Posted on 12/11/2008 5:28:28 AM PST by GWMcClintock
Now..., some here have said that this Constitutional Convention could be a Democrat’s dream to enable him to change the Constitution to fit his own liberal wishes. HOWEVER, one must note that not all liberals are of the same mind with this issue. And when you can take your enemies arguments and make them work for you and refer to their own materials to help your own cause..., well, all the better... LOL...
—
American Federation of State, County and Federal Employees, AFL-CIO
http://www.afscme.org/
Resolution No: 193
27th International Convention
June 23-27, 1986
Chicago, IL
BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
WHEREAS:
Efforts are still being continued to convene a constitutional convention to consider an amendment requiring a balanced federal budget every year, and also to force Congress to pass a balanced budget constitutional amendment through the Congress. These efforts are being spearheaded by right wing interest groups with the active support of the Reagan Administration and the Senate Republican leadership; and
WHEREAS:
During the last eleven years, 32 states have passed some form of resolution petitioning Congress to convene a constitutional convention; and
WHEREAS:
Most constitutional scholars maintain that a convention could not be limited to a single issue. An endless number of emotional and divisive issues could be brought up in an open convention — repeal of the income tax, affirmative action and abortion, to name only a few. Such a proceeding would serve as a catalyst for demagogy of the worst kind; and
WHEREAS:
The constitutional convention that is being petitioned for would, at a minimum, reach into areas which are properly left to the legislative process. Such a convention, by writing particular social and economic policies into the U.S. Constitution, would infringe on the democratic right of American voters to choose between economic and social programs in elections; and
WHEREAS:
The attempt to mandate an annually balanced federal budget without regard to the condition of the U.S. economy is both politically and economically irresponsible. It is shameful that such an amendment is being vigorously supported by a President who has added one trillion dollars to the national debt and who has submitted a budget with deficits in excess of $200 billion; and
WHEREAS:
Deficits are occasionally necessary to stimulate the economy and to counter recessions, and as an econometric study commissioned by AFSCME has shown, the implementation of a balanced budget two years ago would have meant a continuation of recession; and
WHEREAS:
A balanced budget requirement would dangerously restrict the flexibility of the federal government’s economic policy and would greatly reduce the government’s ability to undertake new initiatives to satisfy pressing social needs.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That this 27th International Convention oppose efforts to mandate balancing the budget either through Congressional amendments or the calling of a constitutional convention. AFSCME will vigorously oppose Congressional amendments which would require a balanced federal budget, and will urge state legislatures to defeat resolutions calling for a constitutional convention and to withdraw any calls already submitted to Congress; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That AFSCME urge Congress to support a responsible federal budget policy by rejecting a balanced budget constitutional amendment.
SUBMITTED BY:
International Executive Board
Page that was referenced above...
http://www.afscme.org/resolutions/1986/r27-193.htm
—
I can hear the argument among conservatives now... “Well if the liberals don’t want it, then we should, because obviously we should be the opposite of whatever the liberals want...” LOL...
Here is Ohio House Joint Resolution #8:
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/res.cfm?ID=127_HJR_8
HJR 8 was put on the schedule yesterday in the Judiciary Committee:
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/house_committee_schedule.cfm
The Joint Resolution appears to have been only assigned to a committee, not voted on by that committee or gone any further.
http://lsc.state.oh.us/coderev/hjnt127.nsf/House+Joint+Resolution+Number?SearchView&Query=hjr%208&start=1&count=10
My question is - how many other states have this same bill filed? It sounds great, but is extremely dangerous, especially at this point in our history.
“I just never expected to see it in my lifetime.
Semper Fi ...”
Correct.
But better now than later for our children and grandchildren. In most cases, we are better trained.
Although the Corps can be proud of its performance in the ME.
(We will be happy to ride around on your M48!)
Semper Fi!
“You posted this junk - do you believe it?”
With all due respect, I was sent this information by the source. I had hoped that by posting it on FR, two things would occur:
1. Produce other comments from folks who are far more knowledgeable than myself to shed light on this.
2. To alert those at FR that this is in the undercurrent of American politics at this most dangerous time.
To ask whether I believe it is not the point. If that was the case, no one could post anything here from the MSM or other liberal rags!
Oh, heavens, Travis, too friggin’ close to reality!!!
I tend to believe it is meant to be the latter. There is already a mechanism in place for amending the existing Constitution. A Constitutional convention could write a new Constitution from scratch.
It would be essentially a re-boot of our system.
Thanks. Since it would requires 3/4 of the states, or 38, to ratify it, I feel much more secure.
What the US Constitution says about the issue at hand. Whether it is coming from the Congress or a Constitutional Convention it takes the same number of States to adopt the change[s].
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
It was tough enough to get the 13 original colonies to agree on a Constitution. A radical rewrite of the Constitution that would get 3/4 of the States to sign on is really only possible in the type of fiction someone posted upthread.
Ah, the legendary Dubya Cringe.
Good idea! Maybe this one as well, or one or the other with crosslinks.
Symbolism’s long inauguration history
FirstRead: MSNBC | December 10, 2008 | John Rutherford
Posted on 12/11/2008 7:57:42 AM PST by Pharmboy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2146868/posts
There Will Be No Civil War;
The Military will not mutiny against The One (piss be upon him);
None of you Free Republic Internet Rambo's will ever fire a shot in anger at another American;
There will be no "conservative revolution", because you think too highly of the rule of law to ever disobey - and The Left knows it!
You used too many words.
The Sheep will never read it.
|
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks stockpirate. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
They could.
And I think they can then approve the rewrite without any states voting.
How could they do that? Somebody would have to ratify the Constitution. And as things stand, it would probably be state conventions.
I don't think we need a new constitutional convention or a new Constitution. But if the country's as divided as everybody says it is, where would you get the kind of agreement necessary to scrap what we have and replace it with a new one?
What happened in 1787 happened because the franchise was still rather narrow. Voters tended to have similar interests. Nowadays, it's less likely that there'd be such agreement about fundamentals.
Now whatever would make you think DC would not let states secede?
There’s a much larger excerpt on the website, if you want to read more in the meantime.
You said — “You used too many words. The Sheep will never read it.”
Well, I feel sorry for those who figure that everything can be understood and solved in the space of a 60-minute TV show... :-)
You have just expressed your sorrow for The Sheep more diplomatically than I could have.
All I can express is contempt.
“Between the Lines” said — “There is no consensus as to whether or not the convention would have the power to simply disavow the Constitution altogether and propose replacing it with an entirely new document”
And then you replied — “I tend to believe it is meant to be the latter. There is already a mechanism in place for amending the existing Constitution. A Constitutional convention could write a new Constitution from scratch.”
—
Well, in case you didn’t realize it, there are *two ways* to amend the Constitution, which is “constitutional”... LOL..
One way is for the Congress to propose the Amendment and submit it to the states for ratification. The second way is for the states to submit an amendment and ratify it themselves — again by the *same* ratification procedure for all amendments — being that 3/4 of the states have to ratify it. This second way was put in the Constitution for the case in which Congress *would not act* the way the states wanted. So, this gave the states the ability to do it themselves, thereby bypassing the Congress. That’s the purpose of having two ways in the Constitution.
And the Balanced Budget Amendment was one of those things that Congress refused to submit (on their own). So, the states have taken this amendment into their own hands, thereby bypassing Congress and their refusal to act on it. That’s what is going on.
Furthermore, several states have provisions that the people whom they send to the Constitutional Convention will not be able to vote on any other amendment, or else their “right” (granted by the state sending them there) will be revoked and they will remove them from the Constitutional Convention, and they will *withdraw* from the Constitutional Convention.
And since all the states who have passed the Constitutional Convention route for getting the Balanced Budget Amendment — have specified that they are *only* acting on this one amendment, that means that at least 34 states will *refuse* to vote on anything else (if it were to come up). That would kill the Constitutional Convention and nothing would pass. It would be D.O.A. at that point.
That’s why it wouldn’t be a “runaway Constitutional Convention”....
It’s “Article 5” of the Constitution, by the way. You can read more about it, as a “staring point” right here — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution
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.