Utah Reps call for Constitutional Convention

[PearlWatson]

Eagle Forum leader Phyllis Schafly opposes the ConCon movement that's been getting some support from conservatives and other malcontents because it would surely be co-opted by progressives and end up beng a marxist constitution. . . .

and regardless of whether you're prepared to recognize that tidbit, how can you deny that we lack the "moral fiber" and "intelligence" today to produce a better Constitution than the one we have.

And we don't have the national cohesiveness to do the job anyway. The newly kingless colonists had to agree on something that could hold them together just to survive a probable Brit invasion or other European military "proposal". As they said while drafting the Declaration of Independence and again while drafting the Constitution. "If we don't hang together, we'll sure hang one by one."

balancings the budget, and paying off the debt, or declaring it fraudulent while turning the Fed out of their offices and imprisoning the banksters and eonomic bubble operators, would be a good thing. Why should Americans pay for all the expense of buying the votes of gov teatsters to get their men in office, or pay for the wars we fight to protect corporate interests abroad. We've been hoodwinked. I say we don't pay for it. Throw the fraudsters in the pokey.

I agree it could backfire. You would need a respected person with the ability to articulate and persuade the apathetic masses of the need, but the media wouldn't allow that to happen. They'd label them crazy and dismiss them. Our country requires disaster before action, they can't actually plan prevention of foreseeable problems.

 

[PearlWatson]

So how much debt can we pay within 19 years? Do you know? Did Jefferson know?

Does anyone know?

In order to set a limit, we need to know... Or at least have an idea, how much debt is "a lot" in 20 years.

Just to compare, the total cost of the revolutionary war to our country is less than what many athletes of today earn annually.

In fact, the total payroll of the Jazz 20 years ago is probably significantly less than what AK47 is earning this year alone.

Some percentage of GDP? A percentage is a constant despite the change in monetary value.

 

[sirkickyass]

Some percentage of GDP? A percentage is a constant despite the change in monetary value.

Which of course is totally back-asswards because you would need to borrow money at times when GDP is declining.

Thanks for playing.

 

[sirkickyass]

Eagle Forum leader Phyllis Schafly opposes the ConCon movement

You mean the same Phyllis Schafly that opposed the equal rights amendment because it would "surely" lead to the abolition of separated sex restrooms?

Well obviously we should take her seriously.

because it would surely be co-opted by progressives and end up beng a marxist constitution. . . .

Because if there's one thing we've seen over the last two years it's that progressives are fantastically effective at pushing through their agenda and marxism is alive and well as a popular political ideology in the United States.

how can you deny that we lack the "moral fiber" and "intelligence" today to produce a better Constitution than the one we have.

Well I can see why you would celebrate the "moral fiber" of the founding fathers given that a sizable number of them were slave owners and their "intelligence" given that none of them were women or people of color.

But seriously, any serious assertion that people were somehow smarter or better in the 1780s than in the 2010s is outrageous romanticism that flies in the face of virtually every other development over the same period of time.

balancings the budget, and paying off the debt, or declaring it fraudulent while turning the Fed out of their offices and imprisoning the banksters and eonomic bubble operators, would be a good thing. Why should Americans pay for all the expense of buying the votes of gov teatsters to get their men in office, or pay for the wars we fight to protect corporate interests abroad. We've been hoodwinked. I say we don't pay for it. Throw the fraudsters in the pokey.

Obviously an educated, reasoned, and well-thought out opinion with a clear understanding of all the various issues at play.

I take you just as seriously as you permit me to.

 

[Qman]

While I would like a way to restrain all government spending (federal, state and local). This particular idea has way too many issues.

First of all any arbitrary limit will cause unintended problems at some point in the future.

Not to mention the problems associated with the constitutional conventions.

 

[KatieMCR]

Everyone is ignoring the second proposal from this article.

Meanwhile, Clark is pushing for a constitutional amendment that would allow states to repeal laws passed by Congress or rules enacted by the federal government. It would take the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to enact such a repeal.

“This is a tool that I think is important and will give some balance back to the equation,” said Clark. “I just think it’s absolutely critical, especially when we’ve seen what I think is an erosion of states’ rights. I think the time has come for this to move forward.”

Clark hashed out the idea in May with the speaker of Virginia’s House of Representatives and other legislative leaders from at least 10 states have joined the effort. U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, is proposing an identical amendment in Congress.

“It smacks very closely of what was known in the pre-Civil War days as nullification, which was a scheme a number of Southern states proposed as a way to protect their interests, particularly with respect to slavery,” said Robert Keiter, a constitutional law professor at the University of Utah. “It was a theory of constitutional law that never really got any traction.”

Keiter said one could argue states already can repeal federal laws by electing people to Congress who would change the law.

I read this the other day, and thought it was absolute insanity. It reeks of conservatives who want to abolish federal gun laws, and civil rights laws. They aren't content with minorities having equal rights. Yet another absurd proposal from our wonderful Utah lawmakers.

 

[Fesenk's Hoe]

They aren't content with minorities having equal rights.

Holy generalized reach Batman!

 

[Gameface]

Everyone is ignoring the second proposal from this article.



I read this the other day, and thought it was absolute insanity. It reeks of conservatives who want to abolish federal gun laws, and civil rights laws. They aren't content with minorities having equal rights. Yet another absurd proposal from our wonderful Utah lawmakers.

Honestly you think that conservatives don't want minorities to have equal rights? I've never heard a conservative complain that black people and other minorities have the same rights they do (assuming the particular consrvative I'm talking to is white). What I have heard are complaints that things called civil rights and equal rights actually provide special rights to certain people who fit into a narrow category while not giving those same right to everyone.

 

[babe]

You mean the same Phyllis Schafly that opposed the equal rights amendment because it would "surely" lead to the abolition of separated sex restrooms?

Well obviously we should take her seriously.




Because if there's one thing we've seen over the last two years it's that progressives are fantastically effective at pushing through their agenda and marxism is alive and well as a popular political ideology in the United States.



Well I can see why you would celebrate the "moral fiber" of the founding fathers given that a sizable number of them were slave owners and their "intelligence" given that none of them were women or people of color.

But seriously, any serious assertion that people were somehow smarter or better in the 1780s than in the 2010s is outrageous romanticism that flies in the face of virtually every other development over the same period of time.




Obviously an educated, reasoned, and well-thought out opinion with a clear understanding of all the various issues at play.

I take you just as seriously as you permit me to.

Phyllis Schafly is still articulate and the Eagle Forum still runs an effective organization, and has picked up a lot of momentum in recent years. I cite her opinion as one that will cause many conservatives to hold off on going whole hog on the ConCon idea.

Our founding fathers included almost half who wanted slavery to be abolished in extending liberty to all people, but the price would have been two small countries both much more vulnerable to conquest. It was a practical compromise. For a while.

George Washington suffered from a view of the natives that did not favor believing they could be included in the new government in a way that would have worked. He tried to bribe one well-educated native leader, Joseph Brant, who had led a number of tribes to assist the British during our Revolutionary War, thinking maybe the Brits had "bought" him.

We passed through a narrow window of possibility in world of unworkable compromises, by the skin of our teeth. Today we could do better at including minorities in our system but we are infected with narcissism, pessimism, skepticism, and such in the place values once taught as universals by Christ before the belief system was co-opted to build statism: service, hope, and faith.

It's not about me. It's about the ideas. Sometimes stark contrasts to prevailing notions can be a good thing.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Everyone is ignoring the second proposal from this article.



I read this the other day, and thought it was absolute insanity. It reeks of conservatives who want to abolish federal gun laws, and civil rights laws. They aren't content with minorities having equal rights. Yet another absurd proposal from our wonderful Utah lawmakers.

Given the fight that Utah is giving against Obamacare, I believe this action is more targeting Obamacare than anything else. I know Utah wants desperately to opt out of Obamacare as they feel that it violates their rights as state.

I could also see this action being used to fight environmental controls. Anyone else remember earlier this year or last... When a whole bunch of land was sold down south for oil/coal exploitation and the EPA stepped in to nullify the land purchases?

I know Utah reps (especially the ones mentioned) want to fight the Fed Gov over:

#1 Obamcare
#2 Federal Gov eating up Utah's land
#3 EPA

Things like guns and equal rights are on the back burner IMO. These 3 issues, IMO are the 3 top ones that Utah's reps want to fight the fed gov over.

 

[franklin]

Thoughts? I would like to know what everyone thinks about this.

One thing that jumps out at me is in the final two paragraphs that I quoted.... If "all bets" are off in times of tough economic times or war, then why the hell even have this amendment? It seems at least to me, that this type of amendment is mostly challenged exactly when federal spending up, like during tough economic times and war. So if all bets are off in times of emergency, then why even have it in the first place? It's easy to cut federal spending when the economy is good and you aren't at war.

I wasn't going to respond but your following posts show you're quite sincere. Your question here is the exact sentiment discussed in the committee at the Constitutional Convention charged with figuring out credit and money. I apologize for not remembering the exact day or details, but my recollection is that the vote was 12-1 in favor of emitting bills of credit even though they were unanimously (or nearly so) reluctant to allow federal credit. The reason the vote swung in favor of allowing credit was it would be necessary in case of emergency. If you search a little you can find the notes. The only big name I remember being on the committee was Madison.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Although the states differ in motives for wanting to have more power, I think most of them that are supporting motions such as putting a cap limit on debt and on having power to repeal federal acts, are doing this as a way to give the finger to Obamacare.