Rand is pushing for a ConCon?

[Matt Collins]

Rand is pushing for a Constitutional Convention?

http://www.whas11.com/community/blogs/political-blog/Tea-Partys-Moffett-slams-Rand-Paul-proposal-116638218.html

:confused::confused::confused::(:(:(:(

[Matt Collins]

Is this political posturing, or is he serious? :confused:


I would hope he isn't serious about this. I also hope that there is zero chance of this passing and that he knows this and is simply trying to make waves. :(

[brandon]

wtf?

[Chester Copperpot]

If our state legislators are liberty minded this could be a good thing.. if not it could be bad..


In the end, maybe its what states need to do to enforce their power.. start clamping down on federal govt by amending the constitution

[Sola_Fide]

I'll bump a good discussion we had of this. Hold on.

[BamaFanNKy]

Matt, this is a political move, yes. Second, it's a Constitutional action. Three, none of the BOR or amendments will be abolished.

[sailingaway]

Where have you been?

I've discussed my position against one on other threads. I expected the KY senate to vote for it, they did. I expect the Dem House to vote against it. I then think we should allow it to go away. In Rand's view calling for it is clearly just a way to put pressure on the federal congress to pass his and Mike Lee's balanced budget amendment.

I'm against a con con, and against this strategy, but I am very pro-Rand Paul.

So let's just see what their House does, ok?

[BamaFanNKy]

Where have you been?

I've discussed my position against one on other threads. I expected the KY senate to vote for it, they did. I expect the Dem House to vote against it. I then think we should allow it to go away. In Rand's view calling for it is clearly just a way to put pressure on the federal congress to pass his and Mike Lee's balanced budget amendment.

I'm against a con con, and against this strategy, but I am very pro-Rand Paul.

So let's just see what their House does, ok?

House will defeat it. There is no question.

[sailingaway]

If our state legislators are liberty minded this could be a good thing.. if not it could be bad..


In the end, maybe its what states need to do to enforce their power.. start clamping down on federal govt by amending the constitution

We all well know that the vast majority of state legislatures don't strictly interpret the commerce clause and the 9th and 10th amendments. I can't see a con con coming out with a BETTER Constitution, and I can easily see it coming out with a more 'democratic' one, subverting the rights of the individuals to the desires of the collective.

But I think KY isn't going to clear it. I think their GOP controlled senate was showing support for Rand and David Williams, and I suspect the Dem controlled House will show support of Beshear by axing it.

[muzzled dogg]

this is old

[muzzled dogg]

matt you posted in the thread
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?276413-Rand-Paul-wants-a-Balanced-Budget-Article-V-Convention

[MaxPower]

Did you guys really not know this? He's been talking openly about it for months.

I'm not as worried about the idea of a Constitutional Convention as some here are. The fact is, the Constitution's general body is treated as a holy scripture by most of the public, even though they don't know quite what's in it. If someone tried to amend the Constitution in a way that directly attacked any of its liberty-guarding provisions, there would be an outcry such as has not been heard in generations. I daresay something like a balanced budget amendment would have a far better shot at passing.

[sailingaway]

Did you guys really not know this? He's been talking openly about it for months.

I'm not as worried about the idea of a Constitutional Convention as some here are. The fact is, the Constitution's general body is treated as a holy scripture by most of the public, even though they don't know quite what's in it. If someone tried to amend the Constitution in a way that directly attacked any of its liberty-guarding provisions, there would be an outcry such as has not been heard in generations. I daresay something like a balanced budget amendment would have a far better shot at passing.

How excited do you think John Q. Public would get if they incorporated specific Supreme Court law as governing interpretation of the Commerce Clause?

That is the sort of thing that worries me, on the eve of beating that interpretation back over Obamacare.

But I'm hoping it will just go away.

[MaxPower]

How excited do you think John Q. Public would get if they incorporated specific Supreme Court law as governing interpretation of the Commerce Clause?

That is the sort of thing that worries me, on the eve of beating that interpretation back over Obamacare.

But I'm hoping it will just go away.
Actually, I think the Tea Parties would go crazy over something like that. The Constitution is particularly sacred to conservatives (even though they ignore it whenever convenient, the text is a sort of golden idol to them), and anything that "loosens" it would provoke an uproar. Moreover, it would be a pretty wild move by any Democrat to actually try to introduce a "commerce-clause expansion" amendment, since it would raise the question, "If the commerce clause really already authorizes you to enact X millions of laws, why do you need to amend it?" and in the event that it failed, which I daresay is extremely probable (remember, it would have to pass first in Congress, and then a heavy majority of the states), it would look like a very direct rebuttal of the "expansive commerce clause authority" interpretation of the Constitution. Since the Supreme Court (which has become the de facto overlord of the Constitution) has been allowing the commerce clause to carry virtually unlimited authority for decades already, the Democrats would be far better-advised agenda-wise simply not to draw attention to it.

[Sola_Fide]

If someone tried to amend the Constitution in a way that directly attacked any of its liberty-guarding provisions, there would be an outcry such as has not been heard in generations.

Just like the 17th amendment, right???

[sailingaway]

Actually, I think the Tea Parties would go crazy over something like that. The Constitution is particularly sacred to conservatives (even though they ignore it whenever convenient, the text is a sort of golden idol to them), and anything that "loosens" it would provoke an uproar. Moreover, it would be a pretty wild move by any Democrat to actually try to introduce a "commerce-clause expansion" amendment, since it would raise the question, "If the commerce clause really already authorizes you to enact X millions of laws, why do you need to amend it?" and in the event that it failed, which I daresay is extremely probable (remember, it would have to pass first in Congress, and then a heavy majority of the states), it would look like a very direct rebuttal of the "expansive commerce clause authority" interpretation of the Constitution. Since the Supreme Court (which has become the de facto overlord of the Constitution) has been allowing the commerce clause to carry virtually unlimited authority for decades already, the Democrats would be far better-advised agenda-wise simply not to draw attention to it.

Do you think the tea parties alone could stop this? And a good part of the tea parties seem to believe whatever celebrities tell them, which isn't good.

[jackers]

If the use of Nullfification is brought back to the forefront, how could a ConCon be a bad thing?

[sailingaway]

If the use of Nullfification is brought back to the forefront, how could a ConCon be a bad thing?

Because the 'mainstream opinion' of nullification leads you to believe representatives of the 50 state legislatures would approve that? Or cut it out? It isn't the people who would be electing representatives to the con con, it is people like David Williams and our California (much further left) counterpart. We have only begun to take our government back, and that unrepresentative government would be picking representatives to a con con to preserve its power, not to increase ours, imho.

In a few years, if the people actually GOT a more representative government, at least at the state level, my feelings on this might be different.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Is this another one of those things the perpetually-paranoid harp on? Don't know much about the issue but a search seems to suggest some think a Constitutional convention is a dastardly secret plot to abolish the first amendment and the Bill of Rights. :rolleyes:

[sailingaway]

Is this another one of those things the perpetually-paranoid harp on? Don't know much about the issue but a search seems to suggest some think a Constitutional convention is a dastardly secret plot to abolish the first amendment and the Bill of Rights. :rolleyes:

I have no idea about that. If you do a search on many of our issues you can find tin foil 'out there' far enough. I'm not thinking of a plot to do away w the bill of rights, but a bad strategy opening up language to undermine further our interpretation of the commerce clause, etc.

[nobody's_hero]

I'd like to see amendments which would allow states to levy criminal punishments on Federal officials for supporting legislation which violates or harms our basic Bill of Rights in any way.

I'd also like an amendment which will give governors of the several states veto power over the president regarding troop deployments. (say 3/5, or some other fraction, of the state governors are pressured into voting to recall troops from the Middle East, then the president is relieved of his role as commander in chief until every soldier returns to U.S. soil).

I don't know if we could get this out of an Article V Convention, but we SURE AS HELL won't get it out of Congress.

[nobody's_hero]

I have no idea about that. If you do a search on many of our issues you can find tin foil 'out there' far enough. I'm not thinking of a plot to do away w the bill of rights, but a bad strategy opening up language to undermine further our interpretation of the commerce clause, etc.

Or we could have a chance of removing the commerce clause from the Constitution for good. How long do you think it would take Congress to give up that power, versus how long it would take the states to snatch that power from Congress? ;)

[sailingaway]

Or we could have a chance of removing the commerce clause from the Constitution for good. How long do you think it would take Congress to give up that power, versus how long it would take the states to snatch that power from Congress? ;)

I think you and I have a basic disagreement about the kind of people who would be nominated by state legislators to a con con, and who (which side) would win the resulting tug of war. I'm pretty sure those preferring big, unaccountable government would win, since government would be appointing all who attend.

[FrankRep]

Rand is pushing for a Constitutional Convention?

http://www.whas11.com/community/blogs/political-blog/Tea-Partys-Moffett-slams-Rand-Paul-proposal-116638218.html

:confused::confused::confused::(:(:(:(


I hope not. Rand, please use the Ratification method like how Prohibition was added/repealed.

[acptulsa]

I think a con con has the potential to do one bit of good--it gives people an opportunity to realize that most of the good things they'd like to have in a Constitution we already have in ours. And all we have to do is make sure the people we elect read the poor old thing.

[MaxPower]

Just like the 17th amendment, right???
That was nigh 100 years ago, at the height of the early Progressive era; I really think the image of the Constitution as a holy writ has increased dramatically since then. Again, not that it is actually followed, but that it is compulsively worshipped by much of the populace, and more or less the entire Republican party. Fully half the states in the Union are "conservative"; do you really think they would allow a "big government" amendment that enshrined a new expansion of the Commerce Clause to pass?

[GunnyFreedom]

I got an e-mail from a fellow NC Legislator today pointing to Rand Paul's effort and asking me if I would be willing to introduce it here in NC. It seems that our new GOP majority in NC really, really wants a balanced budget amendment in the US.

[nobody's_hero]

I think you and I have a basic disagreement about the kind of people who would be nominated by state legislators to a con con, and who (which side) would win the resulting tug of war. I'm pretty sure those preferring big, unaccountable government would win, since government would be appointing all who attend.

And my response to that has remained the same: What is to stop them from doing that NOW?

I don't follow the logic of how this is supposed to be a conspiracy.

The U.S. Congress can, at any time, propose an amendment to the Constitution which states, for example: "The Second Amendment is hereby repealed. Anyone found with a gun in their possession will be shot on site." Yet, the (rather irrational) fear is that somehow the Congress is going to go around its ass to get to its elbow, by waiting for the states to initiate the amendatory proposals via an Article V Convention and then undermining their efforts.

[specsaregood]

I got an e-mail from a fellow NC Legislator today pointing to Rand Paul's effort and asking me if I would be willing to introduce it here in NC. It seems that our new GOP majority in NC really, really wants a balanced budget amendment in the US.

Go for it Gunny! Use every bit of power the state has at it disposal against the fed. That's entire reason it is in there.


And my response to that has remained the same: What is to stop them from doing that NOW?

I don't follow the logic of how this is supposed to be a conspiracy.

The U.S. Congress can, at any time, propose an amendment to the Constitution which states, for example: "The Second Amendment is hereby repealed. Anyone found with a gun in their possession will be shot on site." Yet, the (rather irrational) fear is that somehow the Congress is going to go around its ass to get to its elbow, by waiting for the states to initiate the amendatory proposals via an Article V Convention and then undermining their efforts.

Well said. +1rep when my allotment is refilled.

[sailingaway]

And my response to that has remained the same: What is to stop them from doing that NOW?

I don't follow the logic of how this is supposed to be a conspiracy.

The U.S. Congress can, at any time, propose an amendment to the Constitution which states, for example: "The Second Amendment is hereby repealed. Anyone found with a gun in their possession will be shot on site." Yet, the (rather irrational) fear is that somehow the Congress is going to go around its ass to get to its elbow, by waiting for the states to initiate the amendatory proposals via an Article V Convention and then undermining their efforts.

I never used the word conspiracy, that is your word to marginalize contrary argument. I think by natural selection of politicians, politicians of the same sort would be appointed to con con. That concerns me.

And I think the courts have slowly been moving in our direction and while I don't have a LOT of faith in the courts, if we can't get them to interpret the constitution properly, there is no use to have even the best con con, because they'd ignore it anyhow. The words there now are pretty good if they are enforced.

[nobody's_hero]

I got an e-mail from a fellow NC Legislator today pointing to Rand Paul's effort and asking me if I would be willing to introduce it here in NC. It seems that our new GOP majority in NC really, really wants a balanced budget amendment in the US.

Gunny, if you're going to do this, you need to start networking with other state legislators from across the nation. According to Friends of the Article V Convention, the 2/3 state application requirement for calling an amendatory convention has been met. The problem is that no one is really quite sure whether the calls for convention have expirations, can be rescinded, must be for the purpose of proposing the same amendment, or have to be specific at all. Whatever happens, if North Carolina goes it alone, these applications for a convention will probably get locked away in some dusty D.C. filing cabinet like all the rest of them throughout our history. The message from the states regarding their desire for a convention must be loud, clear, and unified.

http://foavc.org/file.php/1/Amendments

[nobody's_hero]

I never used the word conspiracy, that is your word to marginalize contrary argument. I think by natural selection of politicians, politicians of the same sort would be appointed to con con. That concerns me.

The JBS seems to think there is a conspiracy ("Beware of Article V!" :rolleyes:), and they have been the loudest and most influential voice holding back the states thus far. I did not mean to marginalize, but the fact remains that the Congress could propose a tyrannical amendment before I have time to submit this post. I think it would be worth a shot for the states to have a turn at proposing amendments, for once.

[sailingaway]

The JBS seems to think there is a conspiracy ("Beware of Article V!" :rolleyes:), and they have been the loudest and most influential voice holding back the states thus far. I did not mean to marginalize, but the fact remains that the Congress could propose a tyrannical amendment before I have time to submit this post. I think it would be worth a shot for the states to have a turn at proposing amendments, for once.

I look at the state legislatures and the commerce clause, and shudder.

I'm not JBS and I don't know all their positions, although I had heard they opposed this. I agree with them on that, if maybe not on their reasoning (which I'm not up on.)

[Matt Collins]

Mike Church says to beware of "John Birch Propaganda" against Constitutional Convention:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2dtaIv_EhY