• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Article 5 Convention Of States

apdst said:
Right, not The Ten Commandments
Click to expand...

The Bible has multiple versions of the 10 commandments. Is that version, supposedly out of the mouth of God, less valid than another?
 
zyzygy said:
Why don't people seem to know of Article 5 Convention Of States of the Constitution , 10 states have already joined-----call your senators and representatives to support it-----it was written in by the framers as a last resort for the states when their power is being usurped by a lawless and too far overreach by the federal government.
Click to expand...

I've been wondering about that for about 16 years now. My best guess is that you'd never get enough states to agree that the current government needs replaced, rather it is probably the exact one they want. Maybe if Trump keeps pissing off the Freedom Caucus...
 
apdst said:
There is no, "church state thing". The 1st Amendment only says, "Congress shall make no law establishing religion". There's nothing there that prevents a state capital from displaying The Ten Commandments.
Click to expand...

Nor the Koran, I suppose...?
 
Harshaw said:
So, taking all of this as true for the sake of argument, a few people in one state represent everyone, nationwide, who's interested in it?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand your question. Who are "a few people in one state" and what is "it"? That piece was focused on TX, but the money wasn't all coming from TX. It's describing how a relative handful of extremely wealthy people want to re-write the constitution for their own benefit.
 
Porkuloss said:
I'm not sure I understand your question. Who are "a few people in one state" and what is "it"?
Click to expand...

Who did YOU have in mind?

Porkuloss said:
Exactly. The people that are pushing for this want to use the process to slip changes in that most of the population will regret. Do a little research on who backs this drive and who funds them. Please.
Click to expand...

After all, you differentiated between the people "pushing" and "who funds them."
 
Harshaw said:
Who did YOU have in mind?



After all, you differentiated between the people "pushing" and "who funds them."
Click to expand...

I did not intend to imply differentiation in that post. I could have been a little more clear. My apologies.
 
Porkuloss said:
I did not intend to imply differentiation in that post. I could have been a little more clear. My apologies.
Click to expand...

OK. What am I supposed to be afraid of here?

seeking a convention of states to impose limits on federal spending, enact term limits for federal lawmakers and limit the power of the federal government.
Click to expand...
 
Harshaw said:
OK. What am I supposed to be afraid of here?
Click to expand...

There's more to it than that. As always, the devil is in the details. What do YOU believe their end goal is? What do they hope to get out of it? It must be a big deal, because they are spending a lot of money. People like the Kochs don't do things out of altruism.

Ask yourself, why to a group of people who believe the constitution is an unchanging document, perfect in its original form, want to rewrite it?
 
Porkuloss said:
There's more to it than that.
Click to expand...

Like what, specifically?

As always, the devil is in the details. What do YOU believe their end goal is? What do they hope to get out of it? It must be a big deal, because they are spending a lot of money. People like the Kochs don't do things out of altruism.
Click to expand...

This seems like you have more personal issues with the people involved than with the merits of what they want to do. Which you haven't actually said.

Ask yourself, why to a group of people who believe the constitution is an unchanging document, perfect in its original form, want to rewrite it?
Click to expand...

Who "believes" that?
 
Harshaw said:
Who "believes" that?
Click to expand...

People who call themselves "originalists" and most who call themselves "constitutionalists". Read your own sig.

"If you feel a need to "reinterpret" the Constitution, you must know that what you want to do is unconstitutional." Rewriting is a tad more extreme than reinterpreting.

Your other question, which for the sake of debate I'll take as honest curiosity, I will have to answer later because it will take more effort than I have time for now. If you REALLY want to know, read this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0385535597

Or start here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/books/review/dark-money-by-jane-mayer.html?_r=0

Lots more is readily available via google or any other search engine.
 
Porkuloss said:
People who call themselves "originalists" and most who call themselves "constitutionalists". Read your own sig.

"If you feel a need to "reinterpret" the Constitution, you must know that what you want to do is unconstitutional." Rewriting is a tad more extreme than reinterpreting.
Click to expand...

At no point have I, or anyone else, said that there would never be a reason to AMEND the Constitution.

What I, and others, object to, and what my sig refers to, is doing an end run around the Constitution by pretending it means something other than what it does. The idiotic "living constitution theory" which seeks to make changes at will to the Constitution without actually amending it.

If you can find someone arguing that the Constitution without any of the amendments is "perfect" and should never be amended, by all means, show the goods.

I myself have suggested several amendments I'd like to see to the Constitution. But amendment is the ONLY legitimate means of changing it.


Your other question, which for the sake of debate I'll take as honest curiosity, I will have to answer later because it will take more effort than I have time for now. If you REALLY want to know, read this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0385535597

Or start here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/books/review/dark-money-by-jane-mayer.html?_r=0

Lots more is readily available via google or any other search engine.
Click to expand...

No, I want YOU to tell me what YOU think these people "want," and on what actual basis you think this.
 
Harshaw said:
At no point have I, or anyone else, said that there would never be a reason to AMEND the Constitution.

What I, and others, object to, and what my sig refers to, is doing an end run around the Constitution by pretending it means something other than what it does. The idiotic "living constitution theory" which seeks to make changes at will to the Constitution without actually amending it.

If you can find someone arguing that the Constitution without any of the amendments is "perfect" and should never be amended, by all means, show the goods.

I myself have suggested several amendments I'd like to see to the Constitution. But amendment is the ONLY legitimate means of changing it.




No, I want YOU to tell me what YOU think these people "want," and on what actual basis you think this.
Click to expand...

Okay, when I have time I'll give you what I think they want. And you give me the correct Interpretation of the constitution, since one apparently exists. If it the approve amendments require no interpretation, we can save a lot of time and money.
 
apdst said:
There is no, "church state thing". The 1st Amendment only says, "Congress shall make no law establishing religion". There's nothing there that prevents a state capital from displaying The Ten Commandments.
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) is likely not true:

Amendment I

Guarantee against establishment of religion

This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).[22]
Click to expand...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
 
Porkuloss said:
Okay, when I have time I'll give you what I think they want.
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem like you actually want to, considering you keep posting, but say you don't have time to post the answer.

And you give me the correct Interpretation of the constitution, since one apparently exists.
Click to expand...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/statutory_construction

Any question of statutory interpretation begins with looking at the plain language of the statute to discover its original intent. To discover a statute's original intent, courts first look to the words of the statute and apply their usual and ordinary meanings.

If after looking at the language of the statute the meaning of the statute remains unclear, courts attempt to ascertain the intent of the legislature by looking at legislative history and other sources. Courts generally steer clear of any interpretation that would create an absurd result which the Legislature did not intend.

Other rules of statutory interpretation include, but are not limited to:

  • Statutes should be internally consistent. A particular section of the statute should not be inconsistent with the rest of the statute.
  • When the legislature enumerates an exception to a rule, one can infer that there are no other exceptions.
  • When the legislature includes limiting language in an earlier version of a statute, but deletes it prior to enactment of the statute, it can be presumed that the limitation was not intended by the legislature.
  • The legislature is presumed to act intentionally and purposely when it includes language in one section but omits it in another.
  • Where legislation and case law conflict, courts generally presume that legislation takes precedence over case law.
  • The Rule of Lenity: in construing an ambiguous criminal statute, a court should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the defendant.
  • A court may also look at: the common usage of a word, case law, dictionaries, parallel reasoning, punctuation
Click to expand...

And then, only after all of that:

Statutes are sometimes ambiguous enough to support more than one interpretation. In these cases, courts are free to interpret statutes themselves.
Click to expand...


If it the approve amendments require no interpretation, we can save a lot of time and money.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by that.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That (bolded above) is likely not true:



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
Click to expand...

There's actually a case directly on point. Van Orden v. Perry:

Of course, the Ten Commandments are religious--they were so viewed at their inception and so remain. The monument, therefore, has religious significance. According to Judeo-Christian belief, the Ten Commandments were given to Moses by God on Mt. Sinai. But Moses was a lawgiver as well as a religious leader. And the Ten Commandments have an undeniable historical meaning, as the foregoing examples demonstrate. Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause. See Lynch v. Donnelly, 397 U. S. 664, 676-678 (1970).

There are, of course, limits to the display of religious messages or symbols. For example, we held unconstitutional a Kentucky statute requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in every public schoolroom. Stone v. Graham, 449 U. S. 39 (1980) (per curiam). In the classroom context, we found that the Kentucky statute had an improper and plainly religious purpose. Id., at 41. As evidenced by Stone's almost exclusive reliance upon two of our school prayer cases, id., at 41-42 (citing School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203 (1963), and Engel v. Vitale, 370 U. S. 421 (1962)), it stands as an example of the fact that we have "been particularly vigilant in monitoring compliance with the Establishment Clause in elementary and secondary schools," Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U. S. 578, 583-584 (1987). Compare Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. 577, 596-597 (1992) (holding unconstitutional a prayer at a secondary school graduation), with Marsh v. Chambers, supra (upholding a prayer in the state legislature). Indeed, Edwards v. Aguillard recognized that Stone--along with Schempp and Engel--was a consequence of the "particular concerns that arise in the context of public elementary and secondary schools." 482 U. S., at 584-585. Neither Stone itself nor subsequent opinions have indicated that Stone's holding would extend to a legislative chamber, see Marsh v. Chambers, supra, or to capitol grounds.11

The placement of the Ten Commandments monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds is a far more passive use of those texts than was the case in Stone, where the text confronted elementary school students every day. Indeed, Van Orden, the petitioner here, apparently walked by the monument for a number of years before bringing this lawsuit. The monument is therefore also quite different from the prayers involved in Schempp and Lee v. Weisman. Texas has treated her Capitol grounds monuments as representing the several strands in the State's political and legal history. The inclusion of the Ten Commandments monument in this group has a dual significance, partaking of both religion and government. We cannot say that Texas' display of this monument violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Click to expand...
 
Harshaw said:
Doesn't seem like you actually want to, considering you keep posting, but say you don't have time to post the answer.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/statutory_construction
Click to expand...

The Cornell link I've seen. Here's one that works at explaining the difference between interpretation and construction.
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1675&context=facpub

My problem with the thrust of this is not that I'm of the opinion that constructionism is bad, far from it. What I've seen is that STRICT constructionism seems to be frequently applied only when it meets the ideological goals of the ones applying it. I find that liberals/progressives do this more than conservatives, and you don't need to look beyond the meanings of those label words for the reasons. Take Scalia, a conservative constructionist at least by claim. He more than once went full bore activist when it suited him. For example:

"Justice Antonin Scalia quite deservedly came under fire yesterday for his claim that a key provision of the Voting Rights Act is a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” If the justice were looking to confirm every suspicion that conservative opposition to the law that broke the back of Jim Crow voter exclusions is rooted in white racial resentment, he could hardly have picked a better way to do so.
Viewed in context, however, Scalia’s quote is actually even more disturbing than the initial headlines suggested. Beyond whatever resentments Justice Scalia may hold, his “racial entitlements” statement was also part of a broader theory about the proper role of judges in society. And if that theory were taken seriously by a majority of the justices, it would potentially undermine Medicare, Social Security and countless other programs. According to Scalia:
Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes. I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act. And I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless — unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution. You have to show, when you are treating different States differently, that there’s a good reason for it.
That’s the — that’s the concern that those of us who — who have some questions about this statute have. It’s — it’s a concern that this is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress. There are certain districts in the House that are black districts by law just about now. And even the Virginia Senators, they have no interest in voting against this. The State government is not their government, and they are going to lose — they are going to lose votes if they do not reenact the Voting Rights Act.."

<snip> So the Black Robes need to save us from our elected representatives???
Continuing:

"The irony in all this is that Scalia used to be one of the most articulate spokespeople for why judges should not strike down laws unless the Constitution’s text explicitly instructs them to do so. Just last year he denounced Roe v. Wade specifically because he does not believe that supporters of Roe “stick to the text” of the Constitution. Whatever the virtues of Roe, Scalia appears perfectly willing to abandon his rigid textualism when it comes time to strike down a law he personally disapproves of. I’ve read the Constitution many times, but I’ve never found a ban on what Scalia calls “racial entitlements.”"

https://thinkprogress.org/why-scali...e-is-even-scarier-than-you-think-950ffd6c498d

As for WHO is funding the movement to rewrite the constitution and WHY, I'll leave you with (in my words) the basic WHY for all of it. The who is addressed in those links I provided. There are more, obviously.
The WHY is that it will allow them to roll back government restrictions that make doing business more expensive for them, eliminate taxes so they don't have to give up any of their (frequently inherited) money, give federal lands back to the state so they can buy it from the states cheaply and productize/monetize it, eliminate tort laws, environmental and workplace standards so they can operate more cheaply without risk from pesky blowback due to their actions. There are others with church/state motives, but I'm not addressing that here.

As always, que bono. This is not a case of people doing "what's right" except for themselves. There are a lot of little guys who think they will benefit, but they are sadly mistaken.

I was a libertarian up until about 2008. The financial crisis and what followed, along with a lot of reading cured me of that.
 
Last edited:
Porkuloss said:
The Cornell link I've seen. Here's one that works at explaining the difference between interpretation and construction.
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1675&context=facpub

My problem with the thrust of this is not that I'm of the opinion that constructionism is bad, far from it. What I've seen is that STRICT constructionism seems to be frequently applied only when it meets the ideological goals of the ones applying it. I find that liberals/progressives do this more than conservatives, and you don't need to look beyond the meanings of those label words for the reasons. Take Scalia, a conservative constructionist at least by claim. He more than once went full bore activist when it suited him. For example:

"Justice Antonin Scalia quite deservedly came under fire yesterday for his claim that a key provision of the Voting Rights Act is a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” If the justice were looking to confirm every suspicion that conservative opposition to the law that broke the back of Jim Crow voter exclusions is rooted in white racial resentment, he could hardly have picked a better way to do so.
Viewed in context, however, Scalia’s quote is actually even more disturbing than the initial headlines suggested. Beyond whatever resentments Justice Scalia may hold, his “racial entitlements” statement was also part of a broader theory about the proper role of judges in society. And if that theory were taken seriously by a majority of the justices, it would potentially undermine Medicare, Social Security and countless other programs. According to Scalia:
Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes. I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act. And I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless — unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution. You have to show, when you are treating different States differently, that there’s a good reason for it.
That’s the — that’s the concern that those of us who — who have some questions about this statute have. It’s — it’s a concern that this is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress. There are certain districts in the House that are black districts by law just about now. And even the Virginia Senators, they have no interest in voting against this. The State government is not their government, and they are going to lose — they are going to lose votes if they do not reenact the Voting Rights Act.."

<snip> So the Black Robes need to save us from our elected representatives???
"The irony in all this is that Scalia used to be one of the most articulate spokespeople for why judges should not strike down laws unless the Constitution’s text explicitly instructs them to do so. Just last year he denounced Roe v. Wade specifically because he does not believe that supporters of Roe “stick to the text” of the Constitution. Whatever the virtues of Roe, Scalia appears perfectly willing to abandon his rigid textualism when it comes time to strike down a law he personally disapproves of. I’ve read the Constitution many times, but I’ve never found a ban on what Scalia calls “racial entitlements.”"

https://thinkprogress.org/why-scali...e-is-even-scarier-than-you-think-950ffd6c498d

As for WHO is funding the movement to rewrite the constitution and WHY, I'll leave you with (in my words) the basic WHY for all of it. The who is addressed in those links I provided. There are more, obviously.
The WHY is that it will allow them to roll back government restrictions that make doing business more expensive for them, eliminate taxes so they don't have to give up any of their (frequently inherited) money, give federal lands back to the state so they can buy it from the states cheaply and productize/monetize it, eliminate tort laws, environmental and workplace standards so they can operate more cheaply without risk from pesky blowback due to their actions. There are others with church/state motives, but I'm not addressing that here.

As always, que bono. This is not a case of people doing "what's right" except for themselves. There are a lot of little guys who think they will benefit, but they are sadly mistaken.

I was a libertarian up until about 2008. The financial crisis and what followed, along with a lot of reading cured me of that.
Click to expand...

So you don't have anything other than what you think of them personally to go on.
 
Harshaw said:
So you don't have anything other than what you think of them personally to go on.
Click to expand...

I wrote:
"Okay, when I have time I'll give you what I think they want."

You wrote:
"Doesn't seem like you actually want to, considering you keep posting, but say you don't have time to post the answer.":confused:
 
Porkuloss said:
I wrote:
"Okay, when I have time I'll give you what I think they want."

You wrote:
"Doesn't seem like you actually want to, considering you keep posting, but say you don't have time to post the answer.":confused:
Click to expand...

So?

You said what you think they want, which is fine.

But the next thing is, why do you think that? They don't say any such thing. You just assume it because of what you think of them personally.
 
Captain: Those states could all try to do those terrible things, but it still takes 38 states to ratify. I would like to see a convention called by the states where 10 or 12 amendments were proposed. As the convention neared the tipping point where it could happen, Congress would start coming up with ways to "reform" themselves. The unfortunate fact is; it will take the states to clean up the septic tank we call the federal government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom