Featured Texas Governor Calling For Convention Of The States To Rein In Washington

One Honorable Mention, coming up!

Yes. That is why a full constitutional convention bothers me.

True. If that were the only way, I would say go for it. But there is another way which is less dangerous as the state legislatures would sideline any nonsense coming out of Washington (we would hope). If that fails we might have to resort to a convention.

 

What is the likelihood, given the polarization (politically and geographically) of this nation that 34 states would agree to create such a convention, given the possibility for mischief (as mentioned above) that would entail?

Can a convention, once called, be limited to only the specific purpose specified by the states? So far, 28 states have called for a convention to impose a balanced budget. Since a convention has never been called before, it is impossible to say what authority it would have once established. And by what vote would the amendments be recommended to the states? Article V is silent, but it requires that two-thirds of both the House and Senate vote to submit amendments to the states. So would the convention submit amendments to the states by a simple majority or by two-thirds majority?

And even if that were hashed out, what are the chances that 38 state legislatures or conventions would ratify the amendments?

I think it's an interesting "what if?" to contemplate, but it seems fraught with too many difficulties, ambiguities and even contradictions to be a serious project. But it sure works people up.

 

You obviously didn't read my response with any amount of understanding.

 

I believe Tom and I are in agreement. It's not the basic idea of a state called convention we oppose. Our opposition is based on what we believe to be a well founded fear of a convention gone wild. IOW, the fruit of such a convention not reflecting the conservative ideas posited above, but it would reflect the ideas of liberals of our nation.

 

I understand the reluctance to authorize a convention that might turn into a runaway nightmare. I used to think that way.

But again, given the polarization of our nation and the demographics, I doubt that anything much would happen except to further inflame the extremes, creating lurid headlines and sound bites and raising money for the political action organizations that thrive in such an environment.

I wonder: The original Constitutional Convention was conducted in complete secrecy. (We are indebted largely to Madison to explain the inner workings of the convention.) There is no way such a thing could be pulled off today. There would be a constant stream of tweets and Facebook posts if it tried to keep the proceedings secret, and a fully open convention would probably keep anything from happening at all, except constant repetition of talking points with an eye toward political advantage in the next election.

 

Well, if you insist: "show me where I said that."

 

Can't back up your false accusation? I thought not.

 

While I greatly respect the late Mr. Scalia, I need to ask why he believes it is very unlikely. And what if he is proved wrong?

 

Search: comprehension, fool, fools - search all forums - Results. No Results Found.

 

A supposed statement made 37 years ago quoted by a man who is so biased he can't seem to get his tinfoil hat on straight most of the time.

Not to mention shilling his book.