I do not always agree with Denninger, but I suspect in this case he's straight-on correct.
If you want to respond, please do, but any name calling or vulgarity will be reported to the Moderators.
ConCon ping!
It is a HORRIBLE idea. We are NOT in a majority. No one really is. But this will destroy the Constitution and you think it even has a chance of coming back more conservative? NOT a chance.
So doing nothing is the answer?
"the only solution is to unwind the previous violence done to the Constitution and then, if appropriate, pass Amendments that further constrain the rights protected by and powers delegated therein."
Close, but you got that backwards. The only way we could hope to unwind the previous violence done to the constitution is to first legitimize the things that would be most objectionable.
So amendments limiting private ownership of nukes, and amendments giving the Fed's authority for Social Security and Medicare, would need to come first. In fact you would need to identify every Federal program that is outside the constitution and develop a clear plan to either restore it to state authority or pass an amendment allowing the Feds to continue.
Only then, only after reducing the scope of the programs outside of the constitution could you hope to have enough popular support to unwind the violence already done.
“ConCon” is for dumb-dumbs.
Denninger is such a gentleman, he wrote "don't blow smoke up my ass," which you viewed as fit to print.
Only the clown Denninger, in a usual fit of rage, could so quickly contradict himself.
It’s a little like thinking that the home invaders who keep running at your door, will accidently keep running out the back door if you open the rear one, and then jerk your front door open at the right second.
It is a suicidal delusion.
No name calling here, Doll. I agree. We have a fine Constitution. I’d repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments, but really, all we need to do is follow it.
“There is nothing wrong with the Constitution as it sits now. The problem is that it’s not followed.”
This sums up my view on the Constitution.
Just as there is nothing wrong with our immigration laws. The problem is they are not enforced.
It is not a Constitutional Convention that is being organized. It is an Assembly of States where the states act in tha same capacity as Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution. There’s a huge difference between the two and Denninger obviously is clueless. Why does he feel the need to write something of which he is clueless?
As for your comment that the Constitution is perfect, if that is so, then why has it been amended 27 times?
We have near full blown socialism running our federal government and federal courts without agreement and support of the states.
Why did the Framers of the Constitution make a provision for the states to amend the US Constitution? Were they not serious?
Why should the states not be allowed to address changes that benefit the People through the provision in the Constitution that allows them to convene an assembly?
Why are states less trustworthy than the ruling class that has a lock on matters in the federal sphere?
38 states would like to have an amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Why are they told it is inappropriate to use the Constitution for them to make that amendment?
“... the only solution is to unwind the previous violence done to the Constitution and then, if appropriate, pass Amendments that further constrain the rights protected by and powers delegated therein.”
And exactly how does he plan on achieving that?
We don’t need a new Constitution, just a new legislature (in both houses) that abides by the one we have.
And repeals a lot of laws that contradict it.
The issue is a Constitutional Convention, with the expressed intent being to return the United States to its Constitutional Roots.
Ahem. It is an Amending Convention authorized under the existing Constitution. It is no less and no more than any other Constitutional body.
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.
A “Con-con” is merely a derogatory expression, and nothing of the sort is authorized by the constitution. Those decrying the “Con-con” are attempting to paint the picture of an out of control convention whereby the US constitution is thrown out and Leftists install something akin to the Soviet constitution.
Article 5 of the constitution does provide for a state convention bypassing congress, with the purpose of proposing amendments.
What’s wrong with the states proposing and voting on amendments? If you don’t like it, then you need an amendment to remove article 5.
While Article V is a great idea and many of Levin’s Amendments a good way to regulate the federal beast and out-of-control judiciary, the folks promoting the idea are not discussing the very truth Denninger cites: a lawless federal beast is NEVER going to permit itself to have a yoke put upon it by the states or the people when it currently demonstrates it does not abide by the current Constitution.
Levin says we are in a “post-Constitutional” period. I agree with that assessment.
How then, do any amendments ratified get implemented into a ‘post-constitutional’ lawless federal system that is no longer beholden to existing Constitutional law????
Anyone care to explain how that is going to happen?
Anyone care to tell me how the courts will not be used to strike down such amendments as ‘unConstitutional”?
Anyone care to tell me how they will get the Oligarchy and the executive dictatorship to abandon the idea of issuing policy and executive actions that tell the federal beast to IGNORE such amendments?
Article V is an interesting idea, but thinking we can restrain a tyrannical government by civil means without a plan of action to force it upon lawless tyrants and their corrupted system is an exercise in futility. You cannot cure rot and cancer by simply adding another few pints of fresh blood. The cancer and rot has to be removed first.
No one is discussing that aspect beyond the corrupted electoral system that serves to the benefit of the Oligarchy.
A post-Constitutional government that is lawless cannot be expected to abide by new Constitutional laws it does not agree with unless it fears the people who demand they abide by the law.
And this federal government DOES NOT fear the people. They DESPISE and loathe the people they intend to rule.
Big difference.
The Amendment V proponents better start discussing how they intend to get a lawless post-Constitutional federal government to abide by new amendments to a document it no longer follows in the first place.
If they do not discuss how they intend to do that, they are not going to win many over to their cause, because most who are skeptical are saying the same thing Denninger wrote here: if they aren’t following the original anymore, how do you expect them to follow any new additions?
The whole article is a bunch of Straw Men.
An Article V Convention of the States is NOT a Constitutional Convention.
Nobody is proposing changing any of the amendments the article mentions. There IS nothing wrong with the text of any of these amendments.
What has been proposed is new amendments to reduce the power of the ruling class, principally through term limits where none now exist, and some new limits on the power of Congress.
The Birchers are at it again. The constitution itself states that the states themselves can call for a convention to propose amendments to the constituion. So what is it? Are you all for federalism? Or are you against federalism? Are you all for following the constituion? Or are you all happy with the staus quo and oligarchs? Your choice.