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 6)

 - 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:
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.

Compelled on what basis? There isn't a defined legal mechanism in place to compel anything at the moment, only a high level statement that such a thing is possible. There are no legal definitions of what constitutes a valid application, or what time frame the applications must be made within. Only Congress, through legislation, can directly provide those definitions. Lacking clear a clear legal framework, and dispute over whether a given application was relevant, rescinded, or still binding would end up as a case before SCotUS. There's no other body with the authority to resolves a dispute on such a matter, so it is also explicitly relevant the the process.

If Congress tried to call the convention now, the states that have since rescinded their applications would almost certainly contest it, so it would be up to judicial interpretation to decide whether states are within their rights and powers to declare that they've rescinded their applications or that their previous applications have expired, since there is no congressional legislation to preempt the default right to decide such for themselves in the absence of federal law defining the process.


quote:
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.
You're stretching a bit into the realm of hyperbole here, but you do realize that the very first vote each legislative body takes each legislative session is to adopt its rules of order? They literally do explicitly have to vote on their fundamental rules of operation every legislative session; the operation rules do not implicitly carry over.

The constitution does explicitly define some mechanisms; those do not need to be legislatively enacted. It does not explicitly define a mechanism for a constitutional conventions, only the final totals of applications and votes needed. The process of making applications and the rules of order for casting the votes are left undefined, and thus in the direct responsibility of Congress to define by nature of it being the Federal legislative body.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 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:
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.
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? [/QB]

The post that this was in was long. I wanted an answer to this question so I cut the rest for ease of reading.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  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 
If you prefer:

quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
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]

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 
That would be a question for the states.
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 
What are some of the options you imagine that the states might decide on?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  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 
Secession and exclusion. Declared Florida a territory so they can't screw up our elections for a third time, give Texas back to Mexico. Legalize enslavement of gingers. You know, the usual.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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 
Do you and Seneca think that is likely? It didn't work so well last time.

Albeit some parts are somewhat attractive.

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  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 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Do you and Seneca think that is likely? It didn't work so well last time.

1. Seneca and I agree on fewer things than you and I agree with, Kate. And I would have a much easier time representing what you believe than what he believes.
2. I was joking. "The usual" should have tipped you off.
3. there was no last time. The South tried to seceed militarily rather than following a constitutional approach. Congress can be petitioned to diddle with state boundaries a LA West Virginia, and the constitution could be amended to enable peaceful secession. Civil wars are for traitors.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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 
Psst... That is why I kinda wanted to hear Seneca's answer.
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 
There is now a website set up to track action among the state legislatures in calling for the convention. In the past few years alone almost 20 states have called for a convention, and the day is soon approaching when it will be a reality. Mass communication and the modern era of social media seemed to have tipped the balance.

http://www.conventionofstates.com/

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 
I can't see if they differentiate between states that are calling for one to support their corporatist agenda and effective promises to undermine individual liberty protections in favor of state power and the ones that are calling for one to create an amendment to overturn the CU decision and otherwise remove the inappropriate application of indvidual civil rights protections to corporate entities.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  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