Recusant
Hellcat
the problem I see is it takes 38 states to ratify an amendment. I don't believe there are enough red states that would be needed. Also it might be like opening Pandora's Box.
Vote in the Primary Elections
- Thread starter Grayfox
- Start date
bc22wm
Custom
May I respectfully suggest you do some reading on the Articles of Confederation, the problems associated with them and the attempt to amend them. Cliff Note version. A convention was called to "fix" the Artica of confederation; HOWEVER, some had already decided that a new form of government was needed. Washington, Jefferson. Madison, Hamilton, Adams, etc. They had no intention of fixing what they were sent to fix BY THE PEOPLE. Be careful of what you wish for you just might get it.
Yup guess your right not a fan.
Don't trust the SOBs
BassCliff
Professional
Hi,
The Articles of Confederation (1777) was a wartime document hastily prepared to unite the colonies against a common enemy. It formed a very weak central government and its problems became very apparent in just ten years. Just a few of the issues: The document was practically impossible to amend because it took unanimous agreement of all the states to make any changes. The central government could not collect taxes to repay wartime debts to its European allies or even form any type of centralized military. There was no judicial authority. Every state had its own currency. Every state could conduct its own foreign relations. These and other issues made the newly formed country economically vulnerable, almost defenseless, and near anarchy. A tax protest known as "Shay's Rebellion" brought all these problems into focus because the government could not put down an internal rebellion without relying on a state militia put together and financed by Boston businessmen.
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 (not a Convention of States) was attended by most, if not all, of the "Founding Fathers" in order to fix the Articles. What came out of that convention, headed up by George Washington himself after coming out of retirement, was our current Constitution and, a little later, the Bill of Rights. Even though this document gave the central government more power, there were a few major compromises and limits on the strength of the Federal government:
The new Constitution, although not easy, is much less difficult to change, amend, fix, or otherwise modify as necessary. This gave us the Bill of Rights and seventeen other amendments since the Constitution was ratified in 1791. It's not perfect, but it ain't terrible. We've got a pretty good republic "if we can keep it", as Ben Franklin would say.
"Convention of States" refers to an Article V convention for the purposes of amending the Constitution. Once two thirds of the states (34) send an "application" to Congress calling for a convention, the amendment process can begin. The applications must address the same issue (i.e. term limits, balanced budget, etc).
For your reference, this is Article V of the Constitution:
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, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Once amendments are proposed, they are ratified in the usual manner, by three fourths of the states. Applications for a Convention of States have been passed by 19 states at this time. Fifteen states have pending legislation. Granted, those "blue" states might not want to go along but we can let our state officials know that we want it.
It's our own fault for letting the Federal government get so big and taking so much power. I think Article V is an excellent tool for "we the people" to show the governemnt who's boss around here. It doesn't rely on elections. It allows us regular citizens, through our state legislatures, to directly address the changes we want to see in our Federal government.
I'd like to hear why you might think this is a bad idea. Perhaps I haven't considered all the possibilities or any shortcomings.
Thank you for your indulgence,
BassCliff
May I respectfully suggest you do some reading on the Articles of Confederation, the problems associated with them and the attempt to amend them. Cliff Note version. A convention was called to "fix" the Artica of confederation; HOWEVER, some had already decided that a new form of government was needed. Washington, Jefferson. Madison, Hamilton, Adams, etc. They had no intention of fixing what they were sent to fix BY THE PEOPLE. Be careful of what you wish for you just might get it.
Yup guess your right not a fan.
Don't trust the SOBs
The Articles of Confederation (1777) was a wartime document hastily prepared to unite the colonies against a common enemy. It formed a very weak central government and its problems became very apparent in just ten years. Just a few of the issues: The document was practically impossible to amend because it took unanimous agreement of all the states to make any changes. The central government could not collect taxes to repay wartime debts to its European allies or even form any type of centralized military. There was no judicial authority. Every state had its own currency. Every state could conduct its own foreign relations. These and other issues made the newly formed country economically vulnerable, almost defenseless, and near anarchy. A tax protest known as "Shay's Rebellion" brought all these problems into focus because the government could not put down an internal rebellion without relying on a state militia put together and financed by Boston businessmen.
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 (not a Convention of States) was attended by most, if not all, of the "Founding Fathers" in order to fix the Articles. What came out of that convention, headed up by George Washington himself after coming out of retirement, was our current Constitution and, a little later, the Bill of Rights. Even though this document gave the central government more power, there were a few major compromises and limits on the strength of the Federal government:
- The balance of power between big states and small states: This led to two legislative branches, the Senate and the House of Reps. Under the Articles each state had one vote. Many wanted to continue that form. Others wanted representation based on population, the bigger the population, the more representatives. The compromise was two houses, one with two senators from each state and the other with a number of representatives based on population.
- The election of the President: Hamilton wanted a strong executive that would be elected for life. Madison wanted Congress to select the president. Some delegates wanted a popular vote, which was practically untenable at the time. Hence the Electoral College whereby we vote for our "electors" who, hopefully by the will of the people, chose our president.
- Slavery: Basically this convention did what politicians love to do, kick the can down the road. Two good things came out of this however. The "three fifths" clause in the compromise made sure that at least 60% of the slave population got some kind of representation. Plus, slavery did NOT get ingrained into the Constitution and the slave trade was banned as soon as the compromise allowed it to be, in 1808.
The new Constitution, although not easy, is much less difficult to change, amend, fix, or otherwise modify as necessary. This gave us the Bill of Rights and seventeen other amendments since the Constitution was ratified in 1791. It's not perfect, but it ain't terrible. We've got a pretty good republic "if we can keep it", as Ben Franklin would say.
"Convention of States" refers to an Article V convention for the purposes of amending the Constitution. Once two thirds of the states (34) send an "application" to Congress calling for a convention, the amendment process can begin. The applications must address the same issue (i.e. term limits, balanced budget, etc).
For your reference, this is Article V of the Constitution:
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, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Once amendments are proposed, they are ratified in the usual manner, by three fourths of the states. Applications for a Convention of States have been passed by 19 states at this time. Fifteen states have pending legislation. Granted, those "blue" states might not want to go along but we can let our state officials know that we want it.
It's our own fault for letting the Federal government get so big and taking so much power. I think Article V is an excellent tool for "we the people" to show the governemnt who's boss around here. It doesn't rely on elections. It allows us regular citizens, through our state legislatures, to directly address the changes we want to see in our Federal government.
I'd like to hear why you might think this is a bad idea. Perhaps I haven't considered all the possibilities or any shortcomings.
Thank you for your indulgence,
BassCliff
Last edited:
Bassbob
Emissary
Personally, I think the only way we can avoid an inevitable civil war is to do something that takes the blue cities in red states and either moves them to blue states or removes them from the red state they’re in somehow. It would be preferable if states like Missouri, Illinois, Montana, Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Texas could just move the inhabitants in the blue cities to places like New York and California.
Some way so the people who want to live with gun control, abortion on demand, unchecked immigration, Trans men in women’s sports and bathrooms and all that, could. And the rest of us could just live normally without being under constant threat of having our rights and way of life “ Transformed” into some progressive nightmare.
This will never happen. So in the end, whenever that may be, there will be a bloody revolution.
Some way so the people who want to live with gun control, abortion on demand, unchecked immigration, Trans men in women’s sports and bathrooms and all that, could. And the rest of us could just live normally without being under constant threat of having our rights and way of life “ Transformed” into some progressive nightmare.
This will never happen. So in the end, whenever that may be, there will be a bloody revolution.
I'm pretty sure you can live however you want now. The battle, I think, is whether other groups of people can.
Bassbob
Emissary
Yeah I can. I live in a free state. Lots of people in California, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York and other places can't though.
These other groups of people can too. As long as they aren't trying to shove it down everyone's throat. Which they are.
Interesting take. Two points:
-People in California etc. vote for who they want. It's none of your business.
-And what you're expressing here is that you have a right to not be annoyed. But the right to avoid annoyance isn't codified anywhere. The only way to not be annoyed is to get over it.
That's how individual freedoms work. You get over it because somebody else gets over you. Pretty sure that's me.
bc22wm
Custom
Because once we open that door, even limited, and our "representees" walk in and start "working" no matter what you want, I want, or anyone else, there is no limit to the mischief they can cause. A convention of state is a different animal than a constitutional amendment. One is a free-for-all and the other a very limited in scope and a simple yea or nay.
Oh, I understand the lure of COS, boy do I understand. Term limits, Balanced budget, Official language (like most countries have) etc. to fix so many things that need fixing in one fell swoop. However, my justified distrust of the sons of ....guns far outweighs the lure.
Guess that makes me a scaredy cat
Last edited:
N
nmedge
Guest
There were many times when in the service i never got a ballot sent to me in time to vote. This time I am so disgusted already I have chosen not to do primaries or the general election. Tired of seeing the criminals elected.
Bassbob
Emissary
Not quite. Two more points:Interesting take. Two points:
-People in California etc. vote for who they want. It's none of your business.
-And what you're expressing here is that you have a right to not be annoyed. But the right to avoid annoyance isn't codified anywhere. The only way to not be annoyed is to get over it.
That's how individual freedoms work. You get over it because somebody else gets over you. Pretty sure that's me.
People in California that aren't commies and don't vote for morons like Newsom and Pelosi and Kamala and all those people who want litter boxes in grade school bathrooms and think transitioning 13 year olds without their parent's consent is A-okay, are disenfranchised.
And what I'm actually expressing here is the fact that most people don't care if you're gay or if you think your son identifies as a cat and you are thinking of suing because a vet wouldn't treat him ( this actually happened), the issue comes when you start demanding special rights and privileges the rest of us don't enjoy or when you start infiltrating elementary education systems and indoctrinating kids to believe there are more than one gender, that men can get pregnant and that trans men should be allowed to play women's sports and use women's locker rooms. Or when they have your kids line up on their knees and lick the feet of certain teachers or students ( this also actually happened).
Another point you gloss over:
Since California laws are none of my business, maybe you could leave the states who want abortion illegal alone. Or the states who want to do something about the illegals in their communities. Or the states that don't want gender studies taught to their 8 year olds.
Which brings us right back to my original point. Since Missouri voters ( for example) overwhelmingly support right of center politics, WTF are you doing complaining about it around here all the time ? After all, they vote for who they want, right ?
old but still kicking
Elite
Your logic chains are dead on target Bass & completely reasonable cuz soon as small groups want more/extra rights & accommodations than the rest of us get, it’s a bad thing.
As a New Yorker born & raised (far from that cesspool city in Manhattan/L Island), I’d like my state having similar policies as Texas, Mo, Arkanny, etc Be great to move blue cities to blue states & red to red but that’s fantasy.
Despite reading jschmidt posts few times, I’m unclear what he/she/they think the best course of action is for those of us living in an overwhelmingly so-called woke state of confusion like NY or Cali, etc. Perhaps a more reasoned explanation on where I went off the rails cuz my wife & I’ve voted in every election since we came of age, w/ dismal showing on elected officials ‘representing’ our views. I’m open to constructive suggestions ( that don’t involve pounding sand ). I’m ready to learn ..
bc22wm
Custom
I would like to ask are bleeping serious. I won't because I fear you will tell me yes.
The world has officially gone to hell in a handbasket.
Belt Fed
Ronin
I would like to ask are bleeping serious. I won't because I fear you will tell me yes.
BassCliff
Professional
Hi,
Let me quote Article V again:
"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, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
I don't understand the "free for all" you refer to. Even after a Convention of States proposes an amendment (on a single issue) it still has to be ratified in the normal manner, by at least three fourths of the state legislatures (both houses) or state conventions, as proposed by Congress.
There are two ways to propose a Constitutional amendment, either by two thirds of both houses of the Federal government, or by a Convention of States, i.e. two thirds of the state governments.
The only difference I see is the way the amendment is proposed. It still has to be ratified in a Constitutional manner, by thirty eight states. As you know, that is a rare occurrence, can take a lot of time, but can be done. This government can move excruciatingly slow sometimes. But that is probably a good thing. I appreciate your discussion.
Thank you for your indulgence,
BassCliff
Because once we open that door, even limited, and our "representees" walk in and start "working" no matter what you want, I want, or anyone else, there is no limit to the mischief they can cause. A convention of state is a different animal than a constitutional amendment. One is a free-for-all and the other a very limited in scope and a simple yea or nay.
Oh, I understand the lure of COS, boy do I understand. Term limits, Balanced budget, Official language (like most countries have) etc. to fix so many things that need fixing in one fell swoop. However, my justified distrust of the sons of ....guns far outweighs the lure.
Guess that makes me a scaredy catView attachment 53678
Let me quote Article V again:
"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, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
I don't understand the "free for all" you refer to. Even after a Convention of States proposes an amendment (on a single issue) it still has to be ratified in the normal manner, by at least three fourths of the state legislatures (both houses) or state conventions, as proposed by Congress.
There are two ways to propose a Constitutional amendment, either by two thirds of both houses of the Federal government, or by a Convention of States, i.e. two thirds of the state governments.
The only difference I see is the way the amendment is proposed. It still has to be ratified in a Constitutional manner, by thirty eight states. As you know, that is a rare occurrence, can take a lot of time, but can be done. This government can move excruciatingly slow sometimes. But that is probably a good thing.
I appreciate your discussion.Thank you for your indulgence,
BassCliff
bc22wm
Custom
BassCliff You can quote text and I can bang my shoe on the podium. While I suspect we agree on many things, the prosses isn't ever going to one of them. JMHO it has be great talking about this and I have had a good time. Think we are going to have to agree to disagree. Besides my arm is getting tired 
THANKS!
THANKS!
bc22wm
Custom
Bassbob
Emissary
Your system there in PA is definitely severely flawed.
In Missouri they changed to a Caucus. It's a very convoluted system they put in place. I suspect since it was put in place by the legislature which is a republican super majority it will somehow benefit me, but I dislike the fact that we no longer go to the polls to vote in a primary. My guess is it was designed to keep democrats from voting in republican primaries and presumably vice versa.
Had a similar experience. I’d stated my opposition to some very high profile positions the D party promotes. Clown says “I don’t believe in those things”-I answered then why in the He.. are you running for That party? Stuttering and crickets.