Parliamentarian Ref: Constitutional Convention analysis: Constitutional Convention Question's: Am I wrong on my analysis? Is my analysis truly what could happen?
What I (Stanwooddave) have said before, and in the past: “Watch out, for what you wish, regarding a Constitutional Convention, if you don’t know already, but if a Constitutional Convention were to take place, there is/are no limits to what can be put/brought before the Constitutional Convention.“
Example, do away with the 2nd Amendment, if the votes are there, say goodbye to a very cherished 2nd Amendment.
A response that was given: Never happen. This is the argument used to discourage a CC {Constitutional Convention}. The reality is a CC would be very limited in scope and would address only a few key issues. Second, the red states and the people that live there far out number the blue states and the kooky left that has hijacked our country and stolen our liberty. ++++++++++++++++++++++++
First off let me be perfectly clear, what ever statement's and or questions I ask/present, are only for educational purposes only, so as to be able to learn, and or share idea's.
Assume for the sake of argument, a Constitutional Convention is called, lets use Obama's 57 state's, and we'll say in the Great State of Neverhappeninmylifetime.
I would imagine that for sake of argument, their would be say 2 (two) State Representatives, 2 (two) State Senator's, as well as 2 (two) U.S. Congressional Representatives, and 2 (two) U.S. Senator's. I pick these critter's only because you know were a CC to happen, everyone wants to look SO IMPORTANT.
Simple math: if only 4 (four) people representing each state, total is (4 x 50) 200 or(4 x 57) 228. If on the other hand, 8 (eight) people representing each state, total is (8 x 50) 400.
Either way, thats a lot of people. I would argue that at said Constitutional Convention, Robert's Rule's of Order would be used, and or something akin to this.
You put forth the proposition that "The reality is a CC would be very limited in scope and would address only a few key issues." I agree, that a "limited scope" Constitutional Convention, could happen, and "only for those issue's agreed to in advance."
Now here is where I'm (Stanwooddave) as dumb as a box of rock's. In an agreed to, in advance, limited in scope, Constitutional Convention, why can't someone make a motion (under Robert's Rule's of Order, or whatever else {Rule's of Order} they so choose) to add "X" "Y" or "Z," to test the water's, and if say the presiding person of the Constitutional Convention, decides to go off the track's sort of speak, (See last paragraph) what's to stop the momentum if it should get leg's????
Please tell me something akin to an earth shattering revelation, like "As soon as the person or person(s) makes the motion to go off the track's, said person or person(s) would immediately be brought out back of the building and shot."
Please tell me more then, "Well it was all agreed to, to convene a limited in scope, Constitutional Convention"
Nothing in my statement(s) and or question(s) should be seen as any kind of attack, they are really, simply for my selfish educational benefit, nothing more, nothing less. ++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes I know that when a motion is made, that someone has to “second said motion,” then a vote of the motion yeas & nay’s, for the purpose of this discussion, the yeas won, i.e., to go off the track's of the agreed to in advance, limited in scope, Constitution Convention.
What is to stop said happening? ++++++++++++++++++++++++
Please also, do take into consideration that $$money$$ / dollar's can buy a lot of people, it's just the difference in price, for each person.
An offer of proof: [William Andrews] Clark's long-standing dream of becoming a United States Senator resulted in scandal in 1899 when it was revealed that he bribed members of the Montana State Legislature in return for their votes. At the time, U.S. Senators were chosen by their respective state legislators; the corruption of his election contributed to the passage of the 17th Amendment. The U.S. Senate refused to seat Clark because of the 1899 bribery scheme, but a later senate campaign was successful, and he served a single term from 1901 until 1907. In responding to criticism of his bribery of the Montana legislature, [William Andrews] Clark is reported to have said, "I never bought a man who wasn't for sale."
We don't have to stop them at a CC from starting the process of doing away with the Second Amendment; they are already trying to do that without a CC. It takes 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify an amendment as well as 2/3 of Congress IIRC......they don't have that and won't get it from the states, anyway.
The only possible reason/purpose I could see the need for a CC and would support is one adding a final amendment that officially sanctions a process for state secession.
It is the underlying principles of our Constitution which make it valuable, and they are the same principles that liberals hate.
Death to all misplaced apostrophes!!
I dont know if youre wrong on your analysis, but youre sure wrong on your apostrophes.
We’re talking about an Article V convention. Here are the rules:
Article. V
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;
At this point,getting three fourths of state legislatures to agree on anything is impossible. We’re too far divided. Conservatives and patriots control about 30 states. We would need 8 more states to do something meaningful at CC.
A big problem with any ConCon today is lack of virtue. The members of any ConCon would be much less homogenous than the one of the 1780’s. Back then, they were more or less on the same page, and for individual liberty and individual property rights. The ConCon that would materialize today would have significant numbers of advocates for things like Agenda-21, central planning, weakening the Constitution in EVERY way possible. There would be some men/woman of virtue for sure, but I do not believe that society today could even produce anything like the Declaration or Constitution, let alone improve on the it.
It would be impossible to bind a CC to a particular agenda, just as it’s impossible for a prior Congress to thus bind a future.
Constitutional amendments however are a way forward. A repeal of the 16th ‘Amendment’, replacing it with a flat- rate income tax provision, with a second clause that also bans any federal sales tax, wouldn’t that be good?
Another amendment that specifies that only natural persons can have rights and obligations would also be useful. That could limit the ridiculous nonsense of courts pretending that corporations are persons.
Or how about yet another amendment that specifies that the annual gross profits of any collective entity (corporations etc.) doing business in the USA must be distributed to all their stakeholders and stockholders before the last day of January of each year? (Profits may be calculated and distributed according to any plan, so long as all such gross profits are distributed before that end-date.) Starve the monster, but feed the investors and employees. (No more corporate hoarding...)