Convention of States

Tidewater · Feb 10, 2016

In the Virginia House of Delegates, a bill is working its way through the process to call for a Convention of States.

Applying to the Congress of the United States to call an amendment convention of the states pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution limited to proposing amendments to the United States Constitution that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.

The Subcommittee vote is tomorrow morning.

It would be entertaining if enough states called for such a convention to force Congress to act. Once Congress designates the time and place for the meeting of the convention, the Federal role in the process is over. The states will take it from there and tell the general government what they are allowed to do. The delegates will draft amendments pursuant to the guidance and orders of their state legislature, and then the state legislatures will debate the constitutional amendments. If the Federal government does not like it, tough. Their only options would be to comply or declare war against the Constitution and the states.
It will be entertaining to watch Democrats soil themselves once they realize the states are about to put and end to the gravy train on which they, as a party, subsist.

mittman · Feb 10, 2016

Tidewater said:
In the Virginia House of Delegates, a bill is working its way through the process to call for a Convention of States.

The Subcommittee vote is tomorrow morning.

It would be entertaining if enough states called for such a convention to force Congress to act. Once Congress designates the time and place for the meeting of the convention, the Federal role in the process is over. The states will take it from there and tell the general government what they are allowed to do. The delegates will draft amendments pursuant to the guidance and orders of their state legislature, and then the state legislatures will debate the constitutional amendments. If the Federal government does not like it, tough. Their only options would be to comply or declare war against the Constitution and the states.
It will be entertaining to watch Democrats soil themselves once they realize the states are about to put and end to the gravy train on which they, as a party, subsist.

I like, but I'll not be holding my breath.

skrayper77 · Feb 10, 2016

Tidewater said:
In the Virginia House of Delegates, a bill is working its way through the process to call for a Convention of States.

The Subcommittee vote is tomorrow morning.

It would be entertaining if enough states called for such a convention to force Congress to act. Once Congress designates the time and place for the meeting of the convention, the Federal role in the process is over. The states will take it from there and tell the general government what they are allowed to do. The delegates will draft amendments pursuant to the guidance and orders of their state legislature, and then the state legislatures will debate the constitutional amendments. If the Federal government does not like it, tough. Their only options would be to comply or declare war against the Constitution and the states.
It will be entertaining to watch Democrats soil themselves once they realize the states are about to put and end to the gravy train on which they, as a party, subsist.

It's amusing that you think those things apply solely to Democrats.

Tidewater · Feb 10, 2016

mittman said:
I like, but I'll not be holding my breath.

Since the locus of action is in the states, not the Federal government. In fact, the only Federal role is for Congress to decide that the requisite number of state legislatures have called for an Article V Convention, then designate the time and place for the meeting. At that point, the Federal government is through with the process. It will be entertaining to see what procedural stumbling blocks the DC establishment will try to throw in the way.

Tidewater · Feb 10, 2016

skrayper77 said:
It's amusing that you think those things apply solely to Democrats.

Maybe.
There is no party of the Democrat party platform or policy agenda that is not based in some way on taking money from one group of people and giving it to some other group. That is the soul of the party today.

There are a lot of Republicans who operate on the same concept, but there is a sizable art of the Republican party that seeks to leave people (and their property) alone and get out of their way. I honestly do not see any portion of the Democrat party today that embraces that as an ideal. Could you provide an example to enlighten me?

Tidewater · Feb 10, 2016

BamainBoston said:
I question why anyone would support this. It's one thing to get together on an amendment and push it, but a convention of the states, with this generation, is insanity.

I believe the current national trajectory is insanity (particularly the ever-expanding breadth of Federal powers, and the Federal debt).
The Virginia bill would make it a Class V felony for the delegate(s) to deviate from their instructions (which are to limit discussion to these three areas: Federal fiscal restraint, Federal constitutional restraint and term limits). I cannot speak for other states' bills.

Jon · Feb 10, 2016

Tidewater said:
There are a lot of Republicans who operate on the same concept, but there is a sizable art of the Republican party that seeks to leave people (and their property) alone and get out of their way. I honestly do not see any portion of the Democrat party today that embraces that as an ideal. Could you provide an example to enlighten me?

sure as long as they are white, christian and straight. Everyone else can just f-off as far as the gop is concerned

skrayper77 · Feb 10, 2016

There are a lot of Republicans who operate on the same concept, but there is a sizable art of the Republican party that seeks to leave people (and their property) alone and get out of their way.

The Republican party does not believe in leaving PEOPLE alone. Property, perhaps, but not people. Republicans are much more likely to legislate their own morality upon people (who you can marry, what drugs you can use in the privacy of your own home, etc) while Democrats are more likely to legislate their own morality upon property and wealth (where your money is better spent, etc). Both parties are very egregious in the sin of "I know better than you."

Tidewater · Feb 10, 2016

skrayper77 said:
The Republican party does not believe in leaving PEOPLE alone. Property, perhaps, but not people. Republicans are much more likely to legislate their own morality upon people (who you can marry, what drugs you can use in the privacy of your own home, etc) while Democrats are more likely to legislate their own morality upon property and wealth (where your money is better spent, etc). Both parties are very egregious in the sin of "I know better than you."

In which case, we would do well to restrain the DC elites of both parties, I suppose, which is, I suppose the point of this.
I just think if you removed the ability of DC to take money form one person and give it to another more favored one, there would not be much left of the Democrat party's policy agenda, but there would be something left of the Republicans' agenda.
Maybe if that happened, the Democrats would go back to being the party of Grover Cleveland, which would not be all bad.

Jon · Feb 10, 2016

Tidewater said:
In which case, we would do well to restrain the DC elites of both parties, I suppose, which is, I suppose the point of this.
I just think if you removed the ability of DC to take money form one person and give it to another more favored one, there would not be much left of the Democrat party's policy agenda, but there would be something left of the Republicans' agenda.
Maybe if that happened, the Democrats would go back to being the party of Grover Cleveland, which would not be all bad.

this is far, far from an "elite" problem

the bases of both parties want the same things, its only the reasons that differ

Tidewater · Feb 10, 2016

Tennessee became the fifth state to call for a Convention of States last week.
Consolidationists and DC elites have got to hate this.
Joint Resolution SJR0067

Tennessee said:
limited to proposing amendments to the United States Constitution that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.

Tidewater · Feb 10, 2016

Jon said:
this is far, far from an "elite" problem

the bases of both parties want the same things, its only the reasons that differ

You may not have spent much time in DC. Besides maybe New Yorkers, there is not a more self-centered city in the country. Maybe the world.
Most people in DC see themselves as inherently better than the people they ostensibly serve in the rest of the country.
If this succeeds, it will take a lot of power away form the folks in DC, and I guess they are not going to like that much.

crimsonaudio · Feb 10, 2016

BamainBoston said:
I question why anyone would support this. It's one thing to get together on an amendment and push it, but a convention of the states, with this generation, is insanity.

An Article V Convention is simply another way to get an amendment the US Constitution passed - not the same thing as a Constitutional Convention (which is what I assume you're thinking). All 34+ states would have to submit a similarly worded amendment.

Jon · Feb 10, 2016

Tidewater said:
You may not have spent much time in DC. Besides maybe New Yorkers, there is not a more self-centered city in the country. Maybe the world.
Most people in DC see themselves as inherently better than the people they ostensibly serve in the rest of the country.
If this succeeds, it will take a lot of power away form the folks in DC, and I guess they are not going to like that much.

I've spent a great deal of time working in DC over my career I know what they are about. My point is that while the elites of both parties are a problem its their bases that allow them to be and applaud them while they do it

bamacon · Feb 10, 2016

BamainBoston said:
I question why anyone would support this. It's one thing to get together on an amendment and push it, but a convention of the states, with this generation, is insanity.

Why?

dvldog · Feb 10, 2016

Would it be held south of the Mason-Dixon Line?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bamacon · Feb 10, 2016

crimsonaudio said:
An Article V Convention is simply another way to get an amendment the US Constitution passed - not the same thing as a Constitutional Convention (which is what I assume you're thinking). All 34+ states would have to submit a similarly worded amendment.

And they control what is even debated and essentially the outcome. There can be no "runaway convention" which is ALWAYS the knee jerk response people have who have NO IDEA what a Convention of the States is. It's brilliant and it is probably our only hope of curbing the federal behemoth. It was the framers "kill switch" when elections no longer matter and the demands of the people are wholly ignored by Washington.

bamacon · Feb 10, 2016

Jon said:
I've spent a great deal of time working in DC over my career I know what they are about. My point is that while the elites of both parties are a problem its their bases that allow them to be and applaud them while they do it

While I don't agree with Bernie he is exposing the Dems for the frauds their party is just like the Repubs have done themselves concerning the GOP. Resentment at the party infrastructure and politics as usually is high on both sides and I for one am loving it.

Tidewater · Feb 10, 2016

Jon said:
I've spent a great deal of time working in DC over my career I know what they are about. My point is that while the elites of both parties are a problem its their bases that allow them to be and applaud them while they do it

That I would agree with.
But that still is not a reason to remove power from Washington.
In my view, it is all the more reason to remove power from Washington. Let the elites bloviate all they want about "Boy, if I had the power I'd (insert obnoxious extreme position here). But, goshdarnit, they won't let me."

Tidewater · Feb 10, 2016

BamainBoston said:
I mean, we've had one convention of the states. And it led to a runaway convention and something called the Constitution. There is no constitutional way to prevent delegates from proposing amendments once they get there. You can try and make it a felony, but that felony itself would run afoul of the First Amendment. Moreover, the calls I have seen don't propose an amendment; they propose a purpose for the convention, like to aid fiscal restraint. That's all well and good, but we all know that states like California and New York would have their call include universal health care, education, and puppies for all.

And if they could convince 38 state legislatures to adopt universal health care, they'd be in good shape.
That ain't likely, though.

Convention of States

Hall of Fame

All-American

All-American

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

All-American

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Administrator

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!