourse to reverse that single lawyer’s oftentimes blatantly strained and absurd reasoning, which is presented as interpretation but is anything but.
It is politically motivated creative writing.
The answer to the problem? Intentionalism (or in legal form, originalism) as remedy, and term limits as an enforcement mechanism.
Our own lawyer class, which has overtaken the messaging for the GOP and “conservatism” — and worked diligently to marginalize the likes of me — considered this idea “fundamentally unserious” not so long ago, preferring to ignore me when I attacked them for their willful blindness and their self-serving turn toward electoral “realism”. As if the Roveans were ever going to promote candidates who would fix what Rovean candidates, and other statists from both parties, had themselves wrought.
Well played!
But don’t worry. Now those same people are fired up, and they’re ready to fight the battles to regain constitutional control of the country. Line up behind them, ye masses of patriots. For they now carry the standard of conservatism and are its brave frontline warriors!
— at least, now that the devastation wrought by a phony two-party system is becoming more obvious, and the field has been cleared for them to adopt ideas they once openly sneered at, the original purveyors of which they banded together to turn into outcasts and “pseudo intellectuals”.
Somebody needs to give them a trophy. Were I designing it, it would be a set of newly-dropped testicals cast in bronze.
But then, I’m one for irony. YMMV.
Or if a less naturalistic form for the trophy were proposed, perhaps a solid bronze casting of Montesquieu’s De L’Esprit des Lois, but not the book: hence, a gesture to the idea of never reading for the purpose of reading.
Levin’s suggestion to move for a convention to discuss amending the Constitution:
1. It’s a plan. I’m not seeing any other plan. I’d been defaulting to “brace for impact,” which is not a plan.
2. It doesn’t seem to be worse than doing nothing.
Only game in town. Therefore, “It probably won’t work” is not a sufficient criticism of it.
Re Jim’s comment, not a good enough rationale. Must avoid “do something” as a reason for acting. “Do something, we’ll fill in the details later” helped lead to PPACA, for instance.
Levin’s ideas are fine, and I suppose better than nothing. Obviously, he desires to wrest “governance” from the hands of the philosopher elites and place it back in the hands of the people. It’s a great idea, but it presupposes that the people want to be engaged and involved in the the business in the first instance. I need to toy with my thinking on this some more, but I wonder whether our history of individuality and our desire to merely be left alone is what’s led to our destruction as a nation. Simply, we haven’t cared enough to get involved and pitch a fit when the pols have taken a mellon baller to our liberties and personal autonomy in the past, because the costs are hidden from us most of the time. Add an educational system which has eliminated knowledge of what America stands for and teaches that government is the source of all goodies and a political class more enamored with obtaining power than doing what’s right, and you get where we are today. I fear that a thousand amendments will be meaningless until those problems are corrected.
Personally, I think Levin is entitled to a little benefit of the doubt myself. And a hell of a lot more respect than being compared to Brooks and Friedman.
Charles, it’s not “do something.” It’s move to have the convention in order to have a chance to limit the federal government and stop the mad rush towards totalitarianism and financial collapse. At the moment, I see only that and “brace for impact” on the table.
One has to be careful about the urge to “do something!” Only when doing nothing might be the best remedy is the urge inappropriate. In the current circumstances, you’d have to show either that the coming calamity is the best remedy for what ails us or that the calamity is inevitable at this point and trying to avoid it would waste precious energy one will need to cope with it when it hits.
And if we hit the wall before any of Levin’s proposals get off the ground?
They’re a great project for the rebuilding. Might as well lay the foundations while the sun shines.
. . . it presupposes that the people want to be engaged and involved in the the business in the first instance.
It may be that instead it presupposes that the people need to be engaged and involved in the business, rather than “want” to be engaged. That is, they may not desire it, but it desires them, regardless of their urges.
The Constitution is my dictator.
I will submit to no other.
– Well I hate to be the bearer of bad news but your dictator has been quietly manuevored into the political closet and no longer has a seat at the table.
My allegiance is to a Constitution that limits government power. Deprive me of that, and I am stateless.
– It will be interesting in the coming days to watch how Bumblefuck tiptoes through the minefeild of support for Egypt.
– If he pulls support for the Liberal Army ruling Juanta in Egypt what effect would that have with his base here at home? So far they’ve let him get away with anything in as far as war mongering/drones/domestic survalence ect. Would they let him get away with not supporting the Socialist cause in the ME. Probably because they have no real convictions, just the need for raw power.
Welcome aboard, Parker!
Me, neither!!
Of course, I’ll go way out of my way for krill.
– Just as a point of interest, the Lefturds are not having a good day over at Huff’n’Poop in the comments section of Egypt posts.
– They seem to finally be hesitating in defending Bumblefuck. Of course what can they really say. His wussness has been on the wrong said of every issue in foreign policy since he took office and this one worst of all.
“Of course what can they really say?”
Blaming Bush has been the go-to answer for the last dozen years. Why would it stop working now?
The options (as I see them, so feel free to tell me where my logic is faulty):
1. Do nothing, in which case, status quo ante. Deck chairs on the Titanic and boiled rat stew with tree bark salad… (Please remember that North Korea is the perfected end product of the programs currently being instituted.)
2. Push for Levin’s plan, steamrolling over the inevitable failures of human ingenuity and deliberate interference from those seeking to feather their own nest (the determination of the actual odds for which I will leave to the Vegas folk, presuming they can find enough zeroes), in which case, sweeping back the tide for another generation, King Canute be damned, until the same distortions of intent get snuck in by unelected black robes and then we’re back to shooting lawyers in the streets, roughly mid-century. Results of the process where we don’t actually get what we want, but what the professional pols and K Street hacks can sneak into the process (since Article V says that Congress – read:Pedophile and the Crying Man – gets to appoint the convention members, and the States only get to decide up/down re ratification of the end product). (I would love to be proven wrong, but since an Article V convention has never happened and the language seems plain, you will need to be very persuasive.)
3. Do something else. No, I have no ideas what, why do you ask?
Maybe I’m just too pessimistic today, but I still see the end as Second American Revolution, circa 2025.
Maybe these ideas can serve as a springboard for America 2.0, but that would be overly optimistic, given the ingredients with which we are forced to work.
Something else comes to mind, though. Bill Whittle gave a speech on YouTube a while back, where he describes the reasons that our current form of government is failing so dramatically.
Briefly, (and any mistakes caused by my paraphrasing are my fault) in the early days of the country, we were an agrarian society, and the form of government was designed to deal with people with the maximum degree of autonomy, spread over wide areas.
Post Antebellum/Industrial Revolution, where companies were seeking lifelong employees, the inducements brought the extra manpower off the farms and into the cities. Governments started offering societal benefits, and with the advent of the “social engineering” Amendments, the form of government shifted to simulate what companies were offering: education, employment* and retirement, cradle-to-grave. (* – spreading out the work among several by the institution of overtime pay and 40-hour work weeks, making the reliance on the steadiest employees more expensive than replacing them with less-capable workers, not to mention government work projects).
But in the post-Internet age, where “I can pick up my cell phone and have 100 tons of Chinese steel delivered to my front yard”, that form of government no longer works, and becomes ever more out of whack as it falls farther and farther behind the learning curve.
The point stands, though… what’s next?
. . . since Article V says that Congress – […] – gets to appoint the convention members
It says nothing of the sort.
Actually, it says “shall call”.
That is the entire Article. I have bolded the relevant portion.
You think they’re going to ask for volunteers when it is their political future on the line? From among the people who really don’t like them? Or will they “call” the Convention simply by instituting a ‘Committee of the Whole’ (a parliamentary function usually only used in impeachment hearings) and diddling while Nome yearned?
Or maybe a “Blue Ribbon Panel” staffed by “experts on governmental function”? Which, snortle.
Ask yourself whether the States have sovereign interests? And the people, do they have sovereign interests?And whether the motion of “Application” from the States to the Federal Congress’s reflects the States’ and the people’s sovereign interests in the form and continuity of the Constitution which they have serially ratified? So now, why would the States and the people, each with distinguishable interests of their own, accede to the Federal Congress telling them who their representatives at a Convention of Amendment would be?
Take your snark and stick it into your gaping ignorance, howzabout?
The ONLY things that Article V says the States get to do is 1) petition Congress to call the Convention (with the convention ONLY being called when the minimum number is reached) and 2) voting on the results.
Period.
Their sovereignty doesn’t even enter into it. (Although they DO get to decide how to up/downvote it, whether referenda or through legislature action.)
“Actually, it says “shall call”.”
they’re just a rubber stamp at that point.
So now, why would the States and the people, each with distinguishable interests of their own, accede to the Federal Congress telling them who their representatives at a Convention of Amendment would be?
First, because the Article merely says “Congress shall call”, with no other direction on who, how, where, what, etc.
Second, because this would be a FEDERAL convention to amend the FEDERAL Constitution. Why do you think that the FEDERAL government wouldn’t take an (overriding) interest?
Please show me the relevant language that shows that the States have the authority to name members to such a convention, because I don’t see it.
States =/= Congress
“Why do you think that the FEDERAL government wouldn’t take an (overriding) interest?”
because the states created the fed gov’t. being their creature the states will tell the fed gov’t how this process will proceed.
Again, I ask you where the relevant “rubber-stamp” language is that shows that the States have the authority to do that. You seem to be reading an awful lot into “shall call”, without remembering who it is that is doing the calling.
I gave you the entire paragraph. Show me.
“Please show me the relevant language that shows that the States have the authority to name members to such a convention, because I don’t see it.”
the states created the fed gov’t. why wouldn’t they have authority to name members?
Drumwaster, read Federalist 85. Show how the intention of Hamilton’s argument on the State amendment process is intended to work to the preservation of the accrued powers of the Federal Congress (or the temporary occupants thereof), or the Federal gov’t any any respect.
Why would the Federal Constitution have to be ratified by the sovereign people and their sovereign States if it were solely dependent on the judgment of the Federal Government itself?
Hamilton, Fed. 85:
*** In opposition to the probability of subsequent amendments, it has been urged that the persons delegated to the administration of the national government will always be disinclined to yield up any portion of the authority of which they were once possessed. For my own part I acknowledge a thorough conviction that any amendments which may, upon mature consideration, be thought useful, will be applicable to the organization of the government, not to the mass of its powers; and on this account alone, I think there is no weight in the observation just stated. I also think there is little weight in it on another account. The intrinsic difficulty of governing thirteen States at any rate, independent of calculations upon an ordinary degree of public spirit and integrity, will, in my opinion constantly impose on the national rulers the necessity of a spirit of accommodation to the reasonable expectations of their constituents. But there is yet a further consideration, which proves beyond the possibility of a doubt, that the observation is futile. It is this that the national rulers, whenever nine States concur, will have no option upon the subject. By the fifth article of the plan, the Congres will be obliged “on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States which at present amount to nine, to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof.” The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress “shall call a convention.” Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body. And of consequence, all the declamation about the disinclination to a change vanishes in air. Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite two thirds or three fourths of the State legislatures, in amendments which may affect local interests, can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority. If the foregoing argument is a fallacy, certain it is that I am myself deceived by it, for it is, in my conception, one of those rare instances in which a political truth can be brought to the test of a mathematical demonstration. Those who see the matter in the same light with me, however zealous they may be for amendments, must agree in the propriety of a previous adoption, as the most direct road to their own object. ***
The truth is, we don’t know what happens if a Convention is called. That’s part of the reason why one has never been called. It’s the Constitution’s version of mutually assured destruction.
Or the Corbomite Maneuver. One of these.
It’s also why I believe that if Levin’s Liberty Project, let’s call it, gets up a head of steam and starts rolling over the GOP at the local and state levels in enough states, a whole bunch of the sackless cretins on the current GOP bench will suddenly feel their testicles drop. Their careers will be on the line.
If there’s enough momentum for the states to succeed in forcing Congress to call a convention, Congress will pass the amendments itself rather than lose control of the process to an unknow and unknowable outcome.
If the States were truly capable of this, we wouldn’t be where we are today…
“or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, 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, ”
> I ask you where the relevant “rubber-stamp” language is that shows that the States have the authority to do that. You seem to be reading an awful lot into “shall call”, without remembering who it is that is doing the calling.<
the "rubber stamp" is if 2/3rds of the states call for a convention congress shall call one. not maybe not if john roberts redefines it. no those assholes call one. if they don't then the revolution begins.
If, in calling a Convention, the Congress were to not only specify the manner in which the delegates were to be apportioned among the several states, but specify the qualifications for selection and manner in which the states are to select those qualifed (my earlier State Bars choose, for example), who’s going to say no to Congress? If the states do say no, who’s going to arbitrate the dispute?
I don’t know if drumwaster is right. But I also don’t know for a fact that he’s wrong either.
“If the States were truly capable of this, we wouldn’t be where we are today…”
well the states lost their place @ the table with amendment 17.
It isn’t a case of creating the Constitution (with the goal of the various Federalist papers being such ratification), merely amending it, which means that it is the sitting Congress that will deal with it, just like it did with the other amendments, both successful (Prohibition) and not (Equal Rights Amendment). And now that the Constitution has been long-since ratified, and we are merely talking about amending it, it is still the Federal Government which shall call the convention.
And I am STILL not seeing anything in Article V that says that the States get to name the membership of the committee, since the last such time a Convention was called, the Constitution didn’t legally exist.
” But I also don’t know for a fact that he’s wrong either.”
that’s why the initial language for this initiative must be vetted before it is submitted to a state. all the details need to be worked out beforehand.
“And I am STILL not seeing anything in Article V that says that the States get to name the membership of the committee, since the last such time a Convention was called, the Constitution didn’t legally exist.”
it is a convention to amend the constitution NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
This is the first time I am hearing such an idea, and I still see nothing that says that the Convention needs to honor it once convened, with ratification being the only chance States get to decide on the end result.
Yes, if it isn’t what the State(s) wanted, they will downcheck it. Lots of wasted effort just to get back to square 1, with God alone knowing what the big-government types are doing in the meantime to prevent repeats
And I am STILL not seeing anything in Article V that says that the States get to name the membership of the committee, since the last such time a Convention was called, the Constitution didn’t legally exist.
And who has claimed that it does say that? Not I. And who has claimed that it says the Congress determines the membership at Convention (without the slightest hint of such a thing in the terms of the Article)?
Never said it was, so PLEASE stop pretending that you have answered me, no matter how many times YOU REPEAT IT.
And who has claimed that it does say that? Not I
Okay, now that you have admitted that it won’t be the States determining the membership, and remembering that it is CONGRESS that “shall call” the Convention (NOT CONSTITUTIONAL, mind), precisely who is it that gets to determine who gets to attend?
Be specific.
. . . now that you have admitted that it won’t be the States determining the membership
I’ve admitted nothing of the sort.
” precisely who is it that gets to determine who gets to attend?”
the states you proggtarded clown
i think talking staples with a pikachu is more fun
There’s a greater than negligible chance that they are in fact one in the same, subject to ratification by a 3/4ths vote of the Several States.
I don’t think the effort will be wasted. Especially as (if) support for the Liberty Project approaches 3/4ths.
For all I know (or anyone knows, I think), the States, even as they deliberate the necessity of seeking a Convention for the purpose of amending the Constitution, may in the course of their proceedings nominate their own representatives to the Convention to be presented as a fait accomplis to the Congress right along with their vote to go to Convention, should they choose to take that path. I believe the States will know how to see to their own interests, just as I believe individuals see best to their interests regarding their personal health care decisions, and the people of the United States generally to see to putting the spur to their State Legislatures to see to a Convention of Amendment.
the states you proggtarded clown
Put up or shut up, dipshit. Show me where it says that IN THE CONSTITUTION. (The Federalist Papers are nice to read but are neither legally binding nor relevant to the discussion since they were trying for original ratification, not a State-called Amendment Convention.)
(And if all you have are insults, save your breath, as I am not impressed. Even slightly.)
One would like to think so, but that isn’t known for certain.
Computer, initiate Destruct Sequence One.
One would like to think so, but that isn’t known for certain.
This was my point exactly, and for airing my concerns, I get insulted by people who really ought to know better.
The Federalist Papers are not relevant to a discussion of the meaning of the Constitution of the United States? That’s a new one to me. But then I should have figured. After all, they’re very old. And musty. Ick.
They were relevant to a discussion of RATIFYING the Constitution, not the many-decades later AMENDMENT of same. As is so often pointed out, THIS IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
Of course, with your literary skills, I eagerly await the 21st Century’s Publius, so you’d better get crackin’!
Well if it makes you feel any better Drumwaster, you’re short, stout and hairy enough for this hobbit.
” Show me where it says that IN THE CONSTITUTION. ”
as a “federalist” enterprise the constitution is silent on how the states decide their business. really get off of proggtardia and feed your brain to the decentralization of the “FEDERAL constitution. it is easy if you try.
Madison, Fed. 43:
*** 8. “To provide for amendments to be ratified by three fourths of the States under two exceptions only.”
That useful alterations will be suggested by experience, could not but be foreseen. It was requisite, therefore, that a mode for introducing them should be provided. The mode preferred by the convention seems to be stamped with every mark of propriety. It guards equally against that extreme facility, which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme difficulty, which might perpetuate its discovered faults. It, moreover, equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other. The exception in favor of the equality of suffrage in the Senate, was probably meant as a palladium to the residuary sovereignty of the States, implied and secured by that principle of representation in one branch of the legislature; and was probably insisted on by the States particularly attached to that equality. The other exception must have been admitted on the same considerations which produced the privilege defended by it. ***
Loving the reiteration of “proggtard/proggtardia” as a form of argument, and so I will respond in kind.
Go fuck yourself, alright? :)
“They were relevant to a discussion of RATIFYING the Constitution”
they discuss what the fed gov’t would do. specifying candle
light bulbstandards wasn’t in view at the time.If you guys don’t stop talking past each other, BH is going to show up in his stupid hall monitor shash, and then we’re going to have to shove him in his locker again.
And you know how he kicks, screams, flails, scratches, and bites
just like a little girl.
It strikes me as absurd to disqualify the Federalist Papers’ relevance to a question of interpretation of a provision of Amendment in the Constitution, though the whole were proposed to be ratified in 1787. The means of changing the instrument are in the instrument. Therefore, any discussion of changing the instrument will necessarily refer back to the means contained within it, and to the intentions of those who wrote it, urged its adoption, and pled its virtues.
“Go fuck yourself, alright? :)”
you’re the one bowing to the ruling class not me. most of the fed gov’t is illegitimate constitutionally at this point .
In a similar vein, discussion of the Declaration of Independence, while intriguing as to the intent of the ones who wrote the Constitution, is irrelevant to the actual Law of the Land, which says nothing about “Life Liberty and/or Pursuit of Happiness”. Ergo, learning the intent of the ratifiers says NOTHING as to the actual language of the Article under discussion, and I see NOTHING that says that Congress must idly sit by and do nothing regarding a Convention they are tasked with convening.
And Federalist 43 helps advance the argument that Congress won’t be in a better position than the States to control the composition of a Convention how exactly?
I’m not bowing to anyone, I am voicing concerns with the potential process.
Land mines on the road to regaining our freedom, as it were, while you seem to be blithely assuming that the entrenched movers and shakers will be all a-tremble in the face of your fist-shaking wrath. Especially when all it actually says is “shall call”.
Not that it matters at this point, but this is why I didn’t want to get bogged down in the minutiae of process before considering Levin’s case on the merits.
Computer, Destruct Sequence One. Code One, One A.
I don’t know what the “residuary sovereignty of the States” would mean if there is no residuary sovereignty of the States, Ernst. Either there is, or there isn’t. If there is a sovereignty vested in the States (as well as in the people, separate from the States — only read Madison’s next few paragraphs in Fed. 43 on ratification), then the States will see to it. If there isn’t, then there is nothing for the States to attend to.
I didn’t want to get bogged down in the minutiae of process before considering Levin’s case on the merits.
Levin might have placed his first chapter elsewhere, if he didn’t intend it to be considered in the primary instance.
“when all it actually says is “shall call””
simple they don’t vote, investigate, probe, have hearings, et al. the lead bureaucrat there just affirms that the constitution has been complied with and issues the necessary paperwork. “shall” isn’t too flexible for us non proggtards.
Still waiting for an explanation of how “Congress shall call” = “States shall appoint”.
Not holding breath, though.
” Show me where it says that IN THE CONSTITUTION.”
>
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
<
“Still waiting for an explanation of how “Congress shall call” = “States shall appoint”.”
yo a petition from 2/3 states just means the congress rubber stamps it. the details are worked out by the states per amendment 9 + 10.
Good. You find it and post a precis for those of us who haven’t had time to go looking for ourselves yet.
Just to play devil’s advocate: I would argue that the States’ residual sovereignty was finally ceded with the ratification of the 17th Amendment.
And then there’s this:
That’s the rub. Precisely. If Congress not only calls the convention, but directs the States in how to proceed in selecting it’s delegates –or even attempts to choose them for the States (e.g. the convention shall exist of all living emeritus Congresspersons with a couple of exceptions for the expelled or the disgraced, say), what then do the states do? Run to the Supreme Court? Call out the militia? roll over and present their asses lest the
Spicehighway and medicaid monies cease to flow?I’m entirely serious about the actual calling of a convention being a doomsday device.
>Not holding breath, though.<
your prob. is that you are dc centric us visigoths not so much
Yeah, because the Ninth and Tenth Amendments have been so sacrosanct in times past. Not to mention that it is still CONGRESS that gets to convene the convention, with the States limited to merely ratifying the end product (or not).
And since this is something that is EXPLICITLY granted to the Federal Congress, that seems to negate the “reserved to the States” argument.
I’m pleased to see that my conjecture on the action of the States is entirely ignored. That, I think, bodes well.
“granted” may be the wrong word 9somewhat passive in tone, compared with the imperative tone of “shall”), but it still a Federal Congress doing the convening, and so the 9th/10th Amendments are irrelevant to that.
“I’m entirely serious about the actual calling of a convention being a doomsday device.”
that’s why the -language- of the 1st use of this procedure is so important. nothing should be left to congress except their rubber stamp.
If the various States get to appoint convention delegates, then will they do so weighted by population, like the House, or set to a convenient integer, as is the Senate?
If the former, we are still screwed, because a majority of,’Americans’ are the ones voted in the ruination we have unfolding right now. California, New York, Illinois and their overpopulated cessburgs always prefer Federal controls over the flyover states.
“but it still a Federal Congress doing the convening, and so the 9th/10th Amendments are irrelevant to that.”
they convene nothing. they accept the action. that’s it.
I’m pleased to see that my conjecture on the action of the States is entirely ignored.
Use “Proggtardia” a few more times. That ought to convince us.
Use “Proggtardia” a few more times. That ought to convince us.
huh?
“If the various States get to appoint convention delegates,”
it should be uniform. that’s why the groundwork is important. that’s why taking on a simple thing like term limits is important.
they convene nothing. they accept the action. that’s it
The language of the relevant Article says “shall call”. That is an active action, not a mere rubber stamp. Simply pointing out that they have no choice in the convening of the Convention does NOT automatically dictate who gets to decide the membership and qualifications of the delegates.
And, lo and behold, we have lawfully designated representatives from the States (Senate) and the People (House) already present, ready to go to work!
Because, FORWARD!
Meanwhile, Obama is caught in his lies.
“Use “Proggtardia” a few more times. That ought to convince us.”
dude the upside down former bird had nothing to do with “proggtardia”
In a like manner, Congress, for all any of us know, may announce that the convention the States called for will consist of emeritus Congress critters, presided over by Bill Clinton, if he’s still alive, or Barak Obama.
I don’t think that’s a likely outcome, for reasons I’ve already given myself. But I’m not prepared to discount the possibility. Nor am I prepared to abandon Levin’s proposal because we know that the Democrats and the Establicans will do what they can to subvert, suborn and thwart it.
““shall call”. That is an active action, not a mere rubber stamp. Simply pointing out that they have no choice in the convening of the Convention does NOT automatically dictate who gets to decide the membership and qualifications of the delegates.”
“active action”? no just means they issue paper recording that the action will proceed. why you h8te amendments 9 + 10
And if we hit the wall before any of Levin’s proposals get off the ground? They’re a great project for the rebuilding. Might as well lay the foundations while the sun shines. – See more at: https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=50567#comment-1010591
Rebuilding, after the bugs who are ruining us dance the wall splatter dance. I believe Dicentra sees what is the only way, sansamiracle, that we get there from here.
It oughtn’t to be that Levin would think (gisting here) “Hey! I’ve found within the Constitution the very means to reform the degeneration of the Constitution we have so long sought against these usurpers and progressive mountebanks”; to put this first crucial discovery in the pride of place at the head of a line of chapters; only then to discover a boiling crowd shouting at him “The very means you propose are solely designed to retain to the corrupt temporary politicians you seek to undo the powers to defeat your proposal before it even begins to take hold!”. And he hasn’t given this any consideration? Is he so stupid?
why you h8te amendments 9 + 10
I love them, but since they don’t apply, why do you keep clinging to them?
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
This is a power specifically and explicitly delegated to the United States Congress. Tenth Amendment negated. next?
“shall call”
let’s do this:
link
Congress shall call means the same thing as as the Secretary shall direct legally speaking.
In other words, just as Congress left it up to Sec HHS to figure out how to make the Affordable Care Act live up to its name, the Constitution leaves it up to Congress to figure out how to make a convention work, were a convention to be called.
The States may object, naturally, but their orders of battle aren’t much more robust than the Pope’s.
“This is a power specifically and explicitly delegated to the United States Congress.”
we have a language/knowledge prob.. you’re not worth discussing this topic anymore. hope you win the stapler!
The Leftists ache to remove the 2nd Amendment. Why wouldn’t they make that ‘their’ Convention High Calling? If this thing gets started, we might have less freedoms after than before. Why would ‘they’ allow us a weapon they couldn’t turn around on us?
Who sets the criteria for the permit that shall be issued or denied?
Hint: It’s not the person seeking the permit.
Okay, let’s take “shall issue” as our template for “shall call”. Who sets the “specific criteria” for attending”? (Protip: “Convening authority” isn’t just a cute phrase. It is the individual or group that directly appoints members to the assemblage.)
“Congress shall call means the same thing as as the Secretary shall direct legally speaking.”
if we get to that point we win. especially if the world they created is burning down.
you’re not worth discussing this topic anymore
Because I point out the black-letter flaw to your assertion? How dare I!!
*hurries off for ritual defenestration*
Why wouldn’t they make that ‘their’ Convention High Calling?
The political and gun grabbing left has frequently been asked to amend the Second Amendment to the Constitution, if this is their wish. They can proceed in Congress, or they can proceed through the States. But they do not. They have not. Wonder why that is? I don’t.
Serr8d, are the leftists strong enough in 34 States to repeal the 2nd?
For that matter, are we strong enough in 28 States to get Levin’s amendments a hearing?
” Who sets the “specific criteria” for attending””
i’ll play 1 more time: 9th, 10th. you see a “limited fed gov’t” does very little.
“Call” means to ask for something, permission perhaps; “shall” paves the way to action, and physical doing.
If the various States get to appoint convention delegates, then will they do so weighted by population, like the House, or set to a convenient integer, as is the Senate?
As some idiot suggested in the previous thread, we’ve got little to fear from any convention, no matter how stacked with
CaliforniansMexicans it might be. There’s nothing the Left wants that has any possiblity of passing the “3/4ths of the states” ratification process.Remember, they’re the guys that have to lie, cheat, and steal (and rely on a fellow-traveller news media) to get 52% of the vote. While it’s fairly easy to hide Horrible Leftist Things in a 2000 page pile of legislation (that on its surface is a Horrible Leftist Thing in the first place), it’s considerably trickier to sneak anything really juicy in the relatively pithy language of a Constitutional Amendment.
We saw through that whole ERA thing, despite their (lying) denials. Heck, even the loopiest ERA opponents couldn’t have imagined our current situation, and that was achieved without passing the wretched thing. (Which perhaps set off, or at least solidified, the Left’s “screw it, we’ll just ignore the damned thing, then” attitude to the Constitiution.)
A problem with population-proportional representation in this hypothetical Convention is that it will prevent ‘good’ ammendments from getting passed on to the states for ratification – effectively nullifying the direct effect of such an undertaking.
I still think the indirect effect of a Convention, or even a failed attempt at calling a Convention, would be quite useful regardless.
“Because I point out the black-letter flaw to your assertion? How dare I!!”
no i find you uninteresting like speaking with john cleese for 5 minutes
i’ll play 1 more time: 9th, 10th
Neither of which apply. supra. The “shall call” is directly aimed at Congress. Which makes it a power delegated to the United States, which EXPLICITLY negates the 10th.
The States get to petition and ratify. Nothing else appears in the Article.
Depends on how delegates are ‘weighted’, representing the States. If by population, we’re overrun by the same electoral college tank. The population is ‘Community Organized’ against us.
The 9th and 10th are like Axe products AND viagra rolled into one. Just thinking about all that potency makes me feel a little gay.
no i find you uninteresting like speaking with john cleese for 5 minutes
Ad hominems again? Do you actually have an argument backed by the actual text of the actual Constitution (since there is no relevant case law)?
“The “shall call” is directly aimed at Congress.”
pw a “language blog”:
link
ain’t much leeway there pal
I agree with John about the utility of the undertaking, but serr8d makes a good point about the composition of the convention.
I still think that if the movement succeeds in achieving critical mass (i.e. electing enough state legislators in enough states to petition for a convention), it will more likely achieve the desired outcome than not –without the need for a convention. The closer the movement gets to 3/4ths, the more likely that is.
“since there is no relevant case law”
yes proggtarded
“but serr8d makes a good point about the composition of the convention.”
the 1st place to do this is an “american” state. that’s why these details need to be reviewed early. you get a standard product( convention protocol et al) and go from there.
newrouter, Congress isn’t going to call a convention without making some provisions for what the convention is going to look like. Maybe those provisions will be favorable to the side of liberty, maybe those provisions will be favorable to the side of statism.
Nobody knows is the point.
At this point, even grasping at straws beats waiting for the bullets to start flying. Constitutional Convention Calling it shall be.
“since there is no relevant case law”
an unused section of the constitution needs “case law”? you win the stapler w/staples!!11!!
Summing up, the Federalist Papers are nice to read when attempting to divine the intentions of the text, but they are extra-legal, just like the DoI, and have no legal standing to override the “Law of the Land”.
The entirety of the language boils down to “Congress shall call”, and I am realist enough to suspect that the sitting Congress (made up of precisely the type of people whose influence we are trying to minimize, if not eliminate) will do EVERYTHING within their considerable power to attempt to usurp the membership, with an eye to controlling the output, hoping that the States will refuse to ratify the various poison-pill provisions built in, or even if they can work one all the way through 38 States, it will end up with something inimical to our collective interests, much like the 16th and 17th.
There is nothing in the language of the Constitution that says that States get ANY say in the process, other than ratification or refusal thereof, once the Convention has actually been called by Congress. Nothing that says Congress must accept any putative delegates, nothing that says the States get a veto over the membership, NOTHING. We can hope that the patriots invigorated by Levin’s call within the various State legislatures will do what they can, but since the relevant language MUST come from the Constitution (at the risk of voiding any attempts at amending for failure to “follow the process”), I don’t see it, and since it is something that is explicitly directed at the United States, the Tenth Amendment does NOT apply. (Nor would the Ninth, since it is actually addressing other issues.)
Good luck with that.
In both senses of the usage.
I’m willing to bet any provisions Congress makes will favor statism.
newrouter, you keep throwing insults, but no actual facts.
Put up or shut up.
” Congress isn’t going to call a convention without making some provisions for what the convention is going to look like.”
“shall issue – shall convene” it is out of their hands at that point. with 2/3rds of the states in agreement they be toast in effing with it. numbers game no?
It’s peculiar indeed when we are reduced to calling reference to the sovereignty of the people of the United States and the sovereignty of the States of the United States by the term grasping at straws, as though they are nothing but piffles. If these political concepts are no more than straws, then a conclusion has already been made, and nothing further is necessary. Tyranny it shall be.
If, on the other hand, these are not merely pretty names for old and musty doings, but powerfully substantive expressions of circumstances present today, then we’ve another situation altogether.
“newrouter, you keep throwing insults, but no actual facts.”
what exactly is your argument proggtardia?
Yeah, I thought not. Go fuck yourself.
Drumwaster, you envision a CC as but our existing Congress on steroids. If that’s so, I want some of what Levin’s not sharing…
‘Sovereign,’ like ‘love,’ means anything you want it to mean; it’s a word in the dictionary between ‘sober’ and ‘sozzled.’ — Robert A. Heinlein
That’s true of the process as a legal matter. As a political matter, my suspicion is that the membership of the Congress will be very different by the time the legislatures of 34 states are on board with the project.
Of course in the interim, the Congress will do all it can to see the baby strangled in the crib.
Most likely by nanny IRS. Or maybe Dr. ACA.
“Yeah, I thought not. Go fuck yourself.”
you go gal are you ofa or media matters? say hi to the boy king!!11!!
Well then, that must solve it. Heinlein, whoever he is, has spoken.
I’m not picturing it that way at all, but when both the means and the method are in the hands of the very people we are trying to get rid of, I want some sort of assurance that we aren’t simply wasting time, a la SQUIRREL!
Of course in the interim, the Congress will do all it can to see the baby strangled in the crib.
+100
“‘Sovereign,’ like ‘love,’ means anything you want it to mean; it’s a word in the dictionary between ‘sober’ and ‘sozzled.’ — Robert A. Heinlein”
do f=ma off a tall building dude!!11!!
you go gal are you ofa or media matters? say hi to the boy king!!11!!
All I’m getting is Charlie Brown’s teacher.
ENGLISH, muthafuka, DO YOU SPEAK IT?
“Tyranny it shall be.”
As was predicted, once the Treasury became the easiest mechanism for (re) electing Representatives.
Unknown and unknowable.
Kind of like how it must have been for the 1st and 2nd Continental Congresses.
I want some sort of assurance that we aren’t simply wasting time, a la Squirrel!
Ah, well, you’ll get nothing the like of an assurance from a blackguard by the name of Levin. He’s a renowned timewaster, that one.
” I want some sort of assurance that we aren’t simply wasting time, a la SQUIRREL!”
you are not useful to such an endeavor.
“Unknown and unknowable.”
at that point the effin’ visighoths are on the ramparts. geez war game it. you got 2/3 of the states attacking the “hive mind”
“shall issue – shall convene” it is out of their hands at that point.
Only as to the event of calling the convention. They MUST call one. Congrats.
There is nothing that says they lose control over it at that point, and Congress is, after all, the convening authority, with all the rights, privileges and authorities attached to that position.
Any man who can create from a microphone connected to thin air a national conversation that thwarts the powers-that-be is hardly wasting time. Giving us a straw worth grasping, Mark Levin.
I see it as a way to use the method as a means for getting rid of those people we want to be rid of.
Look at it this way, the Tea Party has no agenda beyond telling Washington to “leave us the fuck alone,” hopefully by electing people who will be pleased to do so. This is a way to give the Tea Party an agenda that can actually make Washington do what the Tea Party wants. It’s a program for action that people can rally around. The very thing the Establishment Megaminds (I’m looking at you, Karl. And you too, Newton) tell us the Republicans need to do more of if they want support. Only in this case, it’s not the less fillinig, but still tastes great! version of Statism that the Republicans have been trying to triangulate their way back into power with.
At least that’s my hope.
Giving us a straw worth grasping, Mark Levin.
Just a guess, but he might say “Get it yourself, ya lazy bum.”
“There is nothing that says they lose control over it at that point, and Congress is, after all, the convening authority,”
no they are not.
link
your proggtard world is spinning out of your control
I’m buying his book. That’s a start.
I think that language that is very similar might yield insights.
Picture it as an annual stockholder’s meeting. That the Board SHALL convene such a meeting in accordance with specifications set out in the legally controlling documentation doesn’t mean that the members of the board (and especially the chair/CEO) lose any authority over the meeting and ability to define the qualifications for attending.
no they are not.
Whereupon you post language that proves that they ARE. “Congress shall call a convention” means that Congress is the convening authority. Just because they have no choice in the matter doesn’t take that away from them.
Try to get any other body to convene such a meeting and see where that gets you.
” That the Board SHALL convene ”
sophistry you win the stapler w/staples
Newrouter,* call means convene.
*Or should I call you Crazy Lee?
You can read the first chapter in pdf. at Levin’s invitation.
““Congress shall call a convention” means that Congress is the convening authority”
they don’t “call” proggtard, they confirm the constitutional process.
con·vene
verb \k?n-?v?n\
con·venedcon·ven·ing
Definition of CONVENE
intransitive verb
: to come together in a body
transitive verb
1
: to summon before a tribunal
2
: to cause to assemble
— con·ven·er or con·ve·nor noun
See convene defined for English-language learners »
See convene defined for kids »
Examples of CONVENE
We convened at the hotel for a seminar.
This class convenes twice a week.
A panel of investigators was convened by the president to review the case.
Origin of CONVENE
Middle English, from Medieval Latin convenire, from Latin, to assemble — more at convenient
First Known Use: 15th century
Related to CONVENE
Synonyms
assemble, call, convoke, muster, summon
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/convene
I’m sorry, but the fact you don’t understand the analogy doesn’t make it sophistry.
Show me one other single instance where “call” means “confirm”. If you can.
When you find that you can’t, try and learn from this.
Thanks, Ernst.
Thank you for that, sdferr. I shall do so at the earliest opportunity.
Probably next Monday.
” call means convene. ”
>Definition of CALL
intransitive verb
1
a : to speak in a loud distinct voice so as to be heard at a distance : shout
b : to make a request or demand
c of an animal : to utter a characteristic note or cry
d : to get or try to get into communication by telephone —often used with up
e : to make a demand in card games (as for a particular card or for a show of hands)
f : to give the calls for a square dance
2
: to make a brief visit <
yea right
Now that’s sophistry.
Of course you’d have to dress it up better than that for it to really work as such.
did you miss the “synonym” bit at the bottom of “Convene”? :) I even bolded it for you, since I knew you would miss it the first two times.
Oh, and I missed the word “confirm” in your laughable counter-example. Anywhere in there.
Still waiting.
“con·vene”
find that in the us constitution about this particular case pal?
Among others, not picking on you in particular Ernst
Seems to be needed here too.
34, (2/3) of State legislatures to call for the amendment convention.
38, (3/4) of either the State legislatures or State conventions (called for the specific purpose of ratifying) to approve (ratify) the amendments that come from the convention.
Congress gets to decide whether it is to be State legislatures or State conventions which get to ratify the proposed amendments.
I’m wondering if a community organizing Party might think they can influence, threaten-bully, conventions at a State level well enough to get some radical changes through and so would be for calling for the Federal level convention and State ones to do the ratifying?
See also “synonym”.
Still waiting for yours. Exeunt omnes, chortling.
It might be thought that the example of the original Constitutional Convention would be a guide as to the way that the delegates were to be chosen and how the votes would be counted at the convention. I’m sure the original documents on how it was done still exist.
I kind of agree, geoff, but (as others are so fond of pointing out, usually in ALL CAPS), this isn’t a constitutional convention. There simply isn’t any precedent for something like this.
“Oh, and I missed the word “confirm” in your laughable counter-example. Anywhere in there.
Still waiting”
the congress “calls”(: to speak in a loud distinct voice so as to be heard at a distance : shout
b : to make a request or demand ) for a convention the states put said convention together through 9th/10th. ( arguing federalism with a proggtard/idiot)
What would you rather read? …shall convene a Convention…, or … shallcall a Convention…?
“34, (2/3) of State legislatures to call for the amendment convention.
38, (3/4) of either the State legislatures or State conventions (called for the specific purpose of ratifying) to approve (ratify) the amendments that come from the convention.
Congress gets to decide whether it is to be State legislatures or State conventions which get to ratify the proposed amendments.”
no they don’t
>The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, 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,<
link
there’s a freak 9 + 10 for a reason
If I was good at math, you think I’d be in the middle of this circle jerk of mental masturbation Geoff?
Thank you for correcting my error.
“shallcall a Convention”
it means that a threshold has been met and the procedure can continue not that baracky/rove care about such sh*t.
Did you miss how the 9th/10th Amendments don’t apply to this instance? I can only assume that it is deliberate.
And since “call” IS a synonym (which I also happened to mention) for “convene”, when Congress issues the order that causes them to assemble (see “Convene” above), they become the convening authority.
Anything else you wish to deliberately misunderstand?
Sigh. There’s not been a ‘proggtard’ hereabouts since Professor Catplucker was ushered out by his lute strings.
there’s a freak 9 + 10 for a reason
THEY DON’T APPLY. The authority to call the Convention is SPECIFICALLY DELEGATED to the United States Congress, and whether it is an option or not is irrelevant, just like the Presidential Oath of Office. The President is the one who SHALL take an oath, not any of the States, your fapping to the framed copy of the 9th and 10th Amendments notwithstanding.
these aholes are the problem why do keep deferring to them when we can attack them from a new direction? effing montgomery the lot
AS THE ONE OR THE OTHER MODE OF RATIFICATION MAY BE PROPOSED BY THE [FUCKING] *CONGRESS*[!!!]
Is the part you left off newrouter.
He said as gently as he could.
” SPECIFICALLY DELEGATED to the United States Congress”
no it is not proggtard. and just repeating it doesn’t make so. oh how much is media matters for america pay per post?
June 11, 1787, Notes of Debates etc.:
*** Resolution 13, for amending the national Constitution hereafter without consent of Natl. Legislature being considered, several members did not see the necessity of the Resolution at all, nor the propriety of making the consent of the Natl. Legisl. unnecessary.
Col. Mason urged the necessity of such a provision. The plan now to be
formed will certainly be defective, as the Confederation has been found on trial to be. Amendments therefore will be necessary, and it will be better to provide for them, in an easy, regular and Constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence. It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account. The opportunity for such an abuse, may be the fault of the Constitution calling for amendmt.
Mr. Randolph enforced these arguments. The words, “without requiring the consent of the Natl. Legislature” were postponed. The other provision in the clause passed nem. con. ***
” your fapping to the framed copy of the 9th and 10th Amendments notwithstanding.”
proggtardia is offended by a rodeo clown. hi nsa
If Congress isn’t the convening authority, then whom?
no it is not proggtard.
Yes, it is. Quoting again (I know how facts disrupt your day, but you really need to know what you are talking about, thus this lesson):
“The Congress, … shall call a Convention….”
Black letter law. Congress is the one directed to do something, and that eliminates any of the States having a claim to the authority. Just like making treaties or coining money, the States don’t have that power. Period.
is there a way to find “drumwasters” ip? does it go to the irs or think progress?
It also seems to be generally agreed that the States when calling for the convention have to say in the call, and all 34 say they same, what, in general, amendments they are calling for.
This section is good too.
MMFA is busy elsewhere. Paying fugly catladies to run #StopRush on monies donated by millionaire Leftists, tax deductible, because they have a 501(c)3.
After Limbaugh, there’ll be a #StopLevin.
Well, it’s late, is all I can say for my bad writing above.
“Black letter law. Congress is the one directed to do something, and that eliminates any of the States having a claim to the authority”
keep going proggtard i see you got the statism down pat. isn’t “black law” racist?
” the scholarly consensus is that states do have that power.”
eff the “scholars” let us have a knock out drag out fight now.
Ah, so quoting the actual constitution when discussing the constitution is “statism” now?
Are you always this stupid, or only on days ending in ‘Y’?
“black letter law” like ” black ice ” racist?
“Ah, so quoting the actual constitution when discussing the constitution is “statism” now?”
is it 5 pounds for another 10 minutes?
So now I’m a racist? LOLOLOLOLOL
Run along, youngster, grups are talking.
Sdferr, that just means Congress can’t refuse to call a convention, not that they can’t direct the manner in which the convention is to be held or what the qualifications and membership for the delegations of the several States at the same time that they’re directing the time and the place for the convention to be held.
Mississippi’s got something for you, nr.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061619/trivia?item=tr0775526
“not that they can’t direct the manner in which the convention is to be held or what the qualifications and membership for the delegations of the several States at the same time that they’re directing the time and the place for the convention to be held.”
now where is THAT in the constitution. congress has LIMITED powers.
“Mississippi’s got something for you, nr”
it is more fun if you stay on topic.
your “congress” center america appalls me
effin reid, mcconnell, pelosi, orangeman. really!!11!!
now where is THAT in the constitution
Article I, Section 8, to wit:
“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
Next!
. . . that just means Congress can’t refuse to call a convention, not that they can’t direct the manner in which the convention is to be held or what the qualifications and membership for the delegations of the several States at the same time that they’re directing the time and the place for the convention to be held.
I make no claim to provide any assertion attached to the citation Ernst, though I’m happy to have the instruction, (and though it seems to me worthwhile to note the importance lain against the abuse of power there), but only to begin to lay out such discussion of the provision in the Notes as I come upon them. I’m still working the gathering of citations, perhaps needless to say.
“It is more fun if you stay sober and stay on topic.”
FTFTR
“It is more fun if you stay sober and stay on topic.”
well make an argument and not a drive by. there’s this dope who says:
>“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”<
really and that relates to art. V const. amend how?
” not that they can’t direct the manner in which the convention is to be held or what the qualifications and membership for the delegations of the several States at the same time that they’re directing the time and the place for the convention to be held.”
their powers to do so are where in the us constitution exactly?
And we all know how reticent Congress has been when using the “necessary and proper” clause. (aka the Elastic Clause, the Basket Clause, the Coefficient Clause, and the Sweeping Clause)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause
It also helps to be somewhat conversant with the topic you’re trying to stay on. That way, it’s fun for everybody.
” not that they can’t direct the manner in which the convention is to be held or what the qualifications and membership for the delegations of the several States at the same time that they’re directing the time and the place for the convention to be held.”
you got a dc attitude. no that is not how it works.
“And we all know how reticent Congress has been when using the “necessary and proper” clause. (aka the Elastic Clause, the Basket Clause, the Coefficient Clause, and the Sweeping Clause)”
sure bring up sumthing ot clown. is $10 or $15 a post clown?
really and that relates to art. V const. amend how?
See the part that was bolded? I’ll trim off the unnecessary verbiage for you, since you are so clearly thinking-impaired.
The Congress shall have Power – To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution … all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States.
Since one of the powers Congress is specifically given is to “call the convention”, that means they have the authority to pass any laws they decide are “necessary and proper” to the calling of such convention, and the court is quite likely to back them up if anyone gripes.
“Since one of the powers Congress is specifically given is to “call the convention”, that means they have the authority to pass any laws they decide are “necessary and proper” to the calling of such convention, and the court is quite likely to back them up if anyone gripes.”
proggtardia rolls boys
Note the “shall have power”, too. This is NOT NEGOTIABLE, by your own argument.
proggtardia rolls boys
Do women point when they laugh at you?
Anyone sane disagree with me?
” That way, it’s fun for everybody.”
sure little used section of the us const. we need experts and case law. and you are one or the other?
“Anyone sane disagree with me?”
commies do that schtick. clown.
“Anyone sane disagree with me?”
no i like your obama mask though. how are the bulls doing?
I said “sane”, moron. Run along.
Drumwaster already told you the answer to that. The Power to call a Convention for the purpose of amending the Consitution is a power vested in the Government of the United States. Specifically, in the Congress. Congress therefore has the power to make the law(s) necessary and proper for the carrying out of the aforementioned convention, including but not limited to, the where and the when and the who and the how many, and the how they go about doing what it is they’re there to do.
Once the convention meets, the delegates, may decide they’re going to conduct business the way they see fit, rather than according to how Congress instructed them to proceed, particularly if Congress is heavy handed in its instructions. But there’s no way to know what’s going to happen. The map ends with the calling of a convention. Everything after is largely uncharted waters. Although, as Geoff pointed out, there are some old sailor’s stories that may provide some guidance.
“. Congress therefore has the power to make the law(s) necessary and proper for the carrying out of the aforementioned convention,”
please a constitutional citation. seems the 9 / 10 apply. dc centric no?
And to add what Ernst said, all they would have to do is include something about “attempting to improve interstate commerce through tourism” (since 49 States would be sending people to the 50th, and they gotta eat), and it would be bullet-proof as far as the courts go.
ernst webe trying to get away from dc you be keep trying to drag us back.
What, of any worth, is to be found in these discussions?
Will Athena sprout from nr’s head?
please a constitutional citation. seems the 9 / 10 apply.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause
“The Congress shall have Power – To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
The 9th and 10th Amendments DO NOT APPLY. GET OVER IT.
“And to add what Ernst said, all they would have to do is include something about “attempting to improve interstate commerce through tourism” (since 49 States would be sending people to the 50th, and they gotta eat), and it would be bullet-proof as far as the courts go.”
who sent you?
Not with your legal interpretation. But I’m not as persuaded that the effort is either as fruitless or as bound to end in disaster for our side as you seem to be. Assuming of course that I’m not overreading your line of reasoning.
The popular thresholds are so high here that I think if Congress tried to fuck with the convention, and was seen as fucking with it the consequences for that Congress would be overwhelming at the next election.
But all that means, as we both already know, is that all the fucking will happen before things are allowed to get that far.
War to the knife, the knife to the hilt indeed.
Right Mr. President?
“The 9th and 10th Amendments DO NOT APPLY. GET OVER IT.”
which commie sent you axeldude or jarret. hi nsa!!11!!
Thanks for dropping in bh. Hows the life of a restaraunteur these day?
>the Charter a whole set of slanders,
distortions, abuse, half-truths and absolute falsehoods which all
represent the dismal range of their capacity. Ispeak from experience
as one who has been a favourite target for their sort of behaviour for
the past thirty years, and who could well lay claim to the laurels of
seniority and worthy service. Though the powers that be may not
know it, or rather, would sooner not know it, nay, cannot afford to
know it (for where else would they find more obedient, unscrupulous
and servile creatures), the media are the principal, albeit
unintentional, creators and encouragers of opposition, since they
are totaJIy suspect and nobody believes them. People almost automatically
take for gospel the opposite of what the papers say. Once
all-powerful, the media were capable of pointing the finger that
condemned people to death. As they lost all credibility they also lost
some of their power, and at the very least were obliged to change
their methods, if not their ends. Nowadays, they do not directly fix
the noose around people’s necks, but they do endeavour to destroy
their honour and slay them with a hail of repeated slanders and lies,<
>Will Athena sprout from nr’s head?<
i'm trying some sous vide steaks tomorrow. the rest i don't care about anymore. i tried but wound up with a stapler
newrouter, the way we get away from D.C. is to make it so that D.C. wants to get away from us.
I’m probably giving away the game here, but who says the bad guys get to do all the rope-a-dope?
Better with some properties than others, pretty much. Mainly I just wake up and work and repeat. I’m not so introspective or generally concerned anymore.
…and even if they do, I dare quote the immortal Jayne Cobb: “Let’s be bad guys.”
The one good thing is that an amendment that survives ratification is beyond the power of the Oval Office to either confirm or veto.
No matter who the President is by the time things roll to a close.
“newrouter, the way we get away from D.C. is to make it so that D.C. wants to get away from us.”
well the “drumwaster” doesn’t offer much of that. and dc wants us like a stalin on steroids.
“No matter who the President is by the time things roll to a close.”
the evil mind of proggtardia spake.
Call me a racist again, that was funny…
That’s what happens when you play with tools.
“Call me a racist again, that was funny…”
nah over propagandized fool with a hive mind. proggtardia awaits.
“That’s what happens when you play with tools.”
but the stapler the stapler works for pikachus.
Wa-wan-WHAN-wawa-WAN.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss2hULhXf04
(Use the degree of nasality needed to achieve the desired level of humor.)
“Call me a racist again, that was funny…”
nay i’ll call the proggtard left a bunch a racist assholes. you are on that team?
newrouter, (Or Crazy Lee, I should say) Drumwaster is the guy trying to tell you that if the Bunch has to shoot its way out of town, you might not want to be the guy left behind guarding the hostages. And all you care to know about is when you get to kill ’em.
Not everybody who shits on you is your enemy.
” Drumwaster is the guy trying to tell you that if the Bunch has to shoot its way out of town, you ”
he is a troll you agree with because the us constitution especially 9 + 10 mean shit to you. you folks go grab your cankles!!11!!
This Crazy Lee stuff is beyond me.
If there is a good story to tell, I’d like to hear it.
” Drumwaster is the guy trying to tell you”
really ernst are you that dumb?
Drumwaster isn’t a troll, nr. He’s old school. Older than myself.
“If there is a good story to tell, I’d like to hear it.”
the 9/10 don’t matter. effin staunch i say.
” Older than myself.”
alger hiss is old too
“Drumwaster isn’t a troll”
swear to god hope you die time? the idiot suxs especially with 9/10. effin’ “congress” don’t rule. eff pelosi/orangeman
“. He’s old school. Older than myself.”
yea truman/fdr commie. diane west call your office.
Here’s another thing you could say:
“Yeah, you’re right. He’s not a troll. I’m just frustrated because the point I’m trying to express isn’t gaining purchase.”
It’s not a big deal. It happens.
Crazy Lee.
Thanks, Geoff.
“It’s not a big deal. It happens.”
what that ” drumwaster” thinks the 9/10 of the constitution doesn’t apply to article V conventions or that you jumped in and didn’t read the stupid exchange he was promoting? good luck in your endeavors.
I make a brilliant Wild Bunch reference, and bh misses it?
Damn it man! I thought I knew you.
And newrouter’s point isn’t getting through, because in this case, his “point” doesn’t apply.
If Congress isn’t the convening authority, then whom is? The State? If that’s the case, why do they need to apply to Congress? Why can’t Virginia just propose a convention be held on such and such a date, and if 34 states send delegations, they have a convention?
Congress ought to leave the selection of the delegates up to the States, just as it ought to leave the manner in which the convention conducts it’s business up to the convention. Congress isn’t obliged to do either.
What Drumwaster is saying is that we ought not go rushing into the heat of the day. What Drumwaster is saying is that we need to be like Ruskies and have a plan before we take our dump on the Statists.
That’s it for my movie quote mash-ups.
Nite.
I’m not sure why you’d put quotation marks around “drumwaster” when your own handle is of a newer vintage.
I’m not sure why you’d think I’d need to study this exchange for a long period of time.
I’m not sure why you think I’m… slow.
(Honestly, I was a bit concerned that our Lee was Crazy Lee and that I had missed out on some bit of the pw canon.)
One thing to ponder is that as of 1993 45 States have, over the years, called for Congress to convene an unlimited Amendment convention. 45 that have never recinded their call. And yet whenever this is brought up to mean that Congress shall call a convention, that has not been done by Congress and the courts have rejected attempts to force Congress to do so.
This is held to mean that those bodies, Congress and the courts, think that the 34 States have to agree on just what is to be the type of amendment[s] that the convention will consider or else Congress will not call a convention and the courts will side with Congress in that.
That is for that part. No one thinks that a convention once called will have to heed any limits but what they can get 38 States to ratify. Which is why whenever they have come close Congress itself has then proposed amendments of the type called for or legislation that covered the same ground.
If one were to look at the original intent of this whole alternative amendment process – I know, crazy-talk, particularly here of all places – it was so that the States could do some amendmofyin’ counter the desires of an entrenched, semi-tyrannical Federal Government. Like that could ever happen!
Given that, it seems ludicrous to me to assume that the Founders would have been thinking “well, the states have the power to force the Congress to do a thing that it doesn’t want to do, but obviously Congress shall have complete say over how said thing will be run, who’s gets to be there, and who counts the votes.”
I’d suggest that, in keeping with Federalism (which was the style at the time, along with wearing an onion on your belt), the founder-folk’s use of “shall call a Convention” is not something along the lines of “will book the hotel, hire the caterer and the a/v company, and appoint Undersecretary Prissypants to chair the proceedings.” The states don’t need that ‘help’ from a Congress that they’re trying to work around in the first place. I’d think the Founders had a decidedly more hands-off view of this whole Convention-calling business, more along the lines of acknowledging and recognizing the existence of same, maybe suggesting when/where to hold it, but not actually running the damned thing. Let the States work out the actual nuts-and-bolts of the thing among themselves; it’s more or less the point of the entire exercise after all. If the States can’t be entrusted to run the Convention without the firm hand of a benevolent ruling class, clearly they’ve got no business amending the Constitution in the first place.
Not that such a quaint notion as “what they probably meant” will have any bearing over what our Keen Legal Minds will do with the words in question. I hear the really good ones can make an entire clause dance on the head of a pin…
—
That said, in a country so evenly divided that a 10-pt victory in a national election would be considered a landslide, a 67%-33% demand for a Convention is such a massive and threatening Angry Mob of States (which, unlike ‘the people’, actually have some real power), that there’s no way the Spineless Weasels that comprise the majority of both parties in Congress would dare thwart the process. You don’t get to be Senator for Life without being able to tell which way the wind is blowing… and then moving in that direction even faster, so it looks like you’re ‘leading’.
I think you’re partly correct. I think it likely the only intention the Framer’s had was to make sure a recalcitrant Congress couldn’t bottle up the States indefinitely. Had the Framers intended for the States to control the convention process, they wouldn’t have written in the part about Applying to Congress for a Convention in the first place.
So while I agree with you that the Framer’s probably didn’t envision Congress running the Convention, they did envision Congress writing the rules under which a convention would meet, with the probably understanding that once called to order, the first item on the agenda would be setting their own rules under which they would meet and act.
We have this tendency to forget that all “Limited Powers” means is that the Federal Government isn’t an Absolute Power –one Absolute Despot in Three Persons, Blessed Checks and Balances!– so to (impiously) speak.
The primary goal of the Framers was to make sure the Federal Government could overawe the State governments, because Madison et. al. believed it was the government of Massachussetts. or Virginia, or New York, that would prove likely to be oppressive of the rights of the citizens thereof, and thus the need for a vehicle to protect the people of the states from their own governments. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to them, other than theoretically, that the Federal Government would seek to oppress the peoples of all the States –probably because they couldn’t envision the means for accomplishing that oppression.
The primary goal of the Framers was to make sure the Federal Government could overawe the State governments . . .
Well, let’s see what one of them puts down in writing as to their aim.
If I may be permitted a comment on that, it looks very much like the most exquisitely judicious balancing act I’ve ever seen, even while acknowledged to be potentially faulty. The rock on which everything is built, however — the “low and solid ground”, to quote a statesman — is the people.