Posted on 08/02/2015 6:31:07 AM PDT by Kaslin
How do you know when a presidential candidate is being deceptive? No, silly, not when his or her lips are moving. Candidates often tell the truth -- like when they say they want your vote or your money. Moving lips are not a reliable clue.
So what is? Any statement that envisions an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
_Politicians often act as though the Constitution is a sacred text handed down from heaven, like the Bible. Unlike the Bible, though, they have all sorts of recommendations for improving it. These proposals fall into two general categories: hopeless fantasies and pathetic frauds.
This year, both Republicans and Democrats support revisions of the nation's charter. After the Supreme Court said gay couples have a constitutional right to marry, Ted Cruz said every justice should be subject to a retention election every eight years -- junking the life tenure for all federal judges provided by the framers.
Scott Walker wants an amendment to let states ban same-sex marriage. Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee also said the decision called for altering the Constitution.
Jeb Bush is against those proposals, but he has his own changes in mind. He favors an amendment to require a balanced federal budget. Rick Perry endorsed that when he ran in 2012. He, Huckabee and Santorum have endorsed an amendment to ban abortion.
Not that the GOP has a monopoly on such designs. Bernie Sanders is sponsoring a constitutional amendment to override the Supreme Court's rulings on campaign finance and "stop billionaires from buying elections." Hillary Clinton is on board, and so is Martin O'Malley.
What all these measures have in common is that they have no chance of coming to pass in the foreseeable future, if ever.
We've already elected a president who supported the Federal Marriage Amendment: George W. Bush. If he couldn't get it through at a time when the citizenry opposed same-sex marriage, a Republican successor is not going to get it through now, in stark defiance of public opinion.
Supporters may say Bush didn't make much of an effort, which is true but doesn't help their case. He didn't make much of an effort because he knew that trying to get it approved by a super-majority in both houses of Congress, and then winning ratification by three-quarters of the states, would be a waste of time.
The balanced budget amendment is one of those ideas whose time has come -- and gone. Back in the 1970s, there was even a push for states to call a constitutional convention to consider it, which fell short of the 34 needed.
Ronald Reagan was for the amendment, and so were many Democrats. But it went nowhere. In the 1990s, the need became even less evident when Congress and President Bill Clinton managed to eliminate the budget deficit all by themselves.
Overriding the Supreme Court's rulings on campaign finance regulation is even harder to imagine. In the first place, it would require a lot of ordinary people to demand action on a subject they understand only dimly. In the second, it would face concerted and well-funded opposition from the very interests that supposedly are empowered by the status quo.
The logic of the supporters undermines the plausibility of their strategy. If Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers can use their fortunes to prevent the election of candidates they dislike, why couldn't they prevent a constitutional amendment they reject? Passing the amendment, on the other hand, would prove it isn't needed, by dramatizing the weakness of moneyed interests.
In any case, it's not going to happen, if only because Republicans, who are universally opposed, are so dominant at the state level. After the 2014 elections, the GOP held legislative control in 30 states. Given their huge disadvantage, Democrats might as well try to land a kite on the moon.
Endorsing a constitutional amendment is a way of evading useful action, often because there is nothing to be done. Rather than admit defeat on a matter that is important to some voters, candidates try to gull them with solutions they know are bogus.
No one should be fooled. As Mark Twain might say if he were still around today, there are three kinds of falsehoods: Lies, damned lies and constitutional amendments.
While I strongly promote the repeal of the ill-conceived 17th Amendment for example, hypothetically speaking the Constitution would work fine as it is imo, the states having the 10th Amendment-protected power to prohibit constitutionally unprotected gay marriage for example, if it was strictly interpreted (ahem) the way that the Founding States had intended for it to be understood.
Getting back to the 17th Amendment, as a consequence of what I call 17th Amendment gridlock, the corrupt Senate, the most unconstitutionally powerful office in DC imo, is simply refusing to do its job to work with the House to remove from office lawless presidents and activist justices who are using their authority to pervert the Constitution.
In fact, the corrupt Senate contributes to the perversion of the Constitution by working in cahoots with the corrupt House to pass unconstitutional bills, bills that not only steal 10th Amendment-protected state powers, but also steals state revenues associated with those powers.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear, along with corrupt senators, lawless presidents and activist justices.
It is up to the state legislatures to determine the powers and authority of their delegates. Parliamentary procedures are up to the convention.
Here for instance is the Indiana statute that will govern delegate commissions.
What you say about the author may well be true, but he happens to bring up a good point: getting a constitutional amendment passed is extremely difficult and assumes that there is more or less of a consensus on the point in question. No such consensus exists for the topics that conservatives tend to care about.
Voting is like gambling in a casino where the cards are all marked, the slots are all fixed, the dealers are all crooked, and the floor staff are all pickpockets. And expecting that you’ll somehow come out ahead
I offer none other than that men will sit down sometime in the future to reframe our government.
The sole question is whether they will do so as equals, as state delegates in a calm setting, or be commanded to do so with a bayonet pointed at their chests.
I'm not denying the constitutional amendment process is difficult. The founders intentionally made it that way. But it's not impossible, as seen by the fact that we have 27 Amendments at present, all proposed by Congress. But now the Congress is so dominated by establishment career politicians that the alternative amendment process of the Article V convention of the states is being discussed seriously.
Over the last five years or so, the trend is that state legislatures are becoming more Republican, and, in general, more conservative. In other words, we're not all that close now to having enough, but the trend in the state legislatures nationally is in a conservative direction. There have to be 34 state legislatures in line for an Article V convention of the states to be called. Some have already approved of the convention.
I suggest you read Mark Levin's book, "The Liberty Amendments," for a good discussion of the Article V convention of the states process and some interesting amendment proposals.
I did not. I weighed propensities against systemic options and made a choice.
The sole question is whether they will do so as equals, as state delegates in a calm setting, or be commanded to do so with a bayonet pointed at their chests.
Your false setting of exclusive options is preposterous. When the Federal convention was begun, most of the delegates and the people entered negotiations thinking they were only going to amend the Articles of Confederation. Lo and behold, the Federalists had another plan. IMO, the same will happen with an Article V convention with "take it or leave it" as the outcome. I don't like that prospect when there are other possibilities. There is the option, for example, of picking a single easily adoptable amendment and putting an effort behind it, such as correcting the manner of treaty ratification to the 2/3 of the full Senate by recorded vote as opposed to 2/3 of "Senators present." Although I would prefer a different threshold, I'd take that one for now. Then go for the next. It doesn't have to be that hard.
They don’t have the will, but I don’t think the 17th A has much to do with it. The whole GOP are just cowards. After all they won’t even defund anything for fear Obama will “shut down the government” and they will be blamed for it and lose their majority, despite just the opposite happening in 2014. Frankly they don’t deserve to be a majority, and they won’t be for long.
It is best to drop the political party mindset. It clouds reason.
The constitution acts on both the people and states. Both were and MUST BE represented in the law making body in order to have a republic.
Since the 17A the senate has been composed of three term congressmen whose interest is entirely composed of popular reelection rather than advancement of their states.
“What good are new Constitutional amendments if current ammendments aren’t being followed?”
“Current amendments”? How about provisions of the Constitution, never amended? Barack has never himself claimed to be a natural born citizen. The only claimed attestation was signed by Nancy Pelosi to ger Barack on the ballot in Arizona. Barack and Claire McCaskill, Barack’s campaign co-chair sponsored two actions to affirm natural born citizenship for McCain, SB2678, which failed in 2008 and SR511, which is just a resolution, not actionable. “...born to parents who were citizens at the time of the birth” was the opinion of Barack’s Harvard Con-Law professor, also reiterating the need for birth on sovereign U.S. soil. Is argument was based upon the 1790 Nationality Act, repealed in 1795, changing foreign born children of citizen form natural born citizens to naturalized citizens, based upon Article 1 Section 8. They didn’t succeed in changing it before Barack was “elected”, and chose to use McCain’s questionable eligibility as cover. You guys to don’t ask and we won’t either.
What does any discussion of amendments mean if we pretend a provision, Article II section 1, doesn’t exist? Few talk honestly because they are afraid to discuss article II honestly, some knowing that federal courts are political and will avoid trouble by denying standing and the Supreme requiring NBC interpretation. Others support a political candidate who doesn’t satisfy the existing definition and believe the end justifies ignoring the intent of our framers. Amending Article II Section 1 will requie Court thanks to Kagan and Sotomayor have blocked cases overturning Minor v. Happersett which confirmed the definition, “born on our soil to parents who were its citizen at birth”.
Exactly. Can you imagine them in 1775? “What, declare independance from the crown? Are you stupid? That’s impossible.”
When was that?
Could something like that even work?
Dems would support one that automatically increases taxes on ‘the wealthy’
‘97 I think, so long ago now. The RINO no vote was Hatfield of Oregon. It originated in the Senate I believe so the House never voted on it.
It would be hard to pass, but I’d not call it impossible.
As to whether it would work, that is the question. Every version I’ve seen gives Congress the power to set it aside and allow a deficit if “a declaration of war is in effect” or by 3/5s vote of both Houses. You could drive a truck through the former exemption, the war on terror is ever going on after all.
A line item veto amendment might be helpful.
Twas 95. Hatfield didn’t run again in 1996. Terrible RINO that one. They tried again in 1997 and it again failed by 1 vote in the Senate. Clinton heavily lobbied against it.
Hatfield was a RINO, but he was 100% pro-life and a gentlemen. Between Packwood and him they could have made one good Senator and one Ted Kennedy, but instead Oregon had two different flavors of RINO in the Senate.
Yes. It was quite a little oddity.
Not unlike our NY House pals, Hanna and Gibson.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.