Constitutional 'Convention of States'

[MegaPoke]

Is it time?

Texas governor called for it earlier this year.

Proposed amendments include:

1. Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs in one state
2. Require Congress to balance its budget.
3. Prohibit administrative agencies from creating law
4. Prohibit administrative agencies from pre-empting state law
5. Allow a two-thirds majority of the states of override a Supreme Court decision
6. Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law
7. Restore balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution
8. Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds
9. Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a federal law regulation.

 

[windriverrange]

10. Prohibit combined federal branches of government from owning more than 15% of any one state.
11. Term Limits
12. Limit the amount of money a congress shitheads can draw after those terms are completed.
13. All laws passed by congress for "We The People," are also binding to congress
14. All members of the federal government must be treated at VA hospitals.
15. Reinstate the draft, 2 years mandatory.
16. All federal employees deficient on repaying taxes/back taxes will have 30 days to comply or be fired (after their due process of course)
17. Limit the number of soldiers at any one location on Guam so it doesn't flip over
18. Gerrymandering ended.

 

[MegaPoke]

Solid. Especially Guam. That could cause a tsunami.

 

[CowboyPhil]

Line item veto
Term limits on everyone including judges

 

[CowboyJD]

The interesting thing to me is the question of whether a Comstitutional Convention of the States can be limited in what amendments it considers.

The political/con law junkie in me would love to see such a procedure play out. Article V gives little to no direction on how the convention would be governed after the necessary number of states applied and Congress certified.

 

[MegaPoke]

The interesting thing to me is the question of whether a Comstitutional Convention of the States can be limited in what amendments it considers.

The political/con law junkie in me would love to see such a procedure play out. Article V gives little to no direction on how the convention would be governed after the necessary number of states applied and Congress certified.

Seems like a simple 3/4 majority. Would be interesting!

 

[Mr. Blonde]

It would be interesting political theater. Have to get 34 states to go for it, then decide what the limitations are on the convention, and then get 38 states to ratify any amendments that come out of it. Last time we got a whole new constitution, I wonder what we'd get this time.

 

[CowboyJD]

Seems like a simple 3/4 majority. Would be interesting!

All Article V says about a Constitutional Convention of the State's is "on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,".

Sure it takes 3/4 of the legislatures (or separate State Conventions) ratifying to enact a proposed amendment, but the Constitution says next to nothing about how the Constiutional Convention is run, whether delegates to it can be limited in authority with regard to proposals, or even what it takes to have a proposal approved to send out for attempted ratification.

 

[CowboyJD]

It would be interesting political theater. Have to get 34 states to go for it, then decide what the limitations are on the convention, and then get 38 states to ratify any amendments that come out of it. Last time we got a whole new constitution, I wonder what we'd get this time.

I'm not even so sure, the 34 states get to decide what limitations are on the convention once it is empaneled. I guess that could fire delegates and appoint new ones that would comply with their limitations....but I'm not even certain about that.

The intriguing thing about it for me is we don't have a body of law even remotely commenting on how it should go because it's never been done (well technically done once by the original Constitutional Convention).

 

[Mr. Blonde]

It would be fascinating. if everything requires a super majority in these things, I can't see any kind of agreement on the limitations, so it seems like it would be tough to ever actually get off the ground.

 

[ctrawick]

Solid. Especially Guam. That could cause a tsunami.

I sure hope not, I already heard that Guam could tip over.

 

[Ostatedchi]

End birthright citizenship.
Severely limit the power of interstate commerce.
End unequal taxation.
Make the Senate accountable to the state legislatures instead of direct election.
You can only be on welfare if you give up your vote.
Make amendment adoption slightly easier.

 

[windriverrange]

Abolish the 17th Amendment and go back to state legislatures electing senators.

Ostatedchi, great list man.......!

 

[Ostatedchi]

A few more.

Explicitly list the right to privacy.
Explicitly state that all laws and constitutional provisions are to be adjudicated based on the original intent at the time of passage. No more 'living document' crap.

 

[CowboyJD]

A few more.

Explicitly list the right to privacy.
Explicitly state that all laws and constitutional provisions are to be adjudicated based on the original intent at the time of passage. No more 'living document' crap.

I understand why you would want to see these, but they are both a bit problematic:

1. You're going to have to explicitly denote the breadth and depth of that privacy and avoid infringing upon other important Constitutional rights. For instance, would the press accurately and truthfully reporting on something that the subject would prefer remain private be a violation? Would the government investigating something the subject would prefer remain private be a violation?

And

2. The founding fathers were far from unitary in their original intent in passing many provisions of the Constitution and the legislature is far from unitary in original intent when passing laws.