Article 5 Convention of the States

Goshin said:

Actually highly "partisan" in favor of reducing Fed power in favor of a more reasonable balance in State power. Your home state would still be free to be a liberal as it wished.... probably even more so than under current conditions.

Click to expand...

If there's one thing I've learned from living in the south, it's that State government can be as tyrannical (sometimes more so) as federal power, so I'm not too keen to trade the monster we know in place of a monster we don't know.

I understand the need to reduce federal power. But I think that's best served with grassroots movements; be they conservative, libertarian, or liberal.

Unitedwestand13 said:

Yes, and any convention is most likely going to be highly partisan in favor of one political ideology.

Click to expand...

How so?

Goshin said:

Does that mean you're ok with the 51% dictating to the 49%, using the bloated and overbearing power of the Fedgov, regardless of the wishes of the 49%? Do you think that because you feel sure you'll be in the 51% consistently from now forward?


I'd prefer people were free to choose, by voting with their feet, what kind of State they want to live in, without having to leave the entire country to do it.

Click to expand...

I am liberal and I am not interested in Any convention that is the brain child of 37 conservative States. You want an article 5 convention? Then make it be bipartisan.

Anything that constrains the interpretation of the necessary and proper clause, the commerce clause, is persona non grata. Anything that harms the 16th and 17th amendment is intolerable.

Goshin said:

I've decided to support the Article V Convention as an alternative to ongoing disaster.

Click to expand...

Is there a way to laugh heartily, while still respecting the individual making the proposition?

Let's face it. The primary reason why we have a strong federal government is because citizens want a strong federal government. They want a strong military. They want Social Security. They want Medicare and Medicaid. They want a national Veterans' Administration. They want abortion to be legal or illegal across the entire nation. They want same-sex marriage to be legal or illegal across the entire nation. They adore national parks, and flock to them by the millions. They want to be able to move from one state to the next, without having to do much more than fill out a change of address form and spend a few hours at the DMV. Businesses want to be able to use a single currency, and rely as much as possible on a single set of laws.

Nor have things gone very well when the states asserted primacy. The history of states' rights is also the history of slavery, secession, treason, segregation, racism and hatred. The assertion of state sovereignty is forever tainted by the causes that invoked it.

The Articles of Confederation failed. A strong federal government is required. It's what the citizens want. You might want to keep that in mind, when considering the consequences of calling an Article V convention....

MovingPictures said:

If there's one thing I've learned from living in the south, it's that State government can be as tyrannical (sometimes more so) as federal power, so I'm not too keen to trade the monster we know in place of a monster we don't know.

I understand the need to reduce federal power. But I think that's best served with grassroots movements; be they conservative, libertarian, or liberal.

Click to expand...

It is certainly possible yes. But the States are more limited, and your ultimate recourse is move elsewhere.... without having to learn a new language to get far enough away....

Visbek said:

I...

Nor have things gone very well when the states asserted primacy. The history of states' rights is also the history of slavery, secession, treason, segregation, racism and hatred. The assertion of state sovereignty is forever tainted by the causes that invoked it.

...

Click to expand...

Been waiting for someone to go there.

Does anyone seriously believe any state, in this modern age, would re-institute slavery or segregation? Or get away with it if they tried?

Now that is a laugh...

Unitedwestand13 said:

I am liberal and I am not interested in Any convention that is the brain child of 37 conservative States. You want an article 5 convention? Then make it be bipartisan.

Anything that constrains the interpretation of the necessary and proper clause, the commerce clause, is persona non grata. Anything that harms the 16th and 17th amendment is intolerable.

Click to expand...

So anything that reduces the size scope power and intrusiveness of the Fedgov is out, as far as you're concerned.


That's the problem in a nutshell.

Goshin said:

Been waiting for someone to go there.

Does anyone seriously believe any state, in this modern age, would re-institute slavery or segregation? Or get away with it if they tried?

Now that is a laugh...

Click to expand...

People want a strong federal government, that is a trend that has existed since the early twentieth century

Goshin said:

So anything that reduces the size scope power and intrusiveness of the Fedgov is out, as far as you're concerned.


That's the problem in a nutshell.

Click to expand...

The federal government is the instrument of the people’s will.

It therefore up to the people to be fully active in the politics of this nation and to ensure that America’s politicians best represent us.

Unitedwestand13 said:

The federal government is the instrument of the people’s will.

It therefore up to the people to be fully active in the politics of this nation and to ensure that America’s politicians best represent us.

Click to expand...

That sounds like it is ok for the 51% to rule the 49% contrary to the 49'ers interests or preferences.

RetiredUSN said:

I want to see a convention of states in my lifetime.

We are at a tipping point where the cities want to call the shots for the rest of the country by the popular vote, and the DC politicians runs ragged around the constitution as it is.

Click to expand...

And is the goal to have everybody run their lives their own way or to run them "our" way? Because that's how it feels to me. I don't want New York to tell me how to live, but I also don't want Alabama to either.

trblmkr said:

And is the goal to have everybody run their lives their own way or to run them "our" way? Because that's how it feels to me. I don't want New York to tell me how to live, but I also don't want Alabama to either.

Click to expand...

Unless you live in Alabama, it won't....

Lutherf said:

These conversations always remind me of a song -



I'm not sure that there is any chance of peaceful resolution to the ideologies which divide us.

Click to expand...

A legitimate position.

But, our instincts are still very much the same while the divisions are not as deep as the infiltrated government would want us to believe.

Therefore, our most compelling quest logically should be to determine what we call unify upon that has the needed meaning.

Unitedwestand13 said:

People want a strong federal government, that is a trend that has existed since the early twentieth century

Click to expand...

The United States was never meant to be ruled by the majority. The whole purpose of The Constitution is to protect the minority from the majority.

Harshaw said:

What to do when the convention is called?

Click to expand...

Make sure state legislators are turning to Citizens if there is ANY question about constitutional intent.

Make sure that delegate debates are televised to determine if proposed amendments have constitutional intent.

Make sure that all of the implications of proposed amendment are considered.

apdst said:

The United States was never meant to be ruled by the majority. The whole purpose of The Constitution is to protect the minority from the majority.

Click to expand...

As a republic, yes. It is to be ruled by the principles of its constitution. The majority only needs to agree upon how those principles are best met.

Goshin said:

Unless you live in Alabama, it won't....

Click to expand...

Why do I not believe that. There are members of state legislatures that would ban evolution being taught in schools, open the nations borders to all, make homosexuality a crime, force your child to attend a school you don't want them to, make public prayer mandatory, tell you you can't have a gun in your own home and force a woman to carry a rapist's child to term and provide him visitation rights.
And you realize you only mentioned Alabama? Why do you think I'm more afraid of Alabama than New York? I left Northern California, which I loved for a specific set of reasons, after 20 years to come back to South Georgia, which I love, for a different set of reasons. But no matter where I am, I want to live by my terms. You leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. That seems to be getting harder and harder to do, no matter where you are.

Unitedwestand13 said:

I am liberal and I am not interested in Any convention that is the brain child of 37 conservative States. You want an article 5 convention? Then make it be bipartisan.

Anything that constrains the interpretation of the necessary and proper clause, the commerce clause, is persona non grata. Anything that harms the 16th and 17th amendment is intolerable.

Click to expand...

Why do you feel such a need to force everyone in the country to live the way you think they should, rather than how they think they should? What is it that scares you about actual freedom?

Why is it that you think power should be concentrated in the hands of a few people in a central government, rather than be distributed more among all the people?

Unitedwestand13 said:

People want a strong federal government, that is a trend that has existed since the early twentieth century

Click to expand...

Hmmm, we have some cognitive distortions there along with assumptions about what a manipulated and shattered people want. The act of 1871 ended that which was constitutional and as time has passed it has gotten further from it.

Unitedwestand13 said:

The federal government is the instrument of the people’s will.

It therefore up to the people to be fully active in the politics of this nation and to ensure that America’s politicians best represent us.

Click to expand...

Action without good information is folly. The people first need to insure their information is good in order to make relevant opinion. They need wide discourse upon information to become truly informed after vetting information freely.

None of that is happening. Involvement at this stage is agreeing to be manipulated.

Goshin said:

Some of you are familiar with this I'm sure.

I've been opposed to it to this point, feeling it was too risky and that we could not be sure what we would get out of such a convention.


I've changed my mind. We're past the point where the system-as-is can be reformed without drastic measures, and the current polarization is severely damaging our sense of self as a nation united. The Fedgov will not reform or reduce its power in and of its own action; may not be capable of it.

The States however, may have the power.

We're at a point where both sides fear the other side holding power in DC to an unprecedented degree, a time when liberties some consider essential can hang in the balance of a single SCOTUS appointment.

The Fedgov was never supposed to be so powerful.

We can continue to live where the 51% dictate to the 49%, who become more miserable, resentful and rebellious as it progresses (and it will get worse, gov's exist to gather more power to themselves) or we can make changes.

If we continue as we are, we're like a pressure cooker with the heat dialing up.

I've decided to support the Article V Convention as an alternative to ongoing disaster.

https://www.conventionofstates.com/

Click to expand...

All this would achieve would be the destruction of the USA as we know it.

Visbek said:

Is there a way to laugh heartily, while still respecting the individual making the proposition?

Let's face it. The primary reason why we have a strong federal government is because citizens want a strong federal government. They want a strong military. They want Social Security. They want Medicare and Medicaid. They want a national Veterans' Administration. They want abortion to be legal or illegal across the entire nation. They want same-sex marriage to be legal or illegal across the entire nation. They adore national parks, and flock to them by the millions. They want to be able to move from one state to the next, without having to do much more than fill out a change of address form and spend a few hours at the DMV. Businesses want to be able to use a single currency, and rely as much as possible on a single set of laws.

Nor have things gone very well when the states asserted primacy. The history of states' rights is also the history of slavery, secession, treason, segregation, racism and hatred. The assertion of state sovereignty is forever tainted by the causes that invoked it.

The Articles of Confederation failed. A strong federal government is required. It's what the citizens want. You might want to keep that in mind, when considering the consequences of calling an Article V convention....

Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you say except for the part about "we want a strong federal government". Well you're right, but do we want a federal government so strong that it passes legislation that takes away rights? For example the patriot act passed in the dead of night under fear of anthrax actually nullifies parts of the Fourth Amendment. The Unitary Executive theory leads to the AUMF which has us in 16 years of undeclared war. Various NDAA amendments have effectively removed Habeas.

Do we want one that strong?

Goshin said:

Some of you are familiar with this I'm sure.

I've been opposed to it to this point, feeling it was too risky and that we could not be sure what we would get out of such a convention.


I've changed my mind. We're past the point where the system-as-is can be reformed without drastic measures, and the current polarization is severely damaging our sense of self as a nation united. The Fedgov will not reform or reduce its power in and of its own action; may not be capable of it.

The States however, may have the power.

We're at a point where both sides fear the other side holding power in DC to an unprecedented degree, a time when liberties some consider essential can hang in the balance of a single SCOTUS appointment.

The Fedgov was never supposed to be so powerful.

We can continue to live where the 51% dictate to the 49%, who become more miserable, resentful and rebellious as it progresses (and it will get worse, gov's exist to gather more power to themselves) or we can make changes.

If we continue as we are, we're like a pressure cooker with the heat dialing up.

I've decided to support the Article V Convention as an alternative to ongoing disaster.

https://www.conventionofstates.com/

Click to expand...

It isn't clear what your gripe is. Just saying "The Fedgov was never supposed to be so powerful" is vague. The devil is in the details. Where, specifically, are the federal government do you think are too powerful?

While I don't see the tyranny of the federal government the way you do. I think it is fine that the federal government has the power and authority to protect the environment, protect workers, regulate the money supply, have a national income tax, etc. Where I see the tyranny is representation. In 2016, Republicans won 55.2% of seats with just under 50% of votes cast for Congress, according to a Brookings Institution analysis. Moreover, because each state, regardless of population, gets two Senators, “roughly half the country gets 80 percent of the votes in the Senate, and the other half of the country gets 20 percent,” according to Sanford Levinson, a constitutional law scholar at the University of Texas. Let's not even get into the fact that in the last 20 years we elected presidents that didn't receive a majority of the votes cast.

That skewed inequality isn't likely to change in an amendment process that requires 75% of the states to agree to amend.

Harshaw said:

Why do you feel such a need to force everyone in the country to live the way you think they should, rather than how they think they should? What is it that scares you about actual freedom?

Why is it that you think power should be concentrated in the hands of a few people in a central government, rather than be distributed more among all the people?

Click to expand...

That's exactly what the Southern slave-holding states said prior to the Civil War. It became necessary not to accept the immorality of slavery. The same is true for marriage and other individual rights. We can't leave them up to the states.

There are just certain policies that work better when we apply them to the country as a whole. We have a Uniform Commercial Code because it facilitates commerce when there is just one rule that all firms, regardless of originating state, must follow, instead of 50 rules. We have an EPA that regulates pollution standards because local authorities are too easily influenced by local businesses who can threaten to leave if not appeased. We have national drug and food testing because it's far more efficient.

The hard-right thinking that everyone was just fine and happy until the big bad government decided to feed the poor; regulate food and drugs; provide federal insurance on bank deposits; institute auto safety standards and mileage standards, to name a few.

The reality, of course, is that federal involvement is a REACTION to unwanted conditions. Government officials didn't wake up one day and decide to regulate drugs. We saw that certain drugs were hitting the market and harming people. Likewise with food regulations.

Anti-poverty measures were created because of recognition that the market does fail certain people. John Kennedy was amazed that when he campaigned in West Virginia, there were starving Americans.

The right-wing likes to mask all of this under the label of "freedom." Federal government policies give Americans, freedom of starvation; freedom from illness caused by pollution; freedom from birth defects from untested drugs; freedom from economic disaster, etc.

there isn't enough support for a constitutional convention, nor would i support one. in a theoretical situation in which that happens, my guess is that everyone (meaning regular, non-powerful people) would come out disappointed. your new constitution would reflect the desires of the insanely rich, as well as corporate interests. it's possible that they might write a clearer version of the second amendment with fewer commas. it's also possible that they'll slip in something to nullify it, probably relating to terrorism. either side want to gamble on that one?

as for thinly veiled threats of rebellion, let's think about that one for a minute. in the most likely scenario, the rebellion is crushed almost instantly due to a massive difference in troop strength and firepower, and the participants would go directly to jail. however, let's consider a theoretical second civil war which isn't resolved quickly, however unlikely that scenario is. here's what i think would happen :

1. due to extreme instability, the dollar is now worth exactly jack ****. the dollar is currently the global reserve currency. it would be dumped globally, and another currency would take its place. hope that you are keen on hyperinflation and all of the wondrous benefits that come along with it. we might currently be the "only superpower," whatever the hell that means. i'm sure that there are several other nations which wouldn't mind claiming that title, though

2. our global influence in commerce / trade is toast. again, this means that you're probably ****ed. this isn't the nineteenth century. their economy wasn't even as national as ours is global.

3. if we're really unlucky, a coalition organizes and comes in to stabilize our nation, as we would be ****ing their **** up pretty effectively, too. so who do you fire at first : the unionist, or the coalition soldier? same question to unionists. we got pretty lucky the first time around that Europe didn't swoop back in and put enough firepower in place to reclaim the colonies. and remember, we're not just talking boots on the ground invasion this time around. we aren't the only nuclear power, and that's not even the most effective strategy that they could employ.

in both scenarios, anyone who isn't currently winning loses big time. our best bet is to un-gerrymander the entire country and participate in the voting process. the modern rebellion fantasy is nonsense.