Are we really just one state away?

Damocles

Damocles

Accedo!
Staff member
http://www.americanpolicy.org/sledgehammer/twostates.htm

Ohio voted for a constitutional convention on December 10th...

The site above is from a site against such an action.

This is the most urgent, most important action alert the American Policy Center has ever issued! The Ohio state legislature is expected to vote today, Wednesday, Dec. 10th, to call for a Constitutional Convention (Con Con). If Ohio calls for a Con Con only one more state need do so and Congress will have no choice but to convene a Convention, throwing our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights up for grabs. Ohio's vote today poses a grave threat to the U.S. Constitution. Please immediately call the Ohio lawmakers listed below. ACT FAST - time is of the essence!

I apologize! This malignancy most foul remained undetected by our radar until a good friend brought it to our attention yesterday. The hour is late, but WE MUST TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION!

It does not matter where you live. Ohio's vote today endangers everyone in every state in the Union, so we must pressure Ohio lawmakers to discard this disastrous legislative effort.

Thirty-two (32) other states have already called for a Con Con (allegedly to add a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution). 34 states are all that is required, and then Congress MUST convene a Convention.

The U.S. Constitution places no restriction on the purposes for which the states can call for a Convention. If Ohio votes to call a Con Con, for whatever purpose, the United States will be only one state away from total destruction. And it's a safe bet that those who hate this nation, and all She stands for, are waiting to pounce upon this opportunity to re-write our Constitution. We dare slumber no longer; we must take immediate action to preserve this nation!
Click to expand...

Really? Why wouldn't this be more on the news radar?
 
O rly?

The constitutional convention is a means of circumventing the 2/3 requirement in the legislature to shoehorn an amendment in with only the states in question agreeing. For this particular purpose they're trying to pass the balanced budget amendment. Although they could technically change the first amendment, our electors could've technically elected Micheal Jackson to be president. The way they present this is a little, shall we see, hysterical.
 
Watermark said:
O rly?

The constitutional convention is a means of circumventing the 2/3 requirement in the legislature to shoehorn an amendment in with only the states in question agreeing. For this particular purpose they're trying to pass the balanced budget amendment. Although they could technically change the first amendment, our electors could've technically elected Micheal Jackson to be president. The way they present this is a little, shall we see, hysterical.
Click to expand...
If it takes a 2/3 majority of the states to call one, then it "circumvents" nothing.
 
A con-con puts the whole constitution up on the block. Even if this appears to be the only option left for a balanced budget amendment, the delegates can still rewrite the parts they don't agree with, like opening up the 4th or 5th amendments to even further abuse, OR they could add a whole flipping bunch of new powers to the federal government.

The kicker would be getting the majority of the states to ratify said new constitution, hence my earlier post about a new civil war.
 
Epicurus said:
Has anyone figured out if this is real?
Click to expand...
I think that it is real, even the site against it says that most of the states rescinded their request for a Constitutional Convention. (However there is nothing in the Constitution that says that they can rescind such a vote after it is taken.)

Doing this to add a good and strong balanced budget amendment that allows for emergencies and downturns but not the constant growth of debt? I would hope it is real, but will bet that even if one more state does vote for it, they'll find a way not to call one.
 
Damocles said:
If it takes a 2/3 majority of the states to call one, then it "circumvents" nothing.
Click to expand...

2/3 of states having a simple majority of members in the legislature in favor. Which is much, much easier to get than an actual 2/3 of the members of both houses of congress. For instance, all 50 states have passed the flag burning amendment, but it hasn't gotten 2/3 in the house and senate to pass.

You fucking idiot.

And you are probably still going to think you're right after this. OH you're right! A simple majority in 2/3 of legislatures is much much easier to get than a simple majority in 2/3 of state legislators AND 2/3 of the house and the senate!

FUCK YOU
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
I think that it is real, even the site against it says that most of the states rescinded their request for a Constitutional Convention. (However there is nothing in the Constitution that says that they can rescind such a vote after it is taken.)

Doing this to add a good and strong balanced budget amendment that allows for emergencies and downturns but not the constant growth of debt? I would hope it is real, but will bet that even if one more state does vote for it, they'll find a way not to call one.
Click to expand...

A balanced budget amendment would be mindless populist idiocy of the highest order and would go the way of the 18th within a decade.
 
Watermark said:
2/3 of states having a simple majority of members in the legislature in favor. Which is much, much easier to get than an actual 2/3 of the members of both houses of congress. For instance, all 50 states have passed the flag burning amendment, but it hasn't gotten 2/3 in the house and senate to pass.

You fucking idiot.

And you are probably still going to think you're right after this. OH you're right! A simple majority in 2/3 of legislatures is much much easier to get than a simple majority in 2/3 of state legislators AND 2/3 of the house and the senate!

FUCK YOU
Click to expand...
One more time, young padawan, if the Constitution says that it can be done this way, then you are circumventing nothing. And it is far more difficult to get 3/4 of the states to agree that the Congress isn't doing its job in such a manner.
 
I don't honestly think the constitutional convention idea was well thought out before it was put in there.

How would one work again? There's never been anything to specify that.
 
Watermark said:
I don't honestly think the constitutional convention idea was well thought out before it was put in there.

How would one work again? There's never been anything to specify that.
Click to expand...
IF a con-con were called and voted on, the congress would pick delegates from each state, who would then take turns writing and voting on parts of the constitution until there was a complete constitution written that all the delegates agreed upon.

Then, the congress and senate would have to ratify or not, with 2/3rds majority

then 38 states would have to ratify it by popular vote of the people in each state.
 
This could be a chance for us to more heavily fortify the 2nd Amendment, STY!

It could read:

Amendment 2B.

Being as the Right to Bear Arms is an inalienable right of every citizen of a free nation, no governmental entity at any level shall pass any law which would in any way infringe, delay, restrict, or deny any citizen their Constitutional Right to Bear any and all Arms of any kind.
 
Epicurus said:
This could be a chance for us to more heavily fortify the 2nd Amendment, STY!

It could read:

Amendment 2B.

Being as the Right to Bear Arms is an inalienable right of every citizen of a free nation, no governmental entity at any level shall pass any law which would in any way infringe, delay, restrict, or deny any citizen their Constitutional Right to Bear any and all Arms of any kind.
Click to expand...


Now there's a great idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top