Senator Long calls for a constitutional convention

Northeast Indiana Public Radio ^ | 2-14-2013 | Brandon Smith

[digger48]

Senate President Pro Tem David Long said Indiana needs to take the lead in assembling a constitutional convention of the states in an effort to rein in the federal government’s power. Long’s effort aims to produce an amendment to the Untied States Constitution.

To amend the Constitution in a state-initiated way, two-thirds of state legislatures must agree to convene a constitutional convention, at which the amendment is drafted. Three-fourths of the states must then approve the amendment for it to be ratified.

Senate President Pro Tem David Long wants to start that process on an amendment meant to impose limits on the Constitution’s Commerce Clause and federal taxing authority. Long said limiting those two powers would help prevent the federal government from enacting measures like the Affordable Care Act, which he calls the poster child for federal overreaching.

"This is not some kind of a, you know, conspiracy theorists all gathering together to drive the federal government out of our lives," said Long. "It is, I think, a thoughtful and constitutionally-based approach to how we can protect states’ rights."

But Senate Minority Leader Tim Lanane said the proposal is a distraction.

"You know, I think we ought to keep our nose to the grindstone on what people are wanting us to which is to work on ways to create jobs," Lanane said.

Long said he’s spoken with lawmakers in other states, such as Tennessee and Texas, who say they’d follow Indiana’s lead. Still, he admits the process could take years

[digger48]

thanks to all for their posts.

this has been gnawing at me all day.

have to hit the hay, but I look forward to the responses

[Bronzy]

This is what I have read about Long: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/01/28/indiana-state-senator-david-long-blocks-discussion-of-bill-nullifying-obamacare/

[JRandomFreeper]

Every amendment in the last 150 years has screwed us.

That's why I keep rope handy. There's a lamp-post at the corner of my property.

/johnny

[Thane_Banquo]

That’s what amendments are for.

ugh. Geeze. To repeat for the millionth time: A con-con cannot re-write or change a single jot or tittle of the Constitution of the Unites States of America. Not a single speck of ink can it change. All it can do is propose amendments that 3/4th of the states then would have to ratify.

It even says it right in the second parapgraph of the article:

To amend the Constitution in a state-initiated way, two-thirds of state legislatures must agree to convene a constitutional convention, at which the amendment is drafted. Three-fourths of the states must then approve the amendment for it to be ratified

[cripplecreek]

Gotta love that 17th amendment. It was sold as empowerment through a popular vote and its led to urban centers electing senators who don’t represent their states and can’t be recalled.

Amendments these days are all about stripping the people and states of powers and handing the feds more power.

[Thane_Banquo]

I don't trust ANY politician

Funny, 'cause in your first comment you specifically said to do it the way all the other amendments were passed, which is through Congress. Funny how most of those amendments in the past 150 years have increased the power of the same federal government over which Congress has partial control. In fact, that's EXACTLY why the Founders put the con-con process in the Constitution, as an alternative to the Congressional path.

[plain talk]

well if it ever happened liberals would strive to change the whole premise of the Constitution. It was originally described to prescribe what the feds could do and leave rest to states. They would reverse that and Lord knows what else. Our RINOs would not even notice the change. :-)

[JRandomFreeper]

The congressional method, while flawed, and has seriously screwed up the Constitution is one amendment at a time. And they are very difficult to get through congress.

A con-con can, and would, turn into a free-for-all. There would be a plethora of stupid amendments.

I'll take 'em one at a time, thankyouverymuch.

That's the difference.

/johnny

[scbison]

It is being re-written anyway, so why not give it a shot.

[5thGenTexan]

I like term limits on the Prez, but think the 17th did the most damage, since it took the States’ influence to limit Federal powers away and replaced it with a second body trying to buy the votes of the people with other people’s money.

[alloysteel]

Constitutional conventions are not, by any means, limited to “merely” adding an amendment.

Once convened, there is nothing to stop them from writing a whole new document.

Perhaps that is what at least part of the country wants, a “clean slate”.

How modern of them.

[Rodamala]

No.Effing.Way.

I read some $3 P.O.S. book from Big Lots by Larry Sabado (was trying to be open-minded. He detailed all the tweaks he wants to see to the Constitution... I threw the book out when he was talking about making the senate like rhe house... the number of senators from a state dependent upon the population size of that state.

I about barfed... the guy has no clue what senators are there for... to vote note as direct representatives of the people... but of the state itself.

Holt sht... I wouldn’t want a CC if we had 7 conservatives in the supreme court and supermajorities in both houses... and Ronald Reagan back. The all would know better. RATS know better too... and their reaaona for change are straight-up nefarious.

[OneWingedShark]

I'd propose something like this:

Section 1
The power of the Congress to regulate the value of the dollar is hereby repealed; its value is hereby fixed to that of the weight of gold (not less than 99.9% purity) equal to one fifteen-hundredth of an avoirdupois ounce.

Section 2
To guard against the congress using its authority to define weights and measures to subvert the above, the ounce above is approximately 28.349523 SI grams.

Section 3
The Treasurer shall make account for all gold physically in the treasury's possession no less than annually, these accounting shall be publicly available.

Section 4
The ability of the Congress to borrow is hereby restricted: no debt shall be assumed which would cause the total obligations of the federal government to exceed one-hundred-ten percent of the gold physically in the possession of the Treasury.

Section 5
Any government official, employee, officer, judge, or agent confiscating gold, or causing it to be confiscated, shall be tried for theft and upon conviction shall: (1) make twofold restitution, (2) be terminated from employment/removed from office, and (3) stripped of all retirement benefits accrued in government employment.

---

The reasons are as follows:

• S1 prevents the congress from abdicating it's responsibility WRT monies by stripping the power to set its value, even by-proxy via the Federal Reserve.
• S2 prevents congress from tampering with the dollar's value by altering the weights and measures.
• S3 forces the government to have actual money in what it calls accounts.
• S4 eviscerates the ability of congress to saddle either the current generation or future generations with debt.
• Because S3 & S4 together would increase the incentive for the government to just steal gold, S5 makes it personally damaging for an agent of the government to do so.
• the value given in S1 is not arbitrary (though it can be arbitrarily set), as I worked the math with gold at $1650/tr.oz and fixes the value of the dollar at $0.997 current. -- I figure that would minimize shock to the economy, though I wouldn't be adverse to the dollar being, say, one hundredth of an oz so long as the government couldn't sap its value away.

[JRandomFreeper]

I have a serious problem with section 5.

Any government official convicted of any felony should do the rope dance. That should be the one and only punishment for government officials convicted of felonies.

Period. Paragraph. Turn the page. Close the book. Amen.

/johnny

[Tublecane]

You’re right. What he’s asking for is already in the Constitution. It’s just that feds ignore the actual commerce clause and taxing power in favor of whatever it is they prefer to do. I don’t see what’s to gain by rewriting them in another section, which they’ll ignore as well.

[Rodamala]

It is being re-written anyway,so why not give it a shot.

Hollywierd is rewriting love stories to contain a homo agenda... you wanna give that "a shot", go right ahead.

[Vendome]

Wait! Whut? You actually expect me to read past the headline?

When did that become a rule around here?

[OneWingedShark]

I have a serious problem with section 5.
Any government official convicted of any felony should do the rope dance.
That should be the one and only punishment for government officials convicted of felonies.
Period. Paragraph. Turn the page. Close the book. Amen.

LOL -- Funny you should mention that; I originally had that [capital punishment] be the consequence of fraudulent reporting by the treasurer but then figured it wouldn't appeal because people would see it as being too heavy-handed.

Mere theft is not a felony, and so by your standard shouldn't be a capital punishment. (Though I admit 18USC241 & 242 are, and by your standard would be.)

[JRandomFreeper]

Theft over $700US is a felony in my state, last I checked.

But if you insist, I'll reduce that to any misdemeanor that is punishable by over a year for a normal citizen.

I want one punishment for politicians for committing any crime more serious than parking tickets, jaywalking, or speeding.

DUI? Rope dance. Bribery? Rope dance. Etc... rinse and repeat as required.

/johnny

[JRandomFreeper]

In re: my last post...

It's not like we're going to run out of politicians. 30% turnover to the gallows might be a good thing.

If politicians become endangered, I might consider backing off. Slightly.

Nah.

/johnny