Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic (Page 5)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They will choose not to buy the insurance, because it won't be cost justified. You're waxing hyperbolic to conclude they will never become ensured. Especially since it flies in the face of what actaully occurs now.
In the case of most people directly affected by the law, it's not hyperbolic at all. Most of them would have spent their whole life priced out of the insurance market, and the fraction of them that did manage to survive to 65 (which is shrinking due to dropping life expectancies in the lower half of our economic spectrum) will not only see their life expectancy jump because they're finally eligible for Medicare, but also represent an excessively high cost to the medical system as a whole, as we now have to pay the compounded costs of bringing them back to health after long neglect.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There will be virtually no increase in those numbers unless the insurance companies completely throw their responsibilities and informed analysis out the window and start arbitrarily paying for unneeded care.
The ACA was written to restrict insurance companies quite a lot and to punish them if they attempt to deny care for a whole host of reasons. The legal departments of these companies who are evaluating the ACA will no doubt advise the companies to approve most anything now rather than fight it and face the legion of new sanctions they could hit under Obamacare if they try to deny anything.

But then, this comes as no surprise as many of the ACA's authors intended for this law to be so burdensome upon the insurance industry that they hoped it would cause them to fail so it could open up a path to justifying why single payer was needed and they could destroy our medical system. Harry Reid's famous quote essentially said this.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
I can't imagine that the total collection of $100/person for opting to depend on ER guaranteed ER access instead of securing more useful coverage comes anywhere close to just the wages lost over the last two weeks, never mind the rippling effects from debt incurred and lost economic activity.
If that were the only cost you'd be correct, since its not remotely an accurate picture of cost you're not.
It's the cost of the mandate, which is what you're contending is the primarily objectionable breach of freedom, and the only significant direct cost they will be in place by the time we see the results of the 2014 and 2016 elections. Which, again, is what makes it foolish to do massive damage to the economy now rather than using the supposed outcry caused by the predicted problems to win sufficient support in those elections to repeal it from a more earnest position.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
There will be virtually no increase in those numbers unless the insurance companies completely throw their responsibilities and informed analysis out the window and start arbitrarily paying for unneeded care.
The ACA was written to restrict insurance companies quite a lot and to punish them if they attempt to deny care for a whole host of reasons. The legal departments of these companies who are evaluating the ACA will no doubt advise the companies to approve most anything now rather than fight it and face the legion of new sanctions they could hit under Obamacare if they try to deny anything.

But then, this comes as no surprise as many of the ACA's authors intended for this law to be so burdensome upon the insurance industry that they hoped it would cause them to fail so it could open up a path to justifying why single payer was needed and they could destroy our medical system. Harry Reid's famous quote essentially said this.

I have rather the opposite impression. I think the ACA benefits insurance companies. The employer and individual mandates just mean more customers. Yeah, the restrictions temper this a bit, but I don't think they make it a bad deal.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
There will be virtually no increase in those numbers unless the insurance companies completely throw their responsibilities and informed analysis out the window and start arbitrarily paying for unneeded care.
The ACA was written to restrict insurance companies quite a lot and to punish them if they attempt to deny care for a whole host of reasons.
Which is to say if they deny treatment based on wanting to pad their bottom line, rather than on any justifiable actuarial reason.
quote:
The legal departments of these companies who are evaluating the ACA will no doubt advise the companies to approve most anything now rather than fight it and face the legion of new sanctions they could hit under Obamacare if they try to deny anything.
Rather they'll advise them to clearly show their math so that the prior abusive practices of denying care on a pretty much arbitrary basis and counting on most people not being able (or even aware of the option to) fight through their appeal process to get it properly covered if they can get away with it is put to an end.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd advise you to spend some time working for a large company's legal department or accounting. As government restrictions and opportunities for lawsuits increase, companies are constantly forced into an evil arithmetic where it doesn't matter how frivolous the claim is, it is cheaper to settle and pay it than to fight it even if it isn't a justified claim in the first place.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca,

Single payer would alleviate the burden on businesses.

More importantly, health care in the US is going to be prohibitively expensive until two things happen:

We break up the cartels that supply to hospitals, and

Americans start taking better care of themselves.

[ October 16, 2013, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: KidTokyo ]

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ever seen the movie "Puncture"? It's a good illustration of what is wrong with our hospital supply companies today.

Those supply monopolies are usually a result of government-granted monopoly or government regulations making monopolies inevitable in supplying healthcare. This is similar to what the CoNs do in giving hospitals monopolies over ORs.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Those supply monopolies are usually a result of government-granted monopoly or government regulations making monopolies inevitable in supplying healthcare.
Yes, that it absolutely true.

But what I think you don't grok is that everything in a capitalist economy is established by government. Monopolies are established, or broken up, by government. Corporations do not exist without government -- the government creates them. It is a question of policy. There is no "free market" or market of any kind in the absence of government, which is why I think some of the more extreme anti-government talk is very misguided and naive, because it keeps us forever lodged in these ideologically-driven battles of abstractions and absolutes when we should be seeking pragmatic solutions.

If you support freedom and fairness then you must be willing to set limits on corporate power -- the unique powers government grants to contractually complex businesses. Adam Smith's invisible hand wasn't some magic law of nature -- it requires lawfulness, reason, transparency.

Government sets the bounds of the market. Always. We should be learning to use that power responsibly, all of us, rather than rejecting it outright and leaving it to be seized in the night by elites.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Adam Smith's invisible hand wasn't some magic law of nature
Adam Smith's "invisible hand" (in the context of WoN) was just a colorful way of expressing the fact that people tend to invest in what they see as the best risk/reward ratio. It wasn't a law of nature, sure, but rather a statement of human psychology.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What Seneca said about govt monopolies to hospitals is very true.

But with regard to public service jobs such as teaching, where there's a kindness incentive, good people get diddled by the invisible hand.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RedVW on a Laptop
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for RedVW on a Laptop   Email RedVW on a Laptop   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Can't say I see anything wrong in the original post. Getting the 17th repealed wouldn't be enough anymore.
Posts: 507 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
To begin we look back to the Constitution itself, the document that has protected liberty within America. This document is under attack by the Progressives who despise liberty and the Constitution itself. Current proof: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-constitution-free-zone-map
I take it that the ACLU is not a Progressive organization by your definition, since why would a Progressive organization which despises liberty and the Constitution itself would provide a graph of exactly where the Constitution is not being upheld? [Smile]

[ October 17, 2013, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Progress report?
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Looks like there has been some growing movements among the state legislatures toward organizing a convention.

http://www.themainewire.com/2013/11/constitutional-convention-movement-growing-states/

quote:
A growing group of state lawmakers from across the country are exploring ways to limit the power of the federal government by using a seldom-referenced clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Last week, the President Pro Tempore of the Indiana State Senate David Long (R-Fort Wayne) joined an effort to explore convening a Constitutional convention pursuant to Article V of the Constitution.

Long joins legislators from Kansas, Ohio, Oklahoma and Wisconsin who have all signed a letter calling for every state to send a three-person bipartisan delegation to George Washington’s home in Mount Vernon, Virginia on December 7th.

The purpose of the Mount Vernon Assembly is to plan an Article V Constitutional Convention. The exact nature of proposed amendments is presently unclear.

Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides a way from state legislatures to amend the country’s most authoritative founding document. Under Article V, two-thirds of state legislatures may call on Congress to convene a convention, and three-fourths of states can vote to ratify any amendments – without or without Congress’ approval.

There has never been an Article V convention.

“The authors of the Constitution included a state-led amendment option as a check on a runaway federal government,” Long said, according to a story in the Northwest Indiana Times. “The dysfunction we see in Washington, D.C., provides an almost daily reminder of why this option is needed now more than ever.”


I can already sense the progressive statists quaking in fear. It took them near a century to inflict the damage that they have to our society, given that we are seeing this amount of movement toward repelling their efforts and repairing the harm in such a short span of time is encouraging.

[ February 12, 2014, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Looks like Michigan has joined in as well.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/31/constitutional-conundrum-michigan-demand-for-a-bal/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

As long as the statist parasites in Congress don't try and cook the numbers, Michigan makes 34 and a Convention should be imminent.

[ April 01, 2014, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The question appears to be whether or not to count states that rescinded the application. On the one hand, Article V makes it sound like the states are to approach Congress as a unified body, so including rescinded applications in the count seems incorrect. On the other hand, Article V doesn't say applications can be rescinded. Would it be judicial activism for the Supremes to rule on this topic?

Pragmatically, is it really worthwhile to go to a convention with only 20-odd affirmations of support (or 20+ states implicitly uninterested)? Especially when some states haven't visited the issue in 20-30 years?

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
On the other hand, Article V doesn't say applications can be rescinded.
Bingo.

quote:
Would it be judicial activism for the Supremes to rule on this topic?
Yes, the courts, governors, president and congress have no ability to stop this.


quote:
Pragmatically, is it really worthwhile to go to a convention with only 20-odd affirmations of support (or 20+ states implicitly uninterested)? Especially when some states haven't visited the issue in 20-30 years?
Some states didn't even attend the original convention. My guess is any state who wants to attend is free to do so, and regardless of how many show up, the requisite number for one has been met, which means even if just one state shows up to the actual convention, if they propose amendments that the subsequent required number of other states ratify on their own in the coming years, they get added to the Constitution.

If the feds try to interfere with this process, stop it from happening or declare it invalid, then that is pretty much the final gauntlet. I doubt that could happen though because our government is being run by two Constitutional law professors who would NEVER violate the Constitution, right? [Smile]

[ April 02, 2014, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Things are heating up in the House...

quote:
WASHINGTON – Momentum is building behind what would be an unprecedented effort to amend the U.S. Constitution, through a little-known provision that gives states rather than Congress the power to initiate changes.

At issue is what's known as a "constitutional convention," a scenario tucked into Article V of the U.S. Constitution. At its core, Article V provides two ways for amendments to be proposed. The first – which has been used for all 27 amendment to date – requires two-thirds of both the House and Senate to approve a resolution, before sending it to the states for ratification. The Founding Fathers, though, devised an alternative way which says if two-thirds of state legislatures demand a meeting, Congress “shall call a convention for proposing amendments.”

The idea has gained popularity among constitutional scholars in recent years -- but got a big boost last week when Michigan lawmakers endorsed it.

Michigan matters, because by some counts it was the 34th state to do so. That makes two-thirds.

In the wake of the vote, California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter pressed House Speaker John Boehner on Tuesday to determine whether the states just crossed the threshold for this kind of convention. Like Michigan lawmakers, Hunter's interest in the matter stems from a desire to push a balanced-budget amendment -- something that could potentially be done at a constitutional convention.

“Based on several reports and opinions, Michigan might be the 34th state to issue such a call and therefore presents the constitutionally-required number of states to begin the process of achieving a balanced budget amendment,” Hunter wrote.

“With the recent decision by Michigan lawmakers, it is important that the House – and those of us who support a balanced budget amendment -- determine whether the necessary number of states have acted and the appropriate role of Congress should this be the case."

If two-thirds of the states indeed have applied, the ball is presumably in Congress' court to call the convention.

But Article V is rather vague, and it's ultimately unclear whether 34 states have technically applied. In the past, states like Oregon, Utah and Arizona have quietly voted to approve the provision in their legislature.

But some of the 34 or so have rescinded their requests. Others have rescinded, and then re-applied.

Alabama rescinded its request in 1988 but in 2011, lawmakers again applied for a convention related to an amendment requiring that the federal budget be balanced. It was a similar story in Florida in 2010.

Louisiana rescinded in 1990 but lawmakers have tried several times, unsuccessfully, to reinstate the application since then.

It's unclear whether the applications still count in these scenarios.

Some constitutional scholars like Gregory Watson, an analyst in Texas, say once states ask, there may be no take-backs.

“There is a disagreement among scholars as to whether a state that has approved an application may later rescind that application,” Watson told The Washington Times. “If it is ultimately adjudicated that a state may not rescind a prior application, then Ohio’s 2013 application for a Balanced Budget Amendment convention would be the 33rd and Michigan’s 2014 application would be the 34th on that topic.”

Others say if a state changes its mind, it can no longer be part of the 34.

Even if the requisite number of states have applied, questions remain about how such a convention would work -- and whether, as Michigan wants, such a convention could be limited to only discussing a balanced-budget amendment.

It still may be a long shot, but some analysts are warning about the unintended consequences of such a move.

In Louisiana, Budget Project Policy Analyst Steve Spire argued against the state's resolution, saying the convention could permanently damage the nation’s political system.

The last time there was a successful amendment was more than four decades ago – the 26th Amendment which changed the voting age to 18. States ratified the 27th Amendment on congressional pay increases, but it took more than 200 years to do it.


Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The president isn't implicated in the process, but I think there's a reasonable argument that the 2/3rd criterion hasn't been met. It could be argued that the states have the power to rescind an application because nothing says they can't. If a State has declared they are not making an application, then who's Congress to contradict them?
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
The president isn't implicated in the process, but I think there's a reasonable argument that the 2/3rd criterion hasn't been met. It could be argued that the states have the power to rescind an application because nothing says they can't. If a State has declared they are not making an application, then who's Congress to contradict them?

There is no mechanism to rescind an application. If they are really so hell bent on not wanting to change the Constitution then when the proposed amendments come out of the Convention that they at one time called for, they can simply refuse to ratify those amendments. However, this does not remove the right of the other states to consider those amendments for ratification.

The die is cast.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There was no mechanism specified to make an application, either. "On the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states" is all the process information we have. Presumably it doesn't mean delegates from two thirds of the legislatures need to show up in Washington, but it might. There's nothing to say either way.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There is no mechanism to rescind an application.
There is no mechanism that prevents them from doing so either, so that's not really a useful statement. Until Congress or caselaw actually defines a formal process through legislation or judicial precedent, it's pretty much arbitrary territory.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So if a state applied in 1777, but recinded in 1778, it still applies, hum? [Wink]

Just because there is no mechanism doesn't mean it can't be done. Just make one. [Smile]

Anyway, here's an interesting question: if the convention is held, are all states invited, even the ones who didn't apply? Do they get to vote on the proposed amendment? And how do you limit the number of amendments considered? (Some would like to use it to reconfigure the Supreme Court or make same-sex marriage illegal.)

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And, overall, precedent would suggest that it's likely that such applications would not be valid before the term of the state legislative session that passed them, since we do have it established that one legislative session cannot legally bind a future one to any specific commitment or rules.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
There is no mechanism to rescind an application.
There is no mechanism that prevents them from doing so either, so that's not really a useful statement. Until Congress or caselaw actually defines a formal process through legislation or judicial precedent, it's pretty much arbitrary territory.
Or, at the very least, lacking specific federal guidance, each state is explicitly free to make up it's own mechanism for applying and/or rescinding an application for such.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
WS, theoretically, the convention can propose what ever it wants. It'd still need to get three quarters of the states to agree though. Which strikes me as a solid enough safeguard.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:

If the feds try to interfere with this process, stop it from happening or declare it invalid, then that is pretty much the final gauntlet. [Smile] [/QB]

Final "gauntlet" before what, exactly?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
WS, theoretically, the convention can propose what ever it wants. It'd still need to get three quarters of the states to agree though. Which strikes me as a solid enough safeguard.

Bingo.

No doubt the progressive statists will try and blow smoke. We even saw an absurd comment above about "caselaw" and "judicial precedent."

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CONGRESS OR THE COURTS. Congress's role is simply that of a clerk, their job is to call the convention. They do not have discretion on whether to do it or not, they are COMPELLED. The courts and governors have no say either.

As for the absurd notion that it has to be within the same term of the legislature that passed the request, that's insane. That would be like pretending all laws that could possibly affect a legislature's ability to operate (including traffic laws, food regulatory laws for the legislature cafeteria, etc.) had to be re-done every new legislative session because laws apply to legislators too since they are citizens.

As NH pointed out, the safeguard is the 3/4 ratification number requirement. And I submit that is a hell of a lot better safeguard than 5-4 decisions from Scotus or 535 corrupt legislators refusing to abide by the Constitution.

Once 34 states call for a Convention, it must be held. Any state can attend, even ones that did not call for it. There is no number of states that is required to attend for the amendments coming out of it to be considered for ratification.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One state proposes the convention, if 2/3 agree (at the time) you have one. If not... try again later. 2/3 believed at some point that it was a good idea but have since lost interest or changed their mind? Sounds like a fantastically productive convention in the works huh?

quote:
Final "gauntlet" before what, exactly?
Why that's when the peasants cry "Won't someone save us from this tyranny?" and Seneca dons his pointy eared cowl and cape.

[ April 02, 2014, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:

If the feds try to interfere with this process, stop it from happening or declare it invalid, then that is pretty much the final gauntlet. [Smile]

Final "gauntlet" before what, exactly? [/QB]
Some reason why you chopped up my quote?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
One state proposes the convention, if 2/3 agree (at the time) you have one. If not... try again later. 2/3 believed at some point that it was a good idea but have since lost interest or changed their mind? Sounds like a fantastically productive convention in the works huh?

If states are really that disinterested, then I'm sure there won't possibly be 3/4 ratification support for the Amendments that come out of it, right?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh other than one state, at any time after this odd threshold has historically been met, wasting everyone's time I'm not opposed. I guess if more than 1/3 declined the invitation it wouldn't be an issue anyway.

The shouting match amongst those who do show up each competing to propose their own amendments (mostly as political theater) could be entertaining.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Who exactly speaks for "the state" that this process gives you hope for anything other than a safeguard against total subversion by the federal government? Isn't this the same people who can't manage to get anything done through the other channels? What is really circumvented with this process that excites you Seneca?
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The state legislatures pass resolutions calling for the convention, then they send delegates.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:

If the feds try to interfere with this process, stop it from happening or declare it invalid, then that is pretty much the final gauntlet. [Smile]

Final "gauntlet" before what, exactly?

Some reason why you chopped up my quote? [/QB]
It was long.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:

If the feds try to interfere with this process, stop it from happening or declare it invalid, then that is pretty much the final gauntlet. [Smile]

Final "gauntlet" before what, exactly?

Some reason why you chopped up my quote?

It was long. [/QB]
Really? That seems unlikely given that what you cut out was shorter than what you patched together.

Did you have a specific reason for doing that?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The bad news is that the Constitution has a self-destruct button. The good news is that it's very hard to push.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The bad news is that the Constitution has a self-destruct button. The good news is that it's very hard to push.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
The bad news is that the Constitution has a self-destruct button. The good news is that it's very hard to push.

You think a state convention is the self destruct button? Really? Compared to what we're seeing today with POTUS and SCOTUS burning the Constitution while the Congress fiddles?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1