The most scary news report I ever heard: a group trying to call a constitutional convention

[CK_John]

claims they are close to getting the 34 state legislatures to sign on that are needed.

This group has one of those generic names, which to me sounds like a Koch brothers money outlets.

Can you image this population that doesn't know the movement of the earth via the sun or a Tx Rep who thinks wind farms will stop the earth from spinning.

[kelly1mm]

1. In law school the con law professor called this the 'nuclear option' of states rights. Technically,

no federal accent, vote, or sanction is needed for a constitutional convention. It is all done at the direction and sanction of state legislatures around the country.

[el_bryanto]

2. Which 34 states? but there have been discussions of this for a few years now

It hasn't gone anywhere, thus far.

Bryant

[struggle4progress]

7. That might be part of the debate, because the current counts are not obviously correct,

and there may only be about twenty states that should counted as having called for a convention

[silvershadow]

3. Well, I will tell you one thing for sure. That is so scary, if there ever is one I

will be a delegate, without a doubt. Too much at stake not to be.

[davidn3600]

4. 3/4ths of the states would still need to ratify anything that comes out of there

Basically all they would be doing is bypassing the 2/3rds majority of congress. But they still need 38 states...and the whacky religious and abortion stuff they are talking about has zero chance of getting that. But things like a balance budget amendment could gain steam if they ramp up fears of the national debt.

[freshwest]

5. Paul Ryan is working with this group, I've posted on it a lot. It national and they intend to repeal

a number of amendment. Pretty much everything after the 10th. He's said all that's needed is to turn enough state legislatures red and he's right.

It's all above board. It's how amendments are made and how the constitution can be rewritten. First on the agenda is to get rid fo the 14th. I've ranted about this repeatedly but no one seems to take it seriously.

Most of what of us have enjoyed in our lifetimes are protected by the 14th, the first of three amendments in a row that enshrined the results of the Civil War.

They want it undone, all of it. It'll destroy the underlying frame work of all the civil rights and progression we've worked on for over a century . Because the 4th is in no way sufficient to protect us, but it's all we hear about.

It didn't end slavery since it didn't define persons. It did not empower women or the poor, at it was not intended for them. If we don'tvote in every congressional election and every state election this year, we are allowing the plans of the Koches and all of their plutocratic allies like the GOP and Libertarians to tear the country apart.

I urge DUers to read the 14th and the clauses it has. It's a shocking move to repeal it, much less all after the 10th. They are not hiding what they are intending.

[struggle4progress]

6. The situation is entirely unclear to me. The Article V language

The Congress .. on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which .. shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress ...

is vague in certain respects

It hands to Congress the task of calling the convention on .. application of the legislatures of two thirds of the .. states and leaves to Congress the task of specifying the mode of ratification of the amendments proposed by the Constitution, so some discretion is conferred upon the Congress here, though it is unclear to me how far this discretion extends

In particular, it is unclear to me how Congress might set about determining the existence of the requisite number of applications from legislatures, and this question seems likely to me to produce floor fights in both federal houses, on questions related to whether or not certain applications exist

For example, can a state legislature repeal its earlier call for a convention? As the Article V language is inadequate here, it is necessary to examine the scope and purpose of Article V from the records of the 1787 convention, which indicate that the article was intended to reserve some power to the states -- and that might be inconsistent with the idea that a state cannot repeal its earlier call for a convention

Similarly, are all prior applications for a convention to be counted, or are they to be counted grouped according to their reference to particular issues? That is, should any non-repealed applications from the 1960s for an amendment to overturn court rulings upholding one-man one-vote principles be counted together with recent applications for a balanced budget amendment, or should such applications be grouped separately? This is might be a question of Congressional discretion

In a dispute, regarding such discretion, between the Congress and sufficiently many legislatures, it is unclear to me how far into the controversy the judicial branch might be willing to step. In particular, it is not clear to me what might happen if the House and Senate disagreed on how to count applications for a convention, so that one thought a convention must be called, while the other (say) thought about fifteen more applications were needed for a convention, which might currently be the case

It's worth keeping a careful eye on this, but IMO it's not clear to me that a convention looms at any moment

[proudretiredvet]

8. Not going to happen

You could not get three quarters of the states to all admit that it gets dark at night. It is much more fun to fight about everything, make outlandish demands, and call everyone that does not agree with you names.
This has become the American way.

[struggle4progress]

9. In the last century there's been an amendment every ten years, on average,

and in the last half-century or so there have been four or five, so it's not entirely impossible to get amendments through -- it's just not an everyday event

[proudretiredvet]

14. NOT

There are two things, above all else, that the right wing will never let be changed in our constitution. The second amendment and the electoral college. They consider these two things as absolutely necessary to their existence.

[struggle4progress]

15. I like that take on the whole thing, and I'm gonna steal it for use in discussion with rightwingers!

This whole constitutional convention is just a ploy by gun-grabbers to get rid of the second amendment

[LeftyMom]

10. Fringey right people have been kicking this around for a while.

The really fun ones are the ones who decide they're the real legitimate government of wherever even though they're five Randroids meeting over coffee issuing declarations to a wordpress blog nobody reads.

[WillyT]

11. Link Please...

[MattP]

12. link to post

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/02/12379/constitutional-convention-could-cripple-federal-capacity-combat-recession





They are horrible people, they have nothing positive in there platform to offer

[RainDog]

13. that would lead to the balkanization of the U.S.

and massive migration of many people if they have to means to relocate to a state not controlled by religious fundamentalists.

we'll have an underground railroad for people who want to get away from christofascism, and, probably down the road, another civil war.

if we don't cause a mass extinction event first which drastically culls the population.

have a great day! LOL.

The sad thing about this is that we do have religious fundamentalists who are as zealous as the taliban, in their particular American way.

If rich people allow this to happen, they can expect some retribution as they let the fundies create hell on earth.