Update: Russia Exchanges Closed (and other horror stories)

Market Ticker ^ | 02/17/09 | Karl Denninger

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

You’re as naive as I am! and idealistic!

The government will do anything to stop such a move: mobilize the media, send out every dem “spokesman” to denounce it, coopt weak RINOs, threaten collapse of the government, etc.

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

True enough, they are in bed together. I would bet the banking regs are written to keep new upstart banks from challenging and competing with the existing banks. Rather like the pharmaceuticals manipulate the FDA and vice versa. It’s a big Kabuki dance to appease the masses.

[Lurker]

We're in some really deep kimchi.

L

[Lurker]

but what are the odds of us really bottoming out? I mean severely with limited food and stocks supplies?

If grownups were in charge I'd say about 20% or so. With this bunch, I don't see how we can possibly avoid it.

L

[AFreeBird]

Do we even have 34, non corrupted, at least politically neutral or conservative states, with governors and legislatures, who have the stones to follow through?

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

The last time the States almost called a convention was in 1983, when 32 of the 34 States needed passed resolutions calling for a federal balanced budget amendment.

Congress jumped in at that point, and passed a bill, saying a bill was sufficient, which was promptly overturned in the courts. Much like the line item veto was later overturned.

However, it is important to plant the seed of the idea at the State level now, because there will not be the luxury of years for individual States to get on board. It should be presented to them to ponder, as a “contingency plan”, because there will likely be little time for a typical process to work.

All 34 States will have to pass resolutions within, my guess, six months.

[Cedar]

Sounds like a good idea. But aren’t many of the D.C. politicians friends of those who run the current big banks? I think they’re just repaying their friends.

Also, if these banks fold, wealthy politicians lose all of their stock value (as would the rest of the country). A total market crash they don’t want to see.

Not that I understand anything to do with financial stuff. An informed relative explained a little bit to me.

[happygrl]

I am an economic amateur, but I understand what he is saying.

I am not sure that 0bama does.

Pray for the Republic.

[OneVike]

Believe me, you do NOT want a constitutional convention to convene. Their are way too many moderate to liberal controlled state houses in this country, and it is them who will be appointing their representatives to the convention. Conservatives would get nothing, NOTHING!

No my friend, the last thing you want to see happen in today's idealistic world is a constitutional convention to take place that would scrap the existing constitution.

[happygrl]

There are people here who think Obama doesn’t know what he is doing. Hey! He knows exactly what he is doing.

I think 0bama's handlers know exactly what they are doing.

I still think 0bama is a puppet, by his own choosing.

There is nothing on his resume that indicates that he has any depth of knowledge about economics.

His biography indicates that his abilites as a hustler and a con man were duely noted and that he was "sent" up the line from the time he was "discovered" in Chicago.

[GOPJ]

Thanks for the ping.

[happygrl]

Do we even have 34, non corrupted, at least politically neutral or conservative states, with governors and legislatures, who have the stones to follow through?

This seems like a good thread of its own. Freepers form various states culd report on what they know.

Don't include California.

[Publius]

The information stated on this thread about a Convention for Proposing Amendments, sometimes referred to as an "Article V Convention", and erroneously referred to by journalists as a "constitutional convention", is incorrect.

Click here for the latest and most correct information.

[AFreeBird]

Thanks.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

I’m not really seeing it as optional. The federal government would be in a state of near collapse for such a convention to be convened.

However, I was very careful to specify a senate-style two-person representation from each State. This would favor conservatives and Republicans. It also strongly favors an anti-federalist approach to the new constitution.

As things stand now, delegates to a constitutional convention are free to do as they please. This is why I specifically said that the States have to severely limit their function to just representing what the States want, as States, not as popular representatives.

It would be a great knock-down, drag-out as far as additions to the constitution, but there would also be some easy winners, such as a balanced budget amendment and a presidential line item veto.

And while these would be bare bones, there are any number of other fixes, patches and removals that need to be made to the constitution, many of which are not controversial.

I also added that the federal government would not be permitted to take part in the convention, which in itself would stop a lot of low rent hanky-panky. They would be as unwelcome as a representative of George III to the first convention.

The bottom line is that, in an emergency situation, the lobbyists, fanatics, crackpots, bureaucrats, consultants, etc., would be excluded from the proceedings, and they would be as somber and serious as a church.

Finally, the convention cannot dissolve until everything they have ordered has been carried out, with removal from office as the punishment for anyone who tries to stonewall them.