What's new
By:

Constitutional Convention?

Stoked

Stoked

Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
https://www.washingtontimes.com/new...for-a-bal/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

The Michigan legislature just voted for Congress to hold a consititutional convention. They may be the 34th state to do so. If 34 states have that is the 2/3rds needed to hold one.

The problem comes in with who is doing the counting (congress). Some states have rescinded and then reapplied for a constituional convention. Other states have called for one but on different subjects. Michigan's is for a "balanced budget" amendment. Some states have rescinded their requests and have not reapplied.

It is unclear wether they can rescind a request at all or if a request has no expiration date.

In December 2013 representatives of 32 states meet in regards to a "consitutional convention". They are going to meet again in Spring 2014. Since then Ohio and Michigan have called for the convention, they were the 33rd and 34th by some counts. Congress is the one that does the counting. I cannot see them agreeing that it is at 34 states.

What do you all think?
 
This all went right over my head
 
fishonjazz said:
This all went right over my head
Click to expand...

Basically there is a second way to amend the consititution. If 34 states call for one they hold a convention that could amend the consitution. Any new amendments would have to be approved by 38 of the states. That would add a new article such as a "balanced budget" amendment or tweak/remove an old one such as freedom of speech.
 
Stoked said:
Basically there is a second way to amend the consititution. If 34 states call for one they hold a convention that could amend the consitution. Any new amendments would have to be approved by 38 of the states. That would add a new article such as a "balanced budget" amendment or tweak/remove an old one such as freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

I like this idea.
Thanks for splainin
 
Stoked said:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/new...for-a-bal/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

The Michigan legislature just voted for Congress to hold a consititutional convention. They may be the 34th state to do so. If 34 states have that is the 2/3rds needed to hold one.

The problem comes in with who is doing the counting (congress). Some states have rescinded and then reapplied for a constituional convention. Other states have called for one but on different subjects. Michigan's is for a "balanced budget" amendment. Some states have rescinded their requests and have not reapplied.

It is unclear wether they can rescind a request at all or if a request has no expiration date.

In December 2013 representatives of 32 states meet in regards to a "consitutional convention". They are going to meet again in Spring 2014. Since then Ohio and Michigan have called for the convention, they were the 33rd and 34th by some counts. Congress is the one that does the counting. I cannot see them agreeing that it is at 34 states.

What do you all think?
Click to expand...

At the very least, I would think Congress would recognize when a state has rescinded its request. The chance of getting 38 states to approve a change you can't get 34 states to simultaneously agree to meet about it slim.
 
One Brow said:
At the very least, I would think Congress would recognize when a state has rescinded its request. The chance of getting 38 states to approve a change you can't get 34 states to simultaneously agree to meet about it slim.
Click to expand...

I think a "balced budget" amendment would have a small chance but not much else. You are correct that 38 states make it hard to pass anything. I think the matter of wether a request can be rescinded will end up in court.
 
We don't have a James Madison.

The thought of our current politicians fiddling with the constitution turns my stomach. Even if the convention could be limited to discussing a balanced budget amendment I don't think it is a good idea. Everyone will surely recognize that such an amendment would need to contain a loop hole for war. We could not have won the second world war with a balanced budget. The USA is already in a state of perpetual war and a loophole such as this would require that we continue to be so indefinitely.
Does anyone think grampa is going to accept a cut in his SSI just because an amendment was passed? Are any Americans truly prepared to give up the services that they get? I think we are more likely to get a lot of negative unintended consequences than we are to get an actual balanced budget from this.
 
Stoked said:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/new...for-a-bal/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

The Michigan legislature just voted for Congress to hold a consititutional convention. They may be the 34th state to do so. If 34 states have that is the 2/3rds needed to hold one.

The problem comes in with who is doing the counting (congress). Some states have rescinded and then reapplied for a constituional convention. Other states have called for one but on different subjects. Michigan's is for a "balanced budget" amendment. Some states have rescinded their requests and have not reapplied.

It is unclear wether they can rescind a request at all or if a request has no expiration date.

In December 2013 representatives of 32 states meet in regards to a "consitutional convention". They are going to meet again in Spring 2014. Since then Ohio and Michigan have called for the convention, they were the 33rd and 34th by some counts. Congress is the one that does the counting. I cannot see them agreeing that it is at 34 states.

What do you all think?
Click to expand...

I think the states should stop worrying about the constitution and start doing their jobs?
 
Who is driving the change in the constitution? Since the Republicans are losing most of the Supreme Court battles, now they want to go around that process so they can change what they don't love about the beloved constitution. Do you really think that this is the only thing they want to change? This is about Gay marriage and the ACA.

There is no way they will get a balance budget amendment because the Republicans will never give up the military spending and Democrats (and most republicans) will not give up their social security or medicare. The balance budget issue should have been addressed centuries ago but I am sure that the founding fathers had no way of knowing how they were going to pay their debt during their lifetime let alone in the future. Each generation talks about it but neither side wants to give up their piece of the apple pie.
 
heyhey said:
We don't have a James Madison.

The thought of our current politicians fiddling with the constitution turns my stomach. Even if the convention could be limited to discussing a balanced budget amendment I don't think it is a good idea. Everyone will surely recognize that such an amendment would need to contain a loop hole for war. We could not have won the second world war with a balanced budget. The USA is already in a state of perpetual war and a loophole such as this would require that we continue to be so indefinitely.
Does anyone think grampa is going to accept a cut in his SSI just because an amendment was passed? Are any Americans truly prepared to give up the services that they get? I think we are more likely to get a lot of negative unintended consequences than we are to get an actual balanced budget from this.
Click to expand...

More elderly are on RIB than SSI.
 
cowhide said:
Who is driving the change in the constitution? Since the Republicans are losing most of the Supreme Court battles, now they want to go around that process so they can change what they don't love about the beloved constitution. Do you really think that this is the only thing they want to change? This is about Gay marriage and the ACA.

There is no way they will get a balance budget amendment because the Republicans will never give up the military spending and Democrats (and most republicans) will not give up their social security or medicare. The balance budget issue should have been addressed centuries ago but I am sure that the founding fathers had no way of knowing how they were going to pay their debt during their lifetime let alone in the future. Each generation talks about it but neither side wants to give up their piece of the apple pie.
Click to expand...

When you resort to attacks about bigotry/racism/sexism...you lose me, at this point the hold no susbtance. Just like cries of 2nd amendment and socialism from the right hold no value.

I'm not interested in demonization.
 
ElRoach0 said:
No one will do anything about it. This will not happen.

Move along.
Click to expand...

I think what happens is that the process on counting valid requests goes to court and it results in a ruling that places the number of states around 6-10 short of the 34 needed.
 
heyhey said:
Payed out by the SSA. Changes nothing
Click to expand...

SSI is paid from the US Treasury General Fund. Not the Social Security Trust Fund like retirement and disability.

It's paid out by treasury while administered by SSA.
 
Stoked said:
When you resort to attacks about bigotry/racism/sexism...you lose me, at this point the hold no susbtance. Just like cries of 2nd amendment and socialism from the right hold no value.

I'm not interested in demonization.
Click to expand...

Did you really consider what you quoted as an attack?
 
Stoked said:
SSI is paid from the US Treasury General Fund. Not the Social Security Trust Fund like retirement and disability.

It's paid out by treasury while administered by SSA.
Click to expand...

Jesus christ Mr. Technical. It doesn't matter. It all comes from the governments budget. If we have a balanced budget we either raise taxes or cut spending. Is there anything I said that you disagree with in principal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top