There Ought To Be a Law Against Making So Many Laws

The Aspen Times ^ | June 14, 2012 | Charlie Leonard

[tacticalogic]

That was the original idea and 200 years ago it was likely needed. Today no state could do this as they would be crushed by competition.

The "competition" would be other States, and they would answer with their own trade laws. History records that under the original Articles of Confederation, trade sanctions between states soon crippled interstate commerce, to the detriment of all. I wouldn't be too sure they couldn't find a way to do it all again if there was no mechanism in place to stop it. This was considered a "must have" by the attendees of the convention. They saw the results first-hand, and I think it would be unwise, if not downright arrogant, to say that we're too smart to ever do it again.

[tacticalogic]

The government has NO INTENTION on ever applying the interstate commerce clause as it was intended.

Poeple will do lots of things they never intended to do if the alternative is unpleasant enough.

[precisionshootist]

"Think abut who would be invited to that convention and ask yourself if that’s really a good idea."

Yes, people like Scott Walker would be invited.

This country is made up primarily of limited government conservative people. Just take a look at the red and blue map. Most of this country is RED. That's why this IS a good idea. The Convention would be dominated by red state limited government delegates. See the libs make up only about 20 percent but they control 90 percent of the government bureaucracy this is the reason why we are losing freedom.

We don't have a balanced budget amendment because the libs Won't allow the American people to vote on the issue. They know it would pass by a huge margin. They will NEVER put term limits on the table because they know the people would impose them. We will never get a rewrite of the commerce clause because they KNOW the American people would limit or eliminate it.

The current condition of hugely expanding out of control government that REFUSES to vote to limit it's power is THE VERY REASON the founders added the option for the states to call a convention. It's not only time it's way past time and even that may be running out.

[precisionshootist]

"The government has NO INTENTION on ever applying the interstate commerce clause as it was intended. Poeple will do lots of things they never intended to do if the alternative is unpleasant enough."

Yes, that's the problem. The alternative is not unpleasant at all! Do you think Harry reid is living these unpleasantries? No he's not and I can tell you none of our elected officials are. They have no fear of losing their jobs, their power, their elite status, their private tables at DCs finest restaurants, and on and on.

I'm not dead set on elimination but we would need wording that would protect states but eliminate the huge number of government beauracracies and thousands of laws and regulations based on the perverted interpretation of the clause. This will NEVER be put to a vote outside of a Constitutional Convention.

[Personal Responsibility]

For every Scott Walker invited there will be one John McCain / Lindsey Graham AND one Howard Dean / Dick Durbin / Harry Reid. As you said, the libs control 90% of the government. When it comes to who attends the Con. Convention, they’d do their level best (worst?) to ensure the deck is stacked in their favor. If you don’t think that’s the case, I’m sorry but we’re just going to disagree.

I agree about the rest of what you had to say about balanced budget, term limits etc...

Lastly, wouldn’t you rather have the relatively brief brilliance of the Constitution we have now rather than a 2000 page monstrosity which would be the output of a Constitutional Convention held today? As much as I appreciate people like Walker, Demint or Palin, I trust the wisdom of Adams, Jefferson and Franklin more.

[precisionshootist]

Well I do understand your concerns and there is certainly risk involved.

That being said most of the fear is deliberately put forth by the statists.

In other words, they (libs) can't stack the deck in a convention. Just as they would have no chance to defeat an amendment imposing term limits or a balanced budget. They way they defeat these reforms is to NOT ALLOW the people to vote on them. This is really the only purpose of a CC is to propose amendments and allow a vote by the people in situations where the government itself (congress) will NOT allow an amendment to come to a vote.

It's a myth that a CC would draft huge changes. It's very limited scopy by definition.

We would simply propose a clearly worded balanced budget amendment, term limits, strict limit or removal of the commerce clause. Then the amendments go to a vote by the states.

This is where the libs lose this battle everytime and they know it. This is why a balanced budget amendment is blocked by the Dems every step of the way. They KNOW it passes if the people get to vote. The CC just takes Harry Reid and the rest of the tyrants out of the equation and allows the people to vote.

[precisionshootist]

I guess what is most misunderstood is the convention only "Proposes" amendments. They then have to be ratified by the states. So an amendment that says Congress must have a balanced budget and live within it's means would easily pass.

If the libs somehow stacked the deck at the convention (which they can't as they are heavily outnumbered) and created an amendment that increases government power and says all money is owned by the government then obviously there is no way the states would vote to ratify it.

The problem we have now is WE are outnumbered in the halls of congress and they (both republicans and democrats) have no intention on allowing a vote that would greatly reduce their power.