100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: Constitutional Convention in the near future? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
boredinaz06
on
Wed 04/02/14 04:42 PM
|
|
WASHINGTON Momentum is building behind what would be an unprecedented effort to amend the U.S. Constitution, through a little-known provision that gives states rather than Congress the power to initiate changes.
At issue is what's known as a "constitutional convention," a scenario tucked into Article V of the U.S. Constitution. At its core, Article V provides two ways for amendments to be proposed. The first which has been used for all 27 amendment to date�� requires two-thirds of both the House and Senate to approve a resolution, before sending it to the states for ratification. The Founding Fathers, though, devised an alternative way which says if two-thirds of state legislatures demand a meeting, Congress shall call a convention for proposing amendments. The idea has gained popularity among constitutional scholars in recent years -- but got a big boost last week when Michigan lawmakers endorsed it. Michigan matters, because by some counts it was the 34th state to do so. That makes two-thirds. In the wake of the vote, California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter pressed House Speaker John Boehner on Tuesday to determine whether the states just crossed the threshold for this kind of convention. Like Michigan lawmakers, Hunter's interest in the matter stems from a desire to push a balanced-budget amendment -- something that could potentially be done at a constitutional convention. ��Based on several reports and opinions, Michigan might be the 34th state to issue such a call and therefore presents the constitutionally-required number of states to begin the process of achieving a balanced budget amendment,�� Hunter wrote. With the recent decision by Michigan lawmakers, it is important that the House and those of us who support a balanced budget amendment -- determine whether the necessary number of states have acted and the appropriate role of Congress should this be the case." If two-thirds of the states indeed have applied, the ball is presumably in Congress' court to call the convention. But Article V is rather vague, and it's ultimately unclear whether 34 states have technically applied. In the past, states like Oregon, Utah and Arizona have quietly voted to approve the provision in their legislature. But some of the 34 or so have rescinded their requests. Others have rescinded, and then re-applied. Alabama rescinded its request in 1988 but in 2011, lawmakers again applied for a convention related to an amendment requiring that the federal budget be balanced. It was a similar story in Florida in 2010. Louisiana rescinded in 1990 but lawmakers have tried several times, unsuccessfully, to reinstate the application since then. It's unclear whether the applications still count in these scenarios. Some constitutional scholars like Gregory Watson, an analyst in Texas, say once states ask, there may be no take-backs. “There is a disagreement among scholars as to whether a state that has approved an application may later rescind that application, Watson told The Washington Times. If it is ultimately adjudicated that a state may not rescind a prior application, then Ohio's 2013 application for a Balanced Budget Amendment convention would be the 33rd and Michigan's 2014 application would be the 34th on that topic. Others say if a state changes its mind, it can no longer be part of the 34. Even if the requisite number of states have applied, questions remain about how such a convention would work -- and whether, as Michigan wants, such a convention could be limited to only discussing a balanced-budget amendment. It still may be a long shot, but some analysts are warning about the unintended consequences of such a move. In Louisiana, Budget Project Policy Analyst Steve Spire argued against the state's resolution, saying the convention could permanently damage the nation'��s political system. The last time there was a successful amendment was more than four decades ago the 26th Amendment which changed the voting age to 18. States ratified the 27th Amendment on congressional pay increases, but it took more than 200 years to do it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Little known, just how do you think the current constitution was written, do you have a clue?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Little known, just how do you think the current constitution was written, do you have a clue? No one has a clue.. You are the only constitutional expert in the world.. Please share your infinite knowledge on the subject.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Little known, just how do you think the current constitution was written, do you have a clue? No one has a clue.. You are the only constitutional expert in the world.. Please share your infinite knowledge on the subject.. But as this shows, it would be little understood. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The convention could be a great idea or a disaster, depending upon what comes out of it.
A big scary point is once the convention is called, there are no limits to the topics they might want to change. Example: 20 million illegals get amnesty. A convention is called and change the basics of our government to socialism (way more than it is now). A vote is called approving the amendments on the state level. Anything can happen. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The convention could be a great idea or a disaster, depending upon what comes out of it. A big scary point is once the convention is called, there are no limits to the topics they might want to change. Example: 20 million illegals get amnesty. A convention is called and change the basics of our government to socialism (way more than it is now). A vote is called approving the amendments on the state level. Anything can happen. Not really, upon application of legislatures of 2/3 of the states (34), they may call a convention to propose amendments to the constitution, but that is the limit by Article V. Any thing done in convention must then be submitted to state ratification conventions for ratification. The amendments must then be debated and approved by 3/4 of the states (38) legislatures or state ratifying conventions. So there is some measure of control to prevent the overrun of the people. But what exactly would an amendment accomplish? It is apparent the people little enforce what is there, so what good are new ones? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An amendment to balance the federal budget would be nice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
alnewman
on
Thu 04/03/14 02:56 PM
|
|
An amendment to balance the federal budget would be nice. Actually would be extremely dangerous unless some underlying issues are resolved, i.e. money. If debt goes away, so does what we call money with devastating effects, like what has been happening. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Little known, just how do you think the current constitution was written, do you have a clue? it seems some like to attack posts out of context that is what was written in the article not by the poster |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Little known, just how do you think the current constitution was written, do you have a clue? it seems some like to attack posts out of context that is what was written in the article not by the poster Really, so it just appeared on it's own? If you don't object, then you accept and I see no objection, just a posting letting another's words speak for them. But then many here accept no responsibility. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So February would be three months, good place to start. But even after "three" months I see that not much has been added. No surprise really. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
adj4u
on
Thu 04/03/14 09:14 PM
|
|
So February would be three months, good place to start. But even after "three" months I see that not much has been added. No surprise really. no feb is 2 months ago but i dont have to wish i mentioned it 2 months ago cause i did DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So February would be three months, good place to start. But even after "three" months I see that not much has been added. No surprise really. no feb is 2 months ago but i dont have to wish i mentioned it 2 months ago cause i did DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Duh, you claimed three, not I. I just made it an issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WASHINGTON Momentum is building behind what would be an unprecedented effort to amend the U.S. Constitution, through a little-known provision that gives states rather than Congress the power to initiate changes. At issue is what's known as a "constitutional convention," a scenario tucked into Article V of the U.S. Constitution. At its core, Article V provides two ways for amendments to be proposed. The first which has been used for all 27 amendment to date�� requires two-thirds of both the House and Senate to approve a resolution, before sending it to the states for ratification. The Founding Fathers, though, devised an alternative way which says if two-thirds of state legislatures demand a meeting, Congress shall call a convention for proposing amendments. The idea has gained popularity among constitutional scholars in recent years -- but got a big boost last week when Michigan lawmakers endorsed it. Michigan matters, because by some counts it was the 34th state to do so. That makes two-thirds. In the wake of the vote, California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter pressed House Speaker John Boehner on Tuesday to determine whether the states just crossed the threshold for this kind of convention. Like Michigan lawmakers, Hunter's interest in the matter stems from a desire to push a balanced-budget amendment -- something that could potentially be done at a constitutional convention. ��Based on several reports and opinions, Michigan might be the 34th state to issue such a call and therefore presents the constitutionally-required number of states to begin the process of achieving a balanced budget amendment,�� Hunter wrote. With the recent decision by Michigan lawmakers, it is important that the House and those of us who support a balanced budget amendment -- determine whether the necessary number of states have acted and the appropriate role of Congress should this be the case." If two-thirds of the states indeed have applied, the ball is presumably in Congress' court to call the convention. But Article V is rather vague, and it's ultimately unclear whether 34 states have technically applied. In the past, states like Oregon, Utah and Arizona have quietly voted to approve the provision in their legislature. But some of the 34 or so have rescinded their requests. Others have rescinded, and then re-applied. Alabama rescinded its request in 1988 but in 2011, lawmakers again applied for a convention related to an amendment requiring that the federal budget be balanced. It was a similar story in Florida in 2010. Louisiana rescinded in 1990 but lawmakers have tried several times, unsuccessfully, to reinstate the application since then. It's unclear whether the applications still count in these scenarios. Some constitutional scholars like Gregory Watson, an analyst in Texas, say once states ask, there may be no take-backs. “There is a disagreement among scholars as to whether a state that has approved an application may later rescind that application, Watson told The Washington Times. If it is ultimately adjudicated that a state may not rescind a prior application, then Ohio's 2013 application for a Balanced Budget Amendment convention would be the 33rd and Michigan's 2014 application would be the 34th on that topic. Others say if a state changes its mind, it can no longer be part of the 34. Even if the requisite number of states have applied, questions remain about how such a convention would work -- and whether, as Michigan wants, such a convention could be limited to only discussing a balanced-budget amendment. It still may be a long shot, but some analysts are warning about the unintended consequences of such a move. In Louisiana, Budget Project Policy Analyst Steve Spire argued against the state's resolution, saying the convention could permanently damage the nation'��s political system. The last time there was a successful amendment was more than four decades ago the 26th Amendment which changed the voting age to 18. States ratified the 27th Amendment on congressional pay increases, but it took more than 200 years to do it. Mark Levin has been talking about it non stop, in fact that is what his new book is about. If this is something you are curious about or interested in I would pick a copy up. It's called the Liberty Amendments. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 That's the way it works around here, but there are so many threads and posts that a lot get's lost and people forget. No big deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With all these communist in the House the Senate..the White House...its a really bad time to open the Constitution to tampering.
DONT YOU ALL KNOW THAT THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS THE CPUSA? The Communist Party USA? If your a Dem..and dont believe in communism..it time for you to vet your party... THATS WHAT WE CONSERVATIVES HAVE DONE TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY....THE TEA PARTY IS A CHECK AND BALANCE.....our Tea Party Reps are doing a much better job than are the establishment traitors... VET THE DEM PARTY..THEY ARE ALL COMMUNIST NOW.....THE BLUE DOGS LEFT BECAUSE OF THIS..OR WERE FORCE OUT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With all these communist in the House the Senate..the White House...its a really bad time to open the Constitution to tampering. DONT YOU ALL KNOW THAT THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS THE CPUSA? The Communist Party USA? If your a Dem..and dont believe in communism..it time for you to vet your party... THATS WHAT WE CONSERVATIVES HAVE DONE TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY....THE TEA PARTY IS A CHECK AND BALANCE.....our Tea Party Reps are doing a much better job than are the establishment traitors... VET THE DEM PARTY..THEY ARE ALL COMMUNIST NOW.....THE BLUE DOGS LEFT BECAUSE OF THIS..OR WERE FORCE OUT Been that way for quite awhile now....two generations or so. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whenever I hear mention any suggestion of "changing the Constitution", even as a "request of the people"...... I worry! Whenever the "people" are involved, govt always has a "better" idea..... and a way to control it....... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
alnewman
on
Mon 04/07/14 12:57 PM
|
|
Whenever I hear mention any suggestion of "changing the Constitution", even as a "request of the people"...... I worry! Whenever the "people" are involved, govt always has a "better" idea..... and a way to control it....... That has been demonstrated very eloquently by first the 12th Amendment and then the 17th Amendment. First, the twelfth amendment instilled the political parties as we know them today. It is a severe deviation from the concept so well established by the founders that each the person with the most electoral votes would be president and the next would be vice president. Just like Adams had Jefferson as his vice president. I wasn't until the second term of Jefferson that the 12th amendment took effect, in 1804. But what really messed up the system was the slow inclusion of choosing the electors by popular vote in all but South Carolina by 1836. Second and possibility the biggest deviation of the constitution was the 17th amendment that divorced the states from their proper space in the balance of power. And now we can see the results in spades. This amendment is within the sphere of the bankers taking over this country, 1912 - 1913. |
|
|
|
|
