Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NCcoast

(478 posts)
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 05:01 PM Jun 2014

California has just called for an Articale V Convention

Making it the second state behind Vermont to do so. It's happening people.

[link:https://www.facebook.com/99Rise|
https://www.facebook.com/99Rise]



This is the email I just got from my state Wolk-pac coordinator. Not to be confused with any other North Carolina Wolf Packs.

AJR-1 just passed the California Senate, making California the second state to pass a Resolution calling for an Article V Convention to propose an Amendment for the purpose of combating the influence of money in politics.

I won't lie, I actually teared up a little while typing that.
--
Three Steps to Reverse Citizens United and Restore Representative Democracy in America:
1. Find a state representative or state senator to introduce this resolution in your state: http://bit.ly/13E87Y3
2. Once introduced, the resolution will be assigned to a committee, so ask members of the committee for their support (helpful talking points: http://bit.ly/14Z2yEp).
3. Once through committee, it will get a vote in the legislature, so ask legislators for their support (contact info for legislators in your state: http://www.wolf-pac.com/states).
---
86 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
California has just called for an Articale V Convention (Original Post) NCcoast Jun 2014 OP
Woo Hoo !!! - K & R !!! WillyT Jun 2014 #1
Worst. Idea. EVER! MohRokTah Jun 2014 #2
And then 3/4 of the states will ratify those changes? NCcoast Jun 2014 #3
Better go looking at what party controls the legislatures of the states. MohRokTah Jun 2014 #5
Not a red-blue issue. radiclib Jun 2014 #21
Of course they are in favor of it Bartlet Jun 2014 #23
Bing! Bing! Bing! Bing! Bing! longship Jun 2014 #25
the Freepers are rejoicing about this. grasswire Jun 2014 #30
Maybe you could provide me a link to that rejoicing NCcoast Jun 2014 #57
"(BTW, fleas suck ones blood.)" Plucketeer Jun 2014 #36
Exactly why I am afraid of this method dragonlady Jun 2014 #71
So you're opposed to ever amending the constitution in any way? hobbit709 Jun 2014 #4
Nope, just in the way it's been done the entire existence of the nation. MohRokTah Jun 2014 #6
I guess you like going around in steadily decreasing circles. hobbit709 Jun 2014 #7
No, I don't like risking the constitutiion to the whims of reps chosen by state legislatures. MohRokTah Jun 2014 #9
And just how do expect to change anything except as outlined in Article V? hobbit709 Jun 2014 #10
Use the same method that has been used as long as we have existed. MohRokTah Jun 2014 #11
Which is also spelled out in Article V. hobbit709 Jun 2014 #12
You're going in circles. MohRokTah Jun 2014 #14
Just following you. hobbit709 Jun 2014 #15
Yes you are, and you have tightened the noose until it looks like he choked. Fred Sanders Jun 2014 #78
But that takes too long ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #56
You do realize the convention only PROPOSES amendments, right? It doesn't ratify anything. NYC Liberal Jun 2014 #18
38 states have Republican legislatures MohRokTah Jun 2014 #26
And that's the case for ANY amendment. NYC Liberal Jun 2014 #39
Only if you get it through Congress first. MohRokTah Jun 2014 #41
Republicans don't have close to 3/4 of state legislatures. NYC Liberal Jun 2014 #43
It took 202 years to ratify the 27th amendment. tclambert Jun 2014 #46
Political will is required. MohRokTah Jun 2014 #48
A fucking straw man argument. longship Jun 2014 #28
The OP says "Article V Convention" What part of "Convention" do you not understand" yellowcanine Jun 2014 #67
Total nonsense. radiclib Jun 2014 #20
Read the text of the Article MohRokTah Jun 2014 #22
I've been wondering about that a bit: California's resolution makes reference petronius Jun 2014 #29
Yes, sorta. I wrote a paper on this in college for a Political Theory class. Chan790 Jun 2014 #65
I didn't say anything about specific amendments radiclib Jun 2014 #34
Each state has equal representation in the convention. MohRokTah Jun 2014 #40
Either you didn't read, or deliberately chose not to understand, what I said radiclib Jun 2014 #45
No, you are completely wrong. Bartlet Jun 2014 #27
I agree with everything in your first paragraph and never said anything different. radiclib Jun 2014 #44
Every Republican in my state is totally corrupt, as are half the Democrats. This is a bad idea. Scuba Jun 2014 #72
Countless Republicans who have not been corrupted? dragonlady Jun 2014 #73
The last times it was amended, it took a percentage of congress PLUS shraby Jun 2014 #54
That's not how Art. V conventions work. Chan790 Jun 2014 #64
True. Theoretically they could throw out the entire constitution and replace totodeinhere Jun 2014 #69
you are right--this is a threat, not an opportunity kiri Jun 2014 #74
We are currently being bled dry both of our liberties and wealth. The status quo will only rhett o rick Jun 2014 #85
I refuse to support an Article V convention MohRokTah Jun 2014 #86
k&r n/t RainDog Jun 2014 #8
It can be done. pa28 Jun 2014 #13
K & R Iliyah Jun 2014 #16
As California goes, so goes the nation Jack Rabbit Jun 2014 #17
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha Half-Century Man Jun 2014 #19
ABSOLUTELY WORST IDEA EVER. OldRedneck Jun 2014 #24
I have always been taught how dangerous this is. grasswire Jun 2014 #31
More Info: WillyT Jun 2014 #42
It is playing with dynamite hueymahl Jun 2014 #80
+ struggle4progress Jun 2014 #38
True. A lot of right wingers have been calling for an Article V convention but for totodeinhere Jun 2014 #70
Congratulations California cantbeserious Jun 2014 #32
A little history on how we went from the Articles of Confederation ... Benton D Struckcheon Jun 2014 #33
You are referring to the Constitutional Convention, which is different from Article V radiclib Jun 2014 #35
One more time: Benton D Struckcheon Jun 2014 #37
There has not been an Article V convention in the entire history of this nation. MohRokTah Jun 2014 #49
First time for everything! radiclib Jun 2014 #50
I am positive an Article V Convention would make things worse. MohRokTah Jun 2014 #51
Just wondering.. radiclib Jun 2014 #53
So now you resort to an ad hominem in the form of a Fox News question. MohRokTah Jun 2014 #55
It very well might. At least some scholars believe that in an Article V Convention totodeinhere Jun 2014 #75
Thank you NCcoast Jun 2014 #52
California Dreamin' (thumbs up) K&R Babel_17 Jun 2014 #47
I'm not worried Dwayne Hicks Jun 2014 #58
8 additional states would easily vote for some very bad things. jeff47 Jun 2014 #76
No way Dwayne Hicks Jun 2014 #83
Democrats already voted for laws to enact such things. jeff47 Jun 2014 #84
Paul Ryan pushed this in 2012 to repeal the 14th Amendment with its clauses of freshwest Jun 2014 #59
I wouldn't argue with anything you've said NCcoast Jun 2014 #60
The amendment that has been offered is specific. No amendment in the Constitution after the 10th... freshwest Jun 2014 #61
Kicked and recommended a whole bunch! Enthusiast Jun 2014 #62
Doooooo iiiiiiit Blue_Adept Jun 2014 #63
Being a Vermonter, I applaud California for following our lead salib Jun 2014 #66
Yes! One step closer to getting money out of politics. blackspade Jun 2014 #68
The people who like this really don't understand what they are unleashing. jeff47 Jun 2014 #77
You are 100% correct. It's the same thing I said upthread. totodeinhere Jun 2014 #79
Let me add to the Chorus - BAD, BAD IDEA!!!! hueymahl Jun 2014 #81
Just another feudal effort,,,, Cryptoad Jun 2014 #82
 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
2. Worst. Idea. EVER!
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 05:07 PM
Jun 2014

An Article V convention is the absolutely WORST possible idea because ANYTHING can be introduced in one.

I oppose the idea with EVERY FIBER OF MY BEING. The risk is simply too great of the Constitution being thrown out and a new theocratic order being voted in.

NCcoast

(478 posts)
3. And then 3/4 of the states will ratify those changes?
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 05:11 PM
Jun 2014

I don't think so. If they go there with a mandate and do something entirely different whatever they do will never be adopted by 38 states. I don't see what all of the hand wringing is about.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
5. Better go looking at what party controls the legislatures of the states.
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 05:15 PM
Jun 2014

Due to Gerrymandering, a lot of states that should eb blue in the legislature are red.

radiclib

(1,811 posts)
21. Not a red-blue issue.
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:42 PM
Jun 2014

It's a corruption issue and a crony capitalism issue. We need lots of Republicans in every state in order to get this done, and their constituents are overwhelmingly in favor.

Bartlet

(172 posts)
23. Of course they are in favor of it
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:50 PM
Jun 2014

that's how you change the 1st amendment and get Christianity as a state sponsored religion, that's how you remove any regulations on gun ownership, that's how you make abortion illegal, that's how you outlaw gays and gay marriage.

An article V constitutional convention means the whole constitution is up for grabs and up for changes. And yes, there are 38 states that are predominantly run by Republicans that will vote for all kinds of absurd things.

There is a reason we have never had an article V convention, it's because to go that route means people honestly think the constitution is no longer valid.

longship

(40,416 posts)
25. Bing! Bing! Bing! Bing! Bing!
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:55 PM
Jun 2014

You win the Internets, and the argument.

We want an Article V convention like we want fleas. (BTW, fleas suck ones blood.)

 

Plucketeer

(12,882 posts)
36. "(BTW, fleas suck ones blood.)"
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:30 PM
Jun 2014

Isn't that what's happening to us now? Charles and David have insatiable thirsts!

hobbit709

(41,694 posts)
4. So you're opposed to ever amending the constitution in any way?
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 05:15 PM
Jun 2014

considering Article V covers how it is to be amended.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
6. Nope, just in the way it's been done the entire existence of the nation.
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 05:27 PM
Jun 2014

It can be accomplished if political will exists to do it. It took 99 days to ratify the 26th amendment.

The last time there was a constitutional convention, the Articles of Confederation were thrown out and we got the Constitution that now defines our government.

Because each state gets equal representation in the convention and because the legislatures determine how the representatives sent to the convention are chosen, you run a HUGE risk of coming out of an Article V Convention with the most radically rightwing theocracy imaginable.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
9. No, I don't like risking the constitutiion to the whims of reps chosen by state legislatures.
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 05:39 PM
Jun 2014

I prefer generating the political will to force our elected representatives in Congress and state legislatures to amend.

Remember those who would go to a convention are not elected by the people.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
11. Use the same method that has been used as long as we have existed.
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 05:54 PM
Jun 2014

And it is also outlined in Article V.

Get the votes in the Congress, send it to the states. Everybody who votes on the proposed amendment has been elected by the people.

But an Article V convention has never occurred since the constitution was ratified, and the risks of such a convention are too great for me to EVER support one being held.

hobbit709

(41,694 posts)
12. Which is also spelled out in Article V.
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 05:57 PM
Jun 2014

So you want to use Article V as justification against doing it at the same time you use it as justification for.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
14. You're going in circles.
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:09 PM
Jun 2014

Yes, both methods are described in Article V.

There is a good reason why only one of the two has ever been used in our entire history.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
56. But that takes too long ...
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 09:02 PM
Jun 2014

We want change yesterday!

... I oppose this as well for just the reasons that you mention. Further, I really doubt that the "end of cronyism" and "get the money out of politics" has the support that many here think they do.

NYC Liberal

(20,132 posts)
18. You do realize the convention only PROPOSES amendments, right? It doesn't ratify anything.
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:39 PM
Jun 2014

A convention simply takes the place of Congress in the amendment process. Once an amendment has been proposed by the convention, it still has to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. Calling a convention only requires two-thirds of states, so you'd still have to convince more states beyond just those that called it.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
41. Only if you get it through Congress first.
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:34 PM
Jun 2014

Not the case with an Article V convention.

Why do you think wingnuts have had wet dreams for an Article V convention for three decades now?

tclambert

(11,080 posts)
46. It took 202 years to ratify the 27th amendment.
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:47 PM
Jun 2014

I agree we do not want another Constitutional Convention. The usual method of Congress passing an amendment then sending it to the states for ratification seems better. But the amendment we want--to overturn Citizens United, specifically say corporations are NOT people, my friend, and get big money out of politics--well, I don't see it happening, either.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
48. Political will is required.
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:58 PM
Jun 2014

If the people can create the political will to amend, it will happen.

I simply do not want to risk putting the entire constitution on the table in a convention over the chance of getting Citizens United overturrned. I'd rather work to get it through the Congress.

longship

(40,416 posts)
28. A fucking straw man argument.
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:59 PM
Jun 2014

Who here is arguing against "amending the constitution in any way"?

Sheesh! Heavens to murgatroyd! Whatta maroon!

yellowcanine

(35,692 posts)
67. The OP says "Article V Convention" What part of "Convention" do you not understand"
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 10:50 AM
Jun 2014

The OP clearly refers to the convention idea for amending the Constitution, not the idea of ever amending it. Duh.

Last time a Constitutional Convention happened, they threw out the whole thing (Articles of Confederation) and started over. It was a good idea in 1787 because the Articles of Confederation were not working well at all. It would be a bad idea now because for the most parts, the Constitution works, it just needs a few tweaks, which are best done one at a time to keep what is good.

radiclib

(1,811 posts)
20. Total nonsense.
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:40 PM
Jun 2014

"The Constitution being thrown out"? Is that what happened the last 27 times it was amended?
A convention of the states will only be called for a specific issue, not for anything anyone wants to put out there. And public opinion is nearly 90% in favor of this issue being addressed.
This is huge good news. 2 down, 32 to go!

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
22. Read the text of the Article
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:49 PM
Jun 2014
ANY Amendment may be proposed in an Article V convention.


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.


An Article V convention can propose an amendment that throws out the constitution upon ratification of a new constitution.

And it need not be the reason for calling the convention. ANY Amendment may be proposed in an Article V convention.

An amendment for fetal personhood may be proposed.

An amendment declaring only heterosexual marriage legal may be proposed.

An amendment declaring this to be a Christian nation may be proposed.

It doesn't mean a damned thing if California called the convention for one amendment. Once the convention convenes, EVERYTHING is on the table.

petronius

(26,580 posts)
29. I've been wondering about that a bit: California's resolution makes reference
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:03 PM
Jun 2014

to a specific purpose for calling the convention, but there's nothing in Article V to enforce that limitation. Other states have passed similar resolutions for totally different reasons. So what happens if it eventually adds up to 38 states passing resolutions--albeit for 38 different reasons--calling for a convention? Does it happen?

Any lawyers and/or Constitutional scholars in the thread?

 

Chan790

(20,176 posts)
65. Yes, sorta. I wrote a paper on this in college for a Political Theory class.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 08:46 AM
Jun 2014

CA's specific purpose was likely void upon ratification. It doesn't matter if they pass it for campaign-finance reform, KY ratifies one tomorrow for your right to marry your horse ( ), on Friday NY calls for one to declare the 32 hour work-week a Constitutional right, and in 1972 MD called for one to ratify the ERA. They all count solely as Art. V. calls for Convention. Most ratifications are term-limited in the text. (e.g. "The State of Connecticut calls for a US Constitutional Convention under Article V to be convened no later than Jan. 12, 2022 or this call shall be void.&quot

The only way out of it is for the CA legislature to reverse themselves ASAP...and that may not pass muster with SCOTUS. There is a power to convene convention...there is none to revoke that consent, just as rescission of State Approval of Constitutional Amendments may not pass muster if challenged. (An issue that subsequent ratifications of the ERA may bring to SCOTUS.)

The ability to time-limit is understood to be valid (but itself not based in the text and may not pass muster with SCOTUS if challenged)...otherwise they'd just hang out there for decades until there was a majority calling for a convention, the initial reasons for being long-settled governance and/or law.

radiclib

(1,811 posts)
34. I didn't say anything about specific amendments
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:24 PM
Jun 2014

Article V does not propose amendments, it calls for a convention in order to propose amendments. An Article V convention will only be called if the resolution language is nearly identical in every one of the 34 ratifying states in that it addresses a specific purpose for the convention. Yes, any amendment can be proposed once the convention is seated, but the only amendment that has a snowball's chance in hell of then being ratified by three quarters of the states would have to be addressing the issue that caused the convention to be called in the first place. There have been Article V proposals languishing for years that call for shit like a balanced budget amendment, term limits, the ERA. None of them have gotten any real traction because they lack the momentum of public support that the growing opposition to the corruption of unlimited money has.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
40. Each state has equal representation in the convention.
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:31 PM
Jun 2014

Look at the makeup of the state legislatures.

There are enough controlled by the GOP that your worst nightmares could become a reality should there be an Article V convention.

It has been the far right's DREAM for nearly three decades to have an Article V convention be convened.

I am not willing to risk it and will fight against such a convention to my last breath.

radiclib

(1,811 posts)
45. Either you didn't read, or deliberately chose not to understand, what I said
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:47 PM
Jun 2014

But if you're willing to fight to your last breath to stop it, then "have at it, Hoss!" And good luck trying to take our poisoned, decaying oligarchy back from the likes of the Kochs and Exxon/Mobil.
I'm open to alternative solutions. Sadly, there aren't any. If you're willing to wait for an enlightened Supreme Court to emerge, or a filibuster-proof supermajority of progressive populists in the Senate, have a nice time holding your breath. At least you won't be breathing in the toxins brought to you by corporations that can't be regulated because they own the government.

Bartlet

(172 posts)
27. No, you are completely wrong.
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:58 PM
Jun 2014

The calling of a constitutional convention does NOT require any specific amendment be proposed, in fact no amendment can be proposed until the convention is actually called so ANY amendment can be proposed. You are thinking of the amendment process that is run through congress, that applies to a specific amendment. This method is a completely open full amendment process to anything in the constitution, it's essentially that last ditch effort when the constitution has failed.

Do you understand why conservatives are all on board for doing this? Do you seriously think they are on board because it will get rid of citizens united? the court ruling that has basically let them pour unlimited unregulated money into their campaigns????

radiclib

(1,811 posts)
44. I agree with everything in your first paragraph and never said anything different.
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:37 PM
Jun 2014

As for your second paragraph, there are countless local reps who are Republican/Libertarian who have not been totally corrupted (yet! Because they haven't tried to win statewide yet) who are appalled by Citizen's United and crony capitalism.
How do you think the polls indicate 90-95% support for either limiting or getting money out of politics altogether? Are they all enlightened progressives?

 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
72. Every Republican in my state is totally corrupt, as are half the Democrats. This is a bad idea.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 12:02 PM
Jun 2014

dragonlady

(3,577 posts)
73. Countless Republicans who have not been corrupted?
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 12:13 PM
Jun 2014

Take for example Wisconsin. The last reasonable Republican state senator decided not to run for reelection this time because of the way the Republican majority is running the government--he couldn't take it any more. I suspect other states are having a similar experience. Politics has never been beanbag, but it has become more like take-no-prisoners open warfare. The legislatures are the ones who would ratify any changes coming out of a national convention. With the chance to rewrite the Constitution to their liking, the Republicans would obviously enforce party discipline in any way they could think of.

shraby

(21,946 posts)
54. The last times it was amended, it took a percentage of congress PLUS
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 08:54 PM
Jun 2014

a percentage of the states to ratify the amendments.
A much better way of doing things than a constitutional convention, a format where anything goes. Stuff will be sneaked in under the blankets of words that politicians have piles of.
I don't trust any one of them to do things right.

 

Chan790

(20,176 posts)
64. That's not how Art. V conventions work.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 08:24 AM
Jun 2014

They cannot be confined in that way. If you call an Art. V convention, it can amend whatever it sees fit, whether that's what it was convened for or not.

We have the same issue here in CT with our State Constitution, it's actually the exact model for the "convention" mode of amendment in the US Constitution...except we have to hold a plebiscite every 20 years to decide whether we want to have one or not.

The last time we voted for one in 1965, it was to fix an apportionment issue in how state representatives were elected, from every town having 2 to being based on population-based districts independent of town borders. That's what it was convened to do, the only thing it was convened to do...they took the opportunity at the same time to rename the Connecticut Supreme Court (The previous name was "The Supreme Court of Errors&quot , radically increase the executive powers of the Governor's office, move the portion of the state legislature required to override a veto from 50%+1 to 67% in both chambers of the state legislature, formally remove the clause that specified being a Non-Christian was a criminal offense (unenforced since the late 1800s), take away the governor's ability to pardon state inmates, and to specify a right to public education. Now, all or most of those things are not bad...but they were not what the convention was for and they were not on the agenda at the beginning of the convention.

Generally, it's understood at both the state and local level that a Constitutional Convention means a new Constitution and the end of the previous Constitution. It's not a bad idea...it's a fucking terrible idea. Any Democrat supporting it should be summarily-lobotomized with a screwdriver. Any Art. V. Convention today would be GOP-dominated (majority of the states have GOP legislatures so the majority of the reps would be Republicans.) ...once it's appointed, it's a runaway train...they don't have to go back to the states for approval on anything. They pass it, it's the law of the land.

totodeinhere

(13,036 posts)
69. True. Theoretically they could throw out the entire constitution and replace
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 11:39 AM
Jun 2014

it with something else. I think we are really playing with fire here. This could take on a life of its own and who knows where it could go. Perhaps they would adopt progressive changes or perhaps they could do the opposite. After all, red states would also have a say in this.

kiri

(786 posts)
74. you are right--this is a threat, not an opportunity
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 01:12 PM
Jun 2014

A convention needs a chairperson, a parliamentarian, organizers, etc. Who will these be? They might well be tea partiers/Christian dominionists.

Progressives might well be a minority. Such conventions are supported more by the RW and the NRA.

This is a VERY dangerous route. Separation of church and state will be especially at risk.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
85. We are currently being bled dry both of our liberties and wealth. The status quo will only
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:53 PM
Jun 2014

see us eventually get to a point where we cant resist anymore. We must draw a line. The NSA/CIA Cabal is currently ignoring the Constitution and our "representatives" are complicit.

If we cant get money out of the political system, we are doomed.

Half-Century Man

(5,279 posts)
19. Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:40 PM
Jun 2014

I've heard there is a Pitchfork and Torch convention at the castle drawbridge this year. Let attend, shall we?

 

OldRedneck

(1,397 posts)
24. ABSOLUTELY WORST IDEA EVER.
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:52 PM
Jun 2014

The state legislatures get to select who represents them in such a convention.

Who do you think will represent the red states and the Tea Party states?

Do you not understand that an "Article V convention" is the fondest dream of the Teahadists, rightwingnutjobs, rightwingwackadoodles, Fox, Glenn Beck, and the rest of The Crazy?

The want such a convention to write the Bible and Christian theology into the Constitution and to impeach President Obama.

 

WillyT

(72,631 posts)
42. More Info:
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:34 PM
Jun 2014

Last edited Tue Jun 24, 2014, 08:43 AM - Edit history (1)

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

And... did you know that the 17th Amendment (Direct Election of U.S. Senators) was 1 state away from an Article 5 Convention... until Congress jumped in ad did it themselves ???

Kind of lights a fire under the ass...

Reformers introduced constitutional amendments in 1828, 1829, and 1855, with the issues finally reaching a head during the 1890s and 1900s. Progressives, such as William Jennings Bryan, called for reform to the way senators were chosen. Elihu Root and George Frisbie Hoar were prominent figures in the campaign to maintain the state legislative selection of senators. By 1910, 31 state legislatures had passed motions calling for reform. By 1912, 239 political parties at both the state and national level had pledged some form of direct election, and 33 states had introduced the use of direct primaries. With a campaign for a state-led constitutional amendment gaining strength, and a fear that this could result in a "runaway convention", the proposal to mandate direct elections for the Senate was finally introduced in the Congress. It was passed by the Congress and, on May 13, 1912, was submitted to the states for ratification. By April 8, 1913, three-fourths of the states had ratified the proposed amendment, making it the Seventeenth Amendment. Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan formally declared the amendment's adoption on May 31, 1913.


Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution






hueymahl

(2,415 posts)
80. It is playing with dynamite
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:50 PM
Jun 2014

Make that nuclear weapons. Really bad idea. A whole host of unintended consequences can come out of this, and that is being positive!!

As an aside, I deeply respect what you post on this site - find myself agreeing with you most of the time! This is very, very different.

totodeinhere

(13,036 posts)
70. True. A lot of right wingers have been calling for an Article V convention but for
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 11:42 AM
Jun 2014

very different reasons than the ones our friends in California and Vermont want.

Benton D Struckcheon

(2,347 posts)
33. A little history on how we went from the Articles of Confederation ...
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:20 PM
Jun 2014

... the Constitution is in order:

Following James Madison’s suggestion of 21 January 1786, the Virginia Legislature invited all the States to discuss ways to reduce interstate conflicts in Annapolis, Maryland. The “commissioners” in attendance at Annapolis during September 1786, chatted about these particular concerns, but suggested that the conversation be both deepened and widened. They endorsed a motion that a “Grand Convention” of all the States meet in Philadelphia the next May 1787 to discuss how to improve the Articles of Confederation.
One might well ask, “Who or what authorized the Virginia Legislature to call the Annapolis Convention and who or what authorized the Annapolis Convention to call for a ‘Grand Convention’?” The answer is to be found in the Declaration of Independence: The people have the right to choose the form of government under which they shall live and to install such government as they deem appropriate to secure their liberty, security, and happiness.


Link: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/intro/

Point being, what's being said upthread is absolutely correct: if you call a convention, anything can happen. That's exactly how we got the Constitution in the first place.

radiclib

(1,811 posts)
35. You are referring to the Constitutional Convention, which is different from Article V
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:26 PM
Jun 2014

We are not trying to reinvent the wheel. We are trying to amend. It has actually been done before, and the country did not burn down.

Benton D Struckcheon

(2,347 posts)
37. One more time:
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:31 PM
Jun 2014

That is done via Congress and the states ratifying it once it gets through Congress. A convention is not that.

radiclib

(1,811 posts)
50. First time for everything!
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 08:14 PM
Jun 2014

I can't believe the abject fear that's present on this thread. It's pretty sad. If you think an Article V convention could possibly make things demonstrably worse for this country that where we're at now, I can only feel sorry for you.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
51. I am positive an Article V Convention would make things worse.
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 08:26 PM
Jun 2014

There's no need to even consider one. It is a foregone conclusion that should there ever be ann Article V Convention, what this bnation becomes will be unrecognizable.

Worst idea ever.

totodeinhere

(13,036 posts)
75. It very well might. At least some scholars believe that in an Article V Convention
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 01:34 PM
Jun 2014

anything would go and the convention could literally do anything it wanted to our constitution. For instance they could repeal the Bill of Rights. Or they could prohibit gay marriage and abortion. I think we would be treading on very dangerous ground.

NCcoast

(478 posts)
52. Thank you
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 08:33 PM
Jun 2014

And clearly the process itself could lead to some sort of solution even if it never results in a convention. It let's congress know we're serious and we're determined to find a path toward change.

 

Dwayne Hicks

(637 posts)
58. I'm not worried
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 11:15 PM
Jun 2014

The far right does not come close to having the needed states to ratify their extremist agenda. 30 at the most. You need 38.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
76. 8 additional states would easily vote for some very bad things.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 01:54 PM
Jun 2014

There are plenty of Democratic politicians who are afraid of being called anti-Christian. They'd easily vote to ratify an amendment declaring Christianity the state religion.

The 2nd amendment has that pesky "well-regulated militia" clause that could be a problem. Plus, there's restrictions on some things, like owning fully automatic weapons. There's plenty of Democratic politicians who'd ratify a "you can own any gun and take it anywhere" amendment.

Abortion? Good chance that'll be gone with a "life begins at conception" amendment.

And they'd easily get 8 additional votes for a literal "money is speech" amendment during the chaos created by the previous three.

Those are just off the top of my head. I'm sure we could come up with plenty of other really, really bad things that would be ratified.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
84. Democrats already voted for laws to enact such things.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 07:50 PM
Jun 2014

So you're a bit late in declaring no Democrat would vote for them.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
59. Paul Ryan pushed this in 2012 to repeal the 14th Amendment with its clauses of
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 11:31 PM
Jun 2014
Birthright Citizenship, Due Process, Equal Protection Under The Law and the rest of it.

He and his supporters were filmed in a meeting posted on youtube (since removed) saying that as soon as they turned 38 legislatures 'red,' they'd do it. This is a the Koch brothers wet dream. We know the agenda:

The Koch brothers will write the new Constitution.

Bernie Sanders (VT) and whoever got this going in CA should explain why they won't use this to enact their platform:

BERNIE SANDERS Uncovers 1980 Koch Agenda- "What Do the Koch Brothers Want?"

What else do the Koch brothers want?


In 1980, David Koch ran as the Libertarian Party’s vice-presidential candidate in 1980.

Let’s take a look at the 1980 Libertarian Party platform.

Here are just a few excerpts of the Libertarian Party platform that David Koch ran on in 1980:

“We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”

“We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”

“We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”

“We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”

“We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”

“We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.”
“We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”
“We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”

“As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”

“We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”

“We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”

“We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”

“We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”

“We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”

“We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”

“We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”

“We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”

“We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”

“We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”

“We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”

“We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”

“We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”

“We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”

“We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”

“We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”

“We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”

In other words, the agenda of the Koch brothers is not only to defund Obamacare. The agenda of the Koch brothers is to repeal every major piece of legislation that has been signed into law over the past 80 years that has protected the middle class, the elderly, the children, the sick, and the most vulnerable in this country...

Tomorrow it will be Social Security, ending Medicare as we know it, repealing the minimum wage. It seems to me that the Koch brothers will not be content until they get everything they believe they are entitled to.

Our great nation can no longer be hijacked by right-wing billionaires like the Koch brothers.

For the sake of our children and our grandchildren, for the sake of our economy, we have got to let democracy prevail.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024806298

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/koch-brothers

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a7980koch

to kpete:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024806298

The people who drank the Koch-aid are voting in people to do what the Koch brothers want for America. Only an amendment to the Constitution regarding Citizens United is what people think is the beginning and end of this. And we're blindly cheering this?

NCcoast

(478 posts)
60. I wouldn't argue with anything you've said
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 11:44 PM
Jun 2014

So, where do you stand on this Article V Convention issue? Clearly we have to make a stand somewhere, somehow, what would you suggest?

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
61. The amendment that has been offered is specific. No amendment in the Constitution after the 10th...
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 12:42 AM
Jun 2014

Involved an Article 5 Convention, literally required to ratify the Constitution itself.

The other 23 each went through Congress and the states SINGLY, not as part of an Article 5 Convention which leave open the entire Constitution and the Amendments passed in the hands of those legislatures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I gathered signatures to get the eighteen year old vote and the ERA. The causes were essential.

The overturning by amendment of Citizens United is as far as it should go. Nothing but an USSC interpretation is in play and here is what the supporters say:

https://movetoamend.org/

They don't call for an Article 5 Convention. It's not necessary to get rid of Citizens United, but Tenthers want this very much, they've been calling for it for years.

This is a Trojan horse.

People must vote out elected officials and not rush into this, it's the best way to do it and the most sure: there is no promise that the Convention would stay on that one issue or even address the problem.

Democrats should think a few steps ahead and not get carried away with the excitement when it's hard to get them to work in the state to begin with.

We see the quality of the state legislatures, the HoR, the media and the organization of the conservatives. They have the money to get enough people bussed in to make the Convention follow their vision.

They will buy and sell this country and its citizens, no reason for them to change their low opinion of most of us. I know the frustration but the American people are being manipulated by big money, even in the anti-corporate, anti-government, anti-whatever groups pretending to be on the other side of things when they are so heavily funded or philosophically tied to the megabucks.

This is what the RW has wanted since Brown v. The Board of Education:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

That was resolved on the back of the 14th Amendment, which took a war and two more amendments to begin the process of giving blacks the legal standing not given in the original Constitution. The 14th is the bedrock of Roe v. Wade, same sex marriage and almost every other piece of regulation and law since then.

It is railed against by the same voices that use emigrants, gays and abortion as the boogeyman. This will not be a Convention full of liberals.

Thanks for asking my opinion.

Blue_Adept

(6,384 posts)
63. Doooooo iiiiiiit
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 07:30 AM
Jun 2014

Let there be chaos.

We need this kind of radical thing to happen to put it all out there. It'll come down to either this, utter rot and decay or physical revolution. I'd love to see the chaos that this would create.

salib

(2,116 posts)
66. Being a Vermonter, I applaud California for following our lead
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 10:39 AM
Jun 2014

Please note, Vermont has placed very good restrictions. See text here:
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2014/resolutn/Senate/JRS027.pdf

Specifically,
"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives:
That the General Assembly, pursuant to Article V of the U.S. Constitution, hereby petitions the U.S. Congress to call a convention for the sole purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America that would limit the corrupting influence of money in our electoral process, including, inter alia, by overturning the Citizens United decision, and be it further
Resolved: That this petition shall not be considered by the U.S. Congress until 33 other states submit petitions for the same purpose as proposed by Vermont in this resolution and unless the Congress determines that the scope of amendments to the Constitution of the United States considered by the convention shall be limited to the same purpose requested by Vermont, and be it further"

Did not read California's but it is likely that similar language is there.

This is a very solid proposal and likely the only way to get this passed.

blackspade

(10,056 posts)
68. Yes! One step closer to getting money out of politics.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 11:19 AM
Jun 2014

Maybe this will light a fire under Congress.
This would also be a great plank to campaign on.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
77. The people who like this really don't understand what they are unleashing.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 02:01 PM
Jun 2014

An Article V convention can do anything they want to the Constitution. There are 30 states run by Republicans. There are 8 Democratic states that would ratify some really, really bad things.

Like banning abortion and banning gay marriage. There's a good chance they'd strengthen the 2nd amendment even more - after all, there are restrictions on automatic weapons and some other limitations that could be removed.

This is a terrible idea.

totodeinhere

(13,036 posts)
79. You are 100% correct. It's the same thing I said upthread.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:23 PM
Jun 2014

We really don't want to let that cat out of the bag.

hueymahl

(2,415 posts)
81. Let me add to the Chorus - BAD, BAD IDEA!!!!
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:55 PM
Jun 2014

We may not like the pace of change, but things are changing, mostly for the better. Citizens United was a setback, but a constitutional convention is not the way to go. It is akin to burning your house to the ground because you have termites.

Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)
82. Just another feudal effort,,,,
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 07:39 PM
Jun 2014

so some politicians can rack up some travel expense and have a vacation on the tax payer dime....... there is better chance in a Dooms day meteorite hitting the Earth than anything happen at a Article V Convention

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»California has just calle...