# Constitutional Convention?



## DGS49 (Dec 23, 2015)

Article V, Section 1: "*The Congress,...on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments*..."

Among the many "biggest" issues that confront the governments and people of the U.S. is the issue of "divided government."  No, I'm not talking about legislatures of one party and an executive of the other party, I'm talking about the chasm that exists between the Left and Right on the proper authority and role of the Federal Government.

The U.S. Constitution and the political Right at least claim to favor the limited Federal government that was created by the Constitution, while the Left favors a large, broadly-reaching, "generous" federal government that guarantees our retirement income, makes sure we eat healthy food, provides for the poor, homeless, and sick, makes sure we are all well-educated, and so forth.

The Leftist-leaning Supreme Court has spent the past eight or so decades eviscerating the Constitution and paving way for the transformation of the Federal Government from the institution created by the Founders to the one favored by today's leftists.  An ignorant population - totally unaware of the Constitution's constraints - wonders why we don't have, for example, "Single Payer" national health insurance, guaranteed national household income, Federally subsidized Old Folks' Homes, and so on.

Honestly, the time has come to resolve the chasm between the Constitution that we have and the Federal Government that we seem to want.  As George Will has put it, "Americans want a broad, generous Federal government, but only want to pay for a small, efficient one."

First on the Agenda:  Do we abolish the Tenth Amendment or take it seriously?

Do we add to the list of Congressional powers articulated in Article I, Section 8?  What do we add?

There are no fixed guidelines on who would be the delegates to the Constitutional Convention; presumably each state legislature would nominate delegates.  Having worked on countless committees in my professional life, I can say without hesitation that the fewer people are on the committee the more likely it will be that something worthwhile comes out of it.

How do we get this done?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 23, 2015)

The Supreme Court is not "left-leaning."

Otherwise, there'll be no convention, there's no need for a convention.


----------



## TNHarley (Dec 23, 2015)

I wouldn't want the current corrupt makeup of Washington to do a convention. Think of how fucked up it would be.. Seriously.


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 23, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Supreme Court is not "left-leaning."
> 
> Otherwise, there'll be no convention, there's no need for a convention.



I can't even imagine what a Circus a Constitutional convention would be if there was one.

A Constitutional Convention could do whatever the hell they want to the Constitution- from making Christianity the official religion of the United States to outlawing private gun ownership.


----------



## DGS49 (Dec 23, 2015)

No, no, no, the USSC is not left-leaning.  That's  why there are no more censorship laws, abortion's are legal, sodomy is not a crime, homo's can get married, and the Feds are up to their ass in Education, healthcare, retirement, and so on.

You moron.


----------



## MDiver (Jan 30, 2016)

If there were a constitutional convention, I'd like to see it revisit the First Amendment regarding the statement that congress shall make no law restricting the establishment of religion and the free exorcise of such. 
When the founders put this in, they no doubt did not think about religions such as the Aztec or Mayan religions that called for human sacrifice, or Islam which preaches hatred throughout the Quran, or other far-fetched philosophies.  
When you see a few nut cases together and form some group such as the skin-heads or the neo-nazis, the general public just considers them a few nut cases and just keeps an eye on them.  However, religion is totally different.  It is something people really adhere to and profess and if that religion calls for violence against all non-believers or those who leave the religion, there should be laws in place to severely restrict or forbid the practice of or dissemination of literature advocating such teachings.  Eighty percent of the mosques in the U.S. are preaching hatred toward non-believers and that violence against non-believers is acceptable.  Those mosques were built by Saudi funds, which stem from oil revenues, which we consumers provide (essentially, we're setting ourselves up for our own destruction).


----------



## Rouge Rover (Jan 30, 2016)

We've only had one Constitutional Convention and the delegates to that convention lied to the people about the purpose of the convention. I think one is enough, no need for another one.


----------



## regent (Jan 30, 2016)

Can we even begin to imagine a convention today. Dump trucks filled with money, cash money, arriving at the convention site daily. One vote on one issue and a delegate could retire for life. There would be no Washington's, no Madison's, no Franklin's; the delegates would be representatives of the vested interests of this nation, and the vested interests of this nation have changed dramatically since that meeting in Philadelphia so long ago.


----------



## Centinel (Jan 30, 2016)

DGS49 said:


> Article V, Section 1: "*The Congress,...on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments*..."
> 
> Among the many "biggest" issues that confront the governments and people of the U.S. is the issue of "divided government."  No, I'm not talking about legislatures of one party and an executive of the other party, I'm talking about the chasm that exists between the Left and Right on the proper authority and role of the Federal Government.
> 
> ...



There's no need to give congress more legislative powers. Simply enact the legislation you desire in your own state.


----------



## Agit8r (Jan 31, 2016)

DGS49 said:


> Article V, Section 1: "*The Congress,...on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments*..."
> 
> Among the many "biggest" issues that confront the governments and people of the U.S. is the issue of "divided government."  No, I'm not talking about legislatures of one party and an executive of the other party, I'm talking about the chasm that exists between the Left and Right on the proper authority and role of the Federal Government.
> 
> ...



The founders were not all of one mind about the constitution.  The view that prevailed among them is the one we have today: Broad Constructionism.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 31, 2016)

Centinel said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > Article V, Section 1: "*The Congress,...on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments*..."
> ...



the states can form their own convention

which disregards congress and the prezbo ta boot


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 31, 2016)

jon_berzerk said:


> the states can form their own convention
> 
> which disregards congress and the prezbo ta boot


Wrongo.  Read it again.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 31, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > the states can form their own convention
> ...



are fucking stupid or just fucking plain stupid

you readit  again stupid


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 31, 2016)

jon_berzerk said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...


They can call it, they cannot form it.

To say the states can form one is to reveal a stupidity second only to steve_mcgarrett on the forum.  You rank with shootspeeders, protectionist, kush, yurt, et al.


----------



## regent (Jan 31, 2016)

The second process for amending the Constitution has never been used, and is unlikely to be used. But a question: "the Congress on the application of the states" does that the states can apply but the Congress does not have to accept the application?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 31, 2016)

regent said:


> The second process for amending the Constitution has never been used, and is unlikely to be used. But a question: "the Congress on the application of the states" does that the states can apply but the Congress does not have to accept the application?


The operative word is "shall", which can be ambiguous.  "Will" is not.


----------



## Centinel (Jan 31, 2016)

A third legal alternative would be for some number of states to exit the union and then establish a new treaty between themselves.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 31, 2016)

Centinel said:


> A third legal alternative would be for some number of states to exit the union and then establish a new treaty between themselves.


Provided that Congress ratifies such a departure, yes.


----------



## Centinel (Jan 31, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > A third legal alternative would be for some number of states to exit the union and then establish a new treaty between themselves.
> ...



Sorry, the constitution contains no language requiring such a ratification.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 31, 2016)

Centinel said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...


Sorry, a civil war and a SCOTUS decision says you are obviously not a constitutional scholar.  Run along.


----------



## Centinel (Jan 31, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Since you obviously ARE a constitutional scholar, perhaps you can point out the language in the constitution (you know, the supreme law of the land) that restricts a state from leaving the union.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 31, 2016)

Centinel said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...


Show me where it is permitted.  The question has been resolved.  There will be no secession.


----------



## Centinel (Jan 31, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



You don't seem to understand the nature of our constitution. Everything that is not forbidden to the several sovereign states is permitted.

The only restrictions upon the states are listed in article I, section 10. To wit:

_1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay._​
I can't find any prohibition on a state leaving the union, can you?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 31, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




yes they can 

dont be so ignorant 

*or*,

 on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, 

you as usual display your idiocy


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 31, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



hey doo-fus 

the Constitution is a limit on the federal  government can do 

not a permission paper for the states or the people 

you libtards a funny bunch


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 31, 2016)

jon_berzerk said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...


The states can only call for it, nothing more.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 31, 2016)

jon_berzerk said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...


Those you call 'libtards' follow the Constitution, you don't.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 31, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



the paste i posted is from the Constitution jake 

you are completely incorrect 

i know you can not admit you are wrong 

but you are


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 31, 2016)

jon_berzerk said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...


I can read as well as or better than you.  I can also read commentary, SCOTUS opinions, and history.  You have your opinion, and that is all well and good, but it means nothing.  Congress would never allow the goobers from the far left and the far right and libertarian groups to come to a convention.  Congress will never agree to call it.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 31, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


jake you are incorrect 

you best go read the Constitution again


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 31, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



jake you just digging your hole deeper 

you are in fact completely incorrect on the topic


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 31, 2016)

jon_berzerk said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...


Keep digging.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 31, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



obviously you can not read article 5 is very clear that the states can call a convention when 2/3 of the states call for it


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 31, 2016)

jake proves he is ignorant once again --LOL

congress does not have a say it stupid 

when 2/3s of the states call one 



*"Congress will never agree to call it."*


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 31, 2016)

jon_berzerk said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...


They have no authority to convene it.  None.  Nada.  They can call for it by petitioning Congress.  That's all the can do.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 31, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



i see you are also devoid of your own thoughts 

--LOL


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 31, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



yes they do that is what it says stupid


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 31, 2016)

All of the nation’s constitutional history and constitutional rights would be vulnerable to alteration and revision.  Justice Antonin Scalia has said, “I would not want a constitutional convention. Whoa! Who knows what would come of it?”  Statement Issued by the Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause, Democracy 21, Issue One, People For the American Way, Public Citizen and USAction Opposing A Constitutional Convention

Congress would refuse, SCOTUS would agree, and that would be the end of it.  The Jon Bezerks of the nation have no power in forcing this to happen.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 31, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> All of the nation’s constitutional history and constitutional rights would be vulnerable to alteration and revision.  Justice Antonin Scalia has said, “I would not want a constitutional convention. Whoa! Who knows what would come of it?”  Statement Issued by the Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause, Democracy 21, Issue One, People For the American Way, Public Citizen and USAction Opposing A Constitutional Convention
> 
> Congress would refuse, SCOTUS would agree, and that would be the end of it.  The Jon Bezerks of the nation have no power in forcing this to happen.


not wanting one and saying it cant happpen are two differtn thiungs jakie --LOL


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 31, 2016)

jon_berzerk said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > All of the nation’s constitutional history and constitutional rights would be vulnerable to alteration and revision.  Justice Antonin Scalia has said, “I would not want a constitutional convention. Whoa! Who knows what would come of it?”  Statement Issued by the Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause, Democracy 21, Issue One, People For the American Way, Public Citizen and USAction Opposing A Constitutional Convention
> ...


wanting one and saying it could happen are two different things, berzerrky


----------



## Centinel (Jan 31, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> All of the nation’s constitutional history and constitutional rights would be vulnerable to alteration and revision.  Justice Antonin Scalia has said, “I would not want a constitutional convention. Whoa! Who knows what would come of it?”  Statement Issued by the Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause, Democracy 21, Issue One, People For the American Way, Public Citizen and USAction Opposing A Constitutional Convention
> 
> Congress would refuse, SCOTUS would agree, and that would be the end of it.  The Jon Bezerks of the nation have no power in forcing this to happen.



Or those sovereign states who wished could simply exit the union and then establish any treaty they wished between themselves.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 31, 2016)

Centinel said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > All of the nation’s constitutional history and constitutional rights would be vulnerable to alteration and revision.  Justice Antonin Scalia has said, “I would not want a constitutional convention. Whoa! Who knows what would come of it?”  Statement Issued by the Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause, Democracy 21, Issue One, People For the American Way, Public Citizen and USAction Opposing A Constitutional Convention
> ...


That would not happen, either.


----------



## Centinel (Jan 31, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



It's certainly a legal possibility. If states become disenchanted with their current membership in the union, they could certainly exit the union and, being sovereign states, establish any treaty they wished between themselves.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 1, 2016)

Centinel said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



Except that they can't.


----------



## Centinel (Feb 1, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Article I, section 10 contains the prohibitions on the states. I contains no prohibition on a state leaving the union.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 1, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



The Supreme Court already ruled on the issue. No, they can't. 

You can certainly debate what you think the constitution is supposed to mean. But as a matter of law, its settled. There is no such 'legal possibility'.


----------



## Centinel (Feb 1, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



The constitution is the supreme law of the land, Feel free to point out the language in it that prohibits a state from leaving the union.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 1, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...


Skylar  has definitively answered you.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 1, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...


Your interpretations of the constitution aren't the supreme law of the land. In our system of law the judicial power rests with the Federal Judiciary. With a Supreme Court at its head.

They've ruled on this issue.

Debates on the merits of various constitutional interpretations are all well and good. But when you start talking about 'legal possibility', you've entered the realm of actual law in the real world. And your personal interpretations (or mine, for that matter) have no particular relevance. The body of case law does. 

That you disagree with the Supreme Court is gloriously irrelevant to the authority of their ruling.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 1, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Thoroughly. But in the realm of 'legal possibility', what I've quoted or haven't have no relevance. As our debates have no impact on any legal outcomes.


----------



## Centinel (Feb 1, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Of course my interpretations of the constitution aren't the supreme law of the land. Nobody's are. The constitution itself is the supreme law of the land. 

And that law contains no prohibition on a state leaving the union. After having been offered several opportunities, you are incapable of quoting the relevant language in the law that would prohibit a state from leaving the union.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 1, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



With the authority to intepret the constitution delegated to the Judiciary in the Judicial Power. 

And they've ruled on this issue. That you disagree with their ruling has no relevance on its authority or the outcome of any case based on that ruling. Negating any claim of 'legal possibility'.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 1, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...


Keep saying, "if I wish on a star," centinel.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 1, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...




Centinel straight up ignored James Madison, insisting he knew better. Its hardly surprising that he's argue that the Supreme Court is overruled by his opinion.

Alas, it still has nothing to do with the outcome of any case. As caselaw based on the constitutional interpretations of the Supreme Court decide it. 

Ignoring caselaw isn't a legal argument. Its an excuse for one.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 1, 2016)

The so-called 'constitutionalists' do not under or jurisprudence.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 1, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> The so-called 'constitutionalists' do not under or jurisprudence.



Nope. They genuinely believe that the courts, law and nation are bound to whatever they imagine.

Alas, the courts, law and nation have a very different take on the matter.


----------



## Centinel (Feb 1, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Still noting your failure to cite the language in the supreme law of the land that prohibits a state from leaving the union.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 1, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



We've had that discussion. You ignored the Preamble, the Supremacy Clause, James Madison, your own conception of the Principal-Agent relationship, and more than 2 centuries of explicit contradiction of your assumptions.

And your willful ignorance is still gloriously irrelevant to the validity of any Supreme Court ruling. As it doesn't matter what is cited by me or ignored by you. 

The matter is still settled caselaw. Thus there is no such 'legal possibility'.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 1, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...


Wrong. 

The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is the law of the land.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 1, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



You should note that Cent is the same soul who insisted that each *individual person* has the power to secede themselves and their land from the United States. 

So you're not exactly dealing with someone who gives a fiddler's fuck about any real world application or basis of their assumptions.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 1, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Still noting your failure to cite the language in the supreme law of the land that prohibits a state from leaving the union.


You are trolling because you don't understand this subject.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 1, 2016)

Cent is a sovereign citizen nut?  He must be posting from jail.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 1, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> Cent is a sovereign citizen nut?  He must be posting from jail.



Nah, just from irrelevance.


----------



## Centinel (Feb 1, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Absolutely wrong.

*"This Constitution*, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The constitution, not the supreme court's opinions.


----------



## Centinel (Feb 1, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Feel free to cite whatever section of the supreme law of the land that prohibits a state from exiting the union.

Good luck.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Feb 1, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



they often try to use texas vs white 

but that was a bond issue


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 1, 2016)

From Article III:  In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, *the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction*. In all the other cases before mentioned, the *Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction*, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Cent, I am glad you posted the part about the states being subordinate to the Constitution.  The final court on all matters constitutional is SCOTUS, your immoral stubbornness not withstanding.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 1, 2016)

Centinel said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



The Constitution....according to who? Lets take a look at Federalist paper 78 on that issue:



			
				Federalist 78 said:
			
		

> The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.



I know you want to believe that your personal opinion on the Constitution overrides the Supreme Court, James Madison, and our entire body of laws. But as more than 2 centuries of the irrelevance of your assumptions demonstrates elegantly....

...its just not so.

And the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue. Your disagreement with their ruling has no relevance on the authority of that ruling, or its applicability. Nor does your opinion have the slightest effect on the outcome of any actual case.

Their rulings do.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 1, 2016)

jon_berzerk said:


> they often try to use texas vs white  but that was a bond issue


In part, yes, but not a defense.

The Supreme Court rejected the bondholders' arguments. Chief Justice salmon p. chase, in his majority opinion, held *that the Constitution "in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States." Once a territory gained admission to the Union as a state, its relationship to the Union was perpetual and indissoluble unless terminated by revolution or consent of the states. Therefore, the secession of the insurgent government from the Union was void. *Texas remained a state during the Civil War, and its citizens were still citizens of the United States.  Texas v. White


----------



## Skylar (Feb 1, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



We've had that conversation. Your argument broke.

Worse for your claims here, what I cited or what you ignored has no relevance on any Supreme Court ruling.

_The matter is settled case law. _And its the case law that will determine the outcome of legal challenges on the matter. Not your opinions on what the constitution is supposed to mean.

Its worth noting that the Supreme Court came to the EXACT same conclusion as James Madison on the same matter. And you ignored them both.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 1, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > they often try to use texas vs white  but that was a bond issue
> ...



Yes, but they run headlong into the same self referential fallacy that plagues their perspective from the beginning. With the applicablity of a Supreme Court ruling being predicated on their opinion. Just like the validity of a Supreme Court ruling is based on their opinion of it. To them anyway.

Its a perfect circle of pseudo-legal gibberish. Where all law, court rulings, and caselaw is dependent what whatever they make up.....in their imagination.

Alas, the *actual* law and *actual* courts don't give a fiddler's fuck about their opinions or imagination. Nor do they have any relevance to the outcome of any court case. Which is where their arguments always break when we speak of real world outcomes.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 1, 2016)

Skylar said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...


And they troll on forever because they have nothing else.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 1, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Well, when your opinion is the basis of your opinion, its turtles all the way down. 

And the real world still doesn't give a fuck.


----------



## Centinel (Feb 1, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



It's your argument that broke. 

You claim that it is illegal for a state to exit the union, yet you can't point to the specific language in the law that makes it illegal. And neither can the supreme court.

As I said, there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits a state from leaving. You and the supreme court have yet to prove otherwise.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 1, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



Nope. My argument worked perfectly.

Its also irrelevant how well my argument worked for your argument here. As your interpretations of the constitution have no impact nor bearing on the outcome of any court case. The rulings of the Supreme Court do. And they've already ruled on this issue, against your assumptions.



> As I said, there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits a state from leaving. You and the supreme court have yet to prove otherwise.



You're certainly welcome to your opinion. And it still doesn't matter. As no court case is predicated on your opinions on the Constitution.

While every court is bound to the rulings of the Supreme Court. And any legal test will be based on actual case law. Not your personal opinion.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 1, 2016)

Centinel said:


> It's your argument that broke.
> 
> You claim that it is illegal for a state to exit the union, yet you can't point to the specific language in the law that makes it illegal. And neither can the supreme court.
> 
> As I said, there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits a state from leaving. You and the supreme court have yet to prove otherwise.


Listen, shortbus, , your interpretation has no merit, no foundation in case law, nothing "but what I think is right."  It is not.


----------



## Centinel (Feb 1, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...





JakeStarkey said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > It's your argument that broke.
> ...



I'm not offering my interpretation of the constitution. I am simply pointing out what the constitution says. It contains no language making it against the law for a state to leave the union. That's not a matter of interpretation. It is a simple matter of fact and black letter law.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 1, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...


----------



## Skylar (Feb 1, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



Of course you are.* The constitution makes no mention of the right to secede or that States remain complete sovereigns after ratifying the constitution. Those are both your interpretations.* And you've been contradicted by James Madison, the Supreme Court and over 2 centuries of caselaw that involve *none* of your pseudo-legal preconceptions.

That *you* believe that no one has 'proven you wrong' doesn't matter. As far as the outcome of any court case is concerned, you're nobody. No court nor law bases their legal conclusions on your personal opinion.

They use caselaw. And it contradicts you.


----------



## Centinel (Feb 1, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



The constitution contains no prohibition on a state leaving the union. That's not an opinion or an interpretation. That's a fact.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 1, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



Says you. Citing your interpretation of the Constitution. And you're nobody.

That's a fact. 

And also the reason why your personal opinions have no relevance on the outcome of any court case. And thus don't translate into any 'legal possibility'.


----------



## Centinel (Feb 1, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Actually, says the constitution. It contains no prohibition on a state leaving the union. You keep saying it does, yet you can't show the relevant language. You've had dozens of opportunities to prove me wrong, yet you continue to be impotent to do so.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 1, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



The constitution never so much as mentions secession, or concludes that a State is still sovereign after ratifying the constitution.

That's you citing you. And you're nobody.

Again, your personal opinion has no relevance to the outcome of any court case. Case law does. And caselaw contradicts you.

And 'poof', your imagination about 'legal possibility' vanishes like a fart in the wind.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 2, 2016)

centinel has every right to believe wrongly that a state can leave the Union

it can't


----------



## 12icer (Feb 3, 2016)

Therefore is it your feeling that The floating around story about request of Alaska, and Hawaii to the UN are useless? As far s the Supreme court there are quite a few ways to find out what they are bound to review, and what they are barred from reviewing. As far as opinions, you are definitely out of your element lost in the sky.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 3, 2016)

12icer said:


> Therefore is it your feeling that The floating around story about request of Alaska, and Hawaii to the UN are useless? As far s the Supreme court there are quite a few ways to find out what they are bound to review, and what they are barred from reviewing. As far as opinions, you are definitely out of your element lost in the sky.



Therefore you're once again returning to a conversation we can neither see nor hear. But so far aren't a part of.

As none of us have mentioned Alaska, Hawaii or the UN.

Do...do we even need to be here? As you appear to be taking on the duties of both sides of this conversation with yourself.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 3, 2016)

12icer said:


> Therefore is it your feeling that The floating around story about request of Alaska, and Hawaii to the UN are useless? As far s the Supreme court there are quite a few ways to find out what they are bound to review, and what they are barred from reviewing. As far as opinions, you are definitely out of your element lost in the sky.


Who are you?

Give us your premise in less than twenty words, please.


----------



## 12icer (Feb 3, 2016)

I asked you a question. You are so in love with your perceived visage as to be useless as a contributor to a resolution of a debate. You bring nothing but talking points the table. Sorry to upset your ego oh great one. But someone needs to view the requirements of a case to be reviewed by The Supreme Court. I asked for your opinion, and you had none I guess.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 3, 2016)

12icer said:


> I asked you a question. You are so in love with your perceived visage as to be useless as a contributor to a resolution of a debate. You bring nothing but talking points the table. Sorry to upset your ego oh great one. But someone needs to view the requirements of a case to be reviewed by The Supreme Court. I asked for your opinion, and you had none I guess.


You have no idea what you are talking about, apparently, so let me help you.

The states can call for a convention, yes, but they cannot mandate that one be held.

States have no constitutional right to leave the union.

SCOTUS is the final court on what the constitution means.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 3, 2016)

12icer said:


> I asked you a question. You are so in love with your perceived visage as to be useless as a contributor to a resolution of a debate. You bring nothing but talking points the table. Sorry to upset your ego oh great one. But someone needs to view the requirements of a case to be reviewed by The Supreme Court. I asked for your opinion, and you had none I guess.



None of us have mentioned Alaska, Hawaii or the UN. So to answer your question, I have no idea what you're talking about. 

I'm more than willing to discuss any position I've taken, anything I've posted. I'm unwilling to take whatever role you've made up for me in a script I've never read, involving a conversation I've never had.

Feel free to respond in a *relevant* fashion to any post in this thread. You'll note that your babble about 'Hawaii' and the "UN' isn't here. 

Are you sure you  have the right thread?


----------



## 12icer (Feb 3, 2016)

The  story is that Alaska, and Hawaii are wanting to be released from the United States,  The "premise" leaving as tried by the CSA Is the subject. IE STATES RIGHTS TO EXERCISE SOVERIGNTY Just don't answer, It's a waste of time to even ask a question.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 3, 2016)

12icer said:


> The  story is that Alaska, and Hawaii are wanting to be released from the United States,  The "premise" leaving as tried by the CSA Is the subject. IE STATES RIGHTS TO EXERCISE SOVERIGNTY Just don't answer, It's a waste of time to even ask a question.



When has Alaska or Hawaii said they want out of the US? Can you quote them?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 3, 2016)

The Alaskan citizns' petition to leave the Union fell far short of the required signatures, back in 2014.  The state government had nothing to do with it.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 3, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> The Alaskan citizns' petition to leave the Union fell far short of the required signatures, back in 2014.  The state government had nothing to do with it.



So when he said Alaska, he didn't mean Alaska. 

Sigh. Apparently Icer and I have one thing in common; neither of us know what the fuck he's talking about.


----------



## 12icer (Feb 3, 2016)

http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/01/alaska-and-hawaii-ask-un-to-recognize.h**l  Dead link it yourself.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 4, 2016)

12icer said:


> http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/01/alaska-and-hawaii-ask-un-to-recognize.h**l  Dead link it yourself.


Your link does not work. The fort-ross blog is a pro-Russian front.  There is nothing about Alaska or Hawaii involved in secession movements.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 4, 2016)

12icer said:


> http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/01/alaska-and-hawaii-ask-un-to-recognize.h**l  Dead link it yourself.



A website that has RT, Sputnik AND Pravda in its navigation bar? 

You know those are all Russian government owned sources, right Comrade?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 4, 2016)

Skylar said:


> 12icer said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/01/alaska-and-hawaii-ask-un-to-recognize.h**l  Dead link it yourself.
> ...


Yup, he is a Russian running dog.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 4, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> 12icer said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/01/alaska-and-hawaii-ask-un-to-recognize.h**l  Dead link it yourself.
> ...



Nope. But true to a pro-Russian Website.......



> “They’re taking our land and are mining mineral resources in huge quantities, causing damage to the environment. We believe that the Russians can help us. The year 2017 will mark 150 years since the sale of Alaska by Russia to the USA. If we could, working with the Russians, provide the truth about what really happened in history and to reject the distorted concepts about Alaska and our people, I think it would be a good way to rectify the situation,” – said the representative of Alaska in the working group “Alliance Alaska-Hawaii for self-determination” Ronald Barnes to the meeting in the Swiss press club in Geneva.



The article argues that Alaska be returned to Russia.

With the only reference to the 'Alliance Alaska-Hawaii for self-determination' on the entire internet....being that article. Here's the source Ft. Ross used: Аляска и Гавайи просят ООН признать США оккупантами | Блог Красная Шапочка | КОНТ

It appears to be a blog website.

When you translate it from Russian, the author of the article is Inna Vaseykina. A Moscow journalist writing for MKRU. A Russian daily newspaper.

That's as far back as I can take it.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 4, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > 12icer said:
> ...


So another one of Lenin's 'useful idiots'? He seems surprisingly receptive to Russian Government propaganda.


----------



## 12icer (Feb 4, 2016)

Actually Russian news sources are more reliable than the Mainstream media in this country. That link was dead because I do not post live links on ANY website due to redirection attachments. But The source wasn't the NOW unasked question, it was the viability of THAT type of move to remove oneself from the UNION..


----------



## Skylar (Feb 4, 2016)

12icer said:


> Actually Russian news sources are more reliable than the Mainstream media in this country.



I'm sure you believe that, Comrade. Tell us more about the glory of Mother Russia.


----------



## 12icer (Feb 4, 2016)

Have you ever taken a test that asks you to pick what shape a box would be after you folded it up from the shape it started in flat?


----------



## Skylar (Feb 4, 2016)

12icer said:


> Have you ever taken a test that asks you to pick what shape a box would be after you folded it up from the shape it started in flat?



Have you ever managed a post that was in the slightest bit relevant to what you were replying to?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 4, 2016)

icer is having difficulty with simple logic.


----------



## 12icer (Feb 4, 2016)

I know you are monoplanic, it is a logical extension of the idea that you can visualize the entire plane of thought in your post. _The inference of "Mother Russia " is wasted sarcasm , or are you just being facetious? try a really good box test, be truthful, see if you are intellectually able to find a multiplanic solution to a monoplanic problem._


----------



## Skylar (Feb 4, 2016)

12icer said:


> I know you are monoplanic, it is a logical extension of the idea that you can visualize the entire plane of thought in your post. _The inference of "Mother Russia " is wasted sarcasm , or are you just being facetious? try a really good box test, be truthful, see if you are intellectually able to find a multiplanic solution to a monoplanic problem._



You're the one citing Russian sources that call for Alaska to be returned to Russia, insisting on how much more reliable Russian sources are than our own.

And of course, lying your ass off. As it wasn't 'Alaska' that asked to be returned to Russia. It was a handful of Russian Orthodox native tribesmen. Which have jack shit to do with a constitutional argument.

Comrade.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 4, 2016)

icer's arguments continue to melt.


----------



## 12icer (Feb 4, 2016)

As always no argument only a question, and the structure of how  accomplished as opposed to the secession argument, or withdrawal argument. If you can't answer the question just say so< don't find irrelevant arguments to interject into a wast thread anyway. and can u not find the solution to the box actually it is an IQ test, like folding paper and timing the answer of the question  how many holes appear in the unfolded paper with varying folds.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 4, 2016)

12icer said:


> As always no argument only a question, and the structure of how  accomplished as opposed to the secession argument, or withdrawal argument. If you can't answer the question just say so< don't find irrelevant arguments to interject into a wast thread anyway. and can u not find the solution to the box actually it is an IQ test, like folding paper and timing the answer of the question  how many holes appear in the unfolded paper with varying folds.



A handful of Russian Orthodox native tribesmen can't secede the State of Alaska, let alone give it to Russia.

Any more Russian propaganda you want to offer us, Comrade? Tell us again how much better the Russian media is than our own? Lie to us again, portraying a handful of villagers as 'Alaska'?


----------



## 12icer (Feb 4, 2016)

You so fuunny main yuns make me laff till it huts. I do like Vlad Putin though he is twice the leader of some. Yall need to find some kindercare students on your level to converse with. You asked for the source, you got it, you didn't answer the question, I must assume since you cant identify and solve the problem you aren't able to follow the problem to the probable, or even possible solutions. What say ye Albert?


----------



## Skylar (Feb 4, 2016)

12icer said:


> You so fuunny main yuns make me laff till it huts. I do like Vlad Putin though he is twice the leader of some. Yall need to find some kindercare students on your level to converse with. You asked for the source, you got it, you didn't answer the question, I must assume since you cant identify and solve the problem you aren't able to follow the problem to the probable, or even possible solutions. What say ye Albert?



So you cite Russian sources arguing that Alaska should be ceded to Russia, laud how superior the Russian media is over our own....and go an awkward rant about how infatuated with Putin you are.

All while lying your ass off, portraying a handful of Russian  Orthodox tribesmen as 'Alaska'.

Does that about cover it?

And I asked for a source of ALASKA saying that it wanted to cede from the union, which was your claim. You have yet to provide any such source, Comrade.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 4, 2016)

icer has no source that the government of Alaska wants to secede from the USA.

In fact, there is a far great chance that Siberia will join the US when Russia finally disintegrates.


----------



## 12icer (Feb 4, 2016)

Just Go back to k1, and ask the teacher about it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 4, 2016)

icer continues to melt.


----------



## 12icer (Feb 4, 2016)

Yeah I am melting to this as far as the Alaskan Tribal rights go man yal are so smart ooohh,  But as the Un tries to get a resolution on native tribes worldwide, and some of the tribes and some others with things to gain ask for relief sometimes in a way you don't think about in the single plane , Oh well    h**p://www.globalissues.org/article/693/rights-of-indigenous-people#Whoareindigenouspeopleandwhatmakesthemdifferent    DEAD LINK, put TT where ** are, and PASTE,  oh and the links to the UN resolutions are there somewhere. The tribes are written in there, and you have to read some to get to the US objections and Alaska. Yuns ain't wuf it all tell yourselves the Talking points you find, This is getting boorriinngg with no answer to the original question even. Shall I ask in a K1 form,, Teacher If as I have read in some forums, and world press commentary Alaska and even some Internal Native tribes that live in America have asked the United Nations to help them Withdraw from the USA. If they also ask to reclaim all of their Native lands including the whole States their tribes inhabited, Could they do that Under OUR Constitution, IF THE UN passes the resolution and demands compliance with the rights of indigenous peoples would that allow them to take all of the disputed land back even including REMOVING the entire State from the country could they teacher? PLAIN ENOUGH? but last question yall r jus too smaht fo po lil me.


 HILLARY IS GONNA WIN even if she kills a BUNDY!!!!.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 5, 2016)




----------



## Skylar (Feb 5, 2016)

12icer said:


> Yeah I am melting to this as far as the Alaskan Tribal rights go man yal are so smart ooohh,  But as the Un tries to get a resolution on native tribes worldwide, and some of the tribes and some others with things to gain ask for relief sometimes in a way you don't think about in the single plane , Oh well    h**p://www.globalissues.org/article/693/rights-of-indigenous-people#Whoareindigenouspeopleandwhatmakesthemdifferent



So what the fuck does this have to do with a constitutional convention?

And of course, show us where Alaska has asked to withdraw from the United States. Not a handful of pro-Russian villagers. But the State.

You can't. You lied your ass off.


----------



## 12icer (Feb 5, 2016)

You went off on this tangent of State vs Fed power I just asked a question that would give an idea of your perceived range of power of each, And if the UN could overrule the fed. As for the convention, calling for it and getting it are two totally different things, especially in the electronic media world and even if you had a 100 percent request. It was designed to be that way.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 5, 2016)

Icer none of your post in 119 has a thing to do with the OP.


----------



## 12icer (Feb 5, 2016)

Article V, Section 1: "*The Congress,...on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments*..." This is the opening line isn't it ! "As for the convention, calling for it and getting it are two totally different things, especially in the electronic media world and even if you had a 100 percent request. It was designed to be that way".From 119 Isn't it. Same subject isn't IT? The idea of a state having control of anything within fed jurisdiction is a lost cause. And the calling of a convention is a lost cause. (Subject, AND my opinion). Qualified by the statements in119. Bullshit someone else bud, I can READ and think for myself, I'm not a liberal. You wont tell us how far you think the US governments power extends in relation the states rights, and the UN Power over the US government extends. Not gonna waste a GB o BW.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 5, 2016)

OK, now I get what you are, icer, and all I can say is go for it.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 5, 2016)

12icer said:


> You went off on this tangent of State vs Fed power I just asked a question that would give an idea of your perceived range of power of each, And if the UN could overrule the fed. As for the convention, calling for it and getting it are two totally different things, especially in the electronic media world and even if you had a 100 percent request. It was designed to be that way.



A 'tangent'? I directly addressed a comment made by a poster about secession from the union being a 'legal possibility'. It wasn't. As the Supreme Court had already ruled on the issue in question. Taking the issue from speculative discussion to actual caselaw. 

With actual caselaw winning in actual courts of law.

To which you started babbling about Alaska and the UN. Lying your ass off as you went. As Alaska didn't ask to withdraw from the US.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 5, 2016)

Skylar said:


> 12icer said:
> 
> 
> > You went off on this tangent of State vs Fed power I just asked a question that would give an idea of your perceived range of power of each, And if the UN could overrule the fed. As for the convention, calling for it and getting it are two totally different things, especially in the electronic media world and even if you had a 100 percent request. It was designed to be that way.
> ...


icer has demonstrated an inability to relate his comments to the OP.  He has failed to defend the OP.


----------



## dcraelin (Feb 5, 2016)

regent said:


> Can we even begin to imagine a convention today. Dump trucks filled with money, cash money, arriving at the convention site daily. One vote on one issue and a delegate could retire for life. There would be no Washington's, no Madison's, no Franklin's; the delegates would be representatives of the vested interests of this nation, and the vested interests of this nation have changed dramatically since that meeting in Philadelphia so long ago.



There is a Constitutional law expert who says conventions can be limited affairs according to the amendments passed by the states. Then anything they come up with would have to pass I think 3/4ths of the states,. No need to fear a Convention.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 5, 2016)

dcraelin said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Can we even begin to imagine a convention today. Dump trucks filled with money, cash money, arriving at the convention site daily. One vote on one issue and a delegate could retire for life. There would be no Washington's, no Madison's, no Franklin's; the delegates would be representatives of the vested interests of this nation, and the vested interests of this nation have changed dramatically since that meeting in Philadelphia so long ago.
> ...


The "expert" is wrong.  The states can call for a convention, but the wordage allows the Congress to ignore said call.  And as Scalia has said, in effect, "Who wants the disaster a convention would bring."


----------



## 12icer (Feb 5, 2016)

As I posted not wasting the BW, I did not even state that Alaska and Hawaii were doing anything I posted that there was a story being posted online you misread the original question OR did as liberals are want to do added your OWN meaning to my words as if I had posted them. I simply posed a situation and inferred I was interested in your opinion to qualify the depth and spectrum of your stated position in your Posts. I understand linear singlemindedness.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 5, 2016)

12icer said:


> As I posted not wasting the BW, I did not even state that Alaska and Hawaii were doing anything I posted that there was a story being posted online you misread the original question OR did as liberals are want to do added your OWN meaning to my words as if I had posted them. I simply posed a situation and inferred I was interested in your opinion to qualify the depth and spectrum of your stated position in your Posts. I understand linear singlemindedness.



A state seeking to exit the union would be subject to the same standards of the creation of the US: a 3/4 majority.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 5, 2016)

Now icer does fabricate.


----------



## 12icer (Feb 6, 2016)

Skylar do you actually think that would work?


----------



## Skylar (Feb 6, 2016)

12icer said:


> Skylar do you actually think that would work?



Why wouldn't it?


----------



## 12icer (Feb 6, 2016)

I Think there would be sufficient backlash from the sitting Federal govt to stop it. The idea being that they could lose an enormous amount of power and even their positions If changes were made. Constitutionality seems an afterthought in most actions. The idea is to pass and implement whatever you think you can, and unless it is challenged at the Supreme Court level, By the small list of petitioners with STANDING it is here to stay. Allowing a convention could undo all of that from every administration, or congress that did it.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 6, 2016)

12icer said:


> I Think there would be sufficient backlash from the sitting Federal govt to stop it. The idea being that they could lose an enormous amount of power and even their positions If changes were made. Constitutionality seems an afterthought in most actions. The idea is to pass and implement whatever you think you can, and unless it is challenged at the Supreme Court level, By the small list of petitioners with STANDING it is here to stay. Allowing a convention could undo all of that from every administration, or congress that did it.



If such were the case the federal government would 'stop' any amendment that limited their power. Which most do. 

They haven't.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 6, 2016)

Skylar said:


> 12icer said:
> 
> 
> > I Think there would be sufficient backlash from the sitting Federal govt to stop it. The idea being that they could lose an enormous amount of power and even their positions If changes were made. Constitutionality seems an afterthought in most actions. The idea is to pass and implement whatever you think you can, and unless it is challenged at the Supreme Court level, By the small list of petitioners with STANDING it is here to stay. Allowing a convention could undo all of that from every administration, or congress that did it.
> ...



The Scalia comment above indicates that SCOTUS would prevent it somehow.


----------



## 12icer (Feb 6, 2016)

But to allow a rewrite of the Constitution could possibly remove all of the sitting officials, and dissolve the Federal Government, Although not probable but possible. It seems unlikely to me that they would allow it unless by a major event to force them to.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 6, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > 12icer said:
> ...



A 3/4 majority of the States voting? I don't see how the SCOTUS could. That's the amendment threshold. The Several States at that level can do.....anything.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 6, 2016)

12icer said:


> But to allow a rewrite of the Constitution could possibly remove all of the sitting officials, and dissolve the Federal Government, Although not probable but possible. It seems unlikely to me that they would allow it unless by a major event to force them to.



You're moving your goal posts. We were talking about the secession of a single state. 

If 3/4 of the States agreed, what could the Feds do to stop it? Why would they?


----------



## jillian (Feb 7, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Supreme Court is not "left-leaning."
> 
> Otherwise, there'll be no convention, there's no need for a convention.



i see a lot of winger wishful thinking like that. but whatchagonnado?


----------



## jillian (Feb 7, 2016)

12icer said:


> I Think there would be sufficient backlash from the sitting Federal govt to stop it. The idea being that they could lose an enormous amount of power and even their positions If changes were made. Constitutionality seems an afterthought in most actions. The idea is to pass and implement whatever you think you can, and unless it is challenged at the Supreme Court level, By the small list of petitioners with STANDING it is here to stay. Allowing a convention could undo all of that from every administration, or congress that did it.



it is not the place of congress or the executive branch to decide constitutionality. it is not the job of the congress to decide what is constitutional. it is the job of the court to decide what is constitutional.

there is good reason for keeping that power in the court.

and the fact that certain types of people are still crying about marriage equality doesn't change that.....even though the court made patently incorrect rightwing decisions in citizens united and heller.

so much for the "left-leaning" court.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 7, 2016)

Skylar said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


My error.  The "it" refers to the holding of a convention not any amendments such a convention may pass.  SCOTUS would prevent a convention, I think.


----------



## 12icer (Feb 7, 2016)

Me too They could dissolve the court too. I cant find legal, or Constitutional grounds for a state to withdraw. The Articles of Confederation contained the right for a State to withdraw, but the framers of the Constitution left it out. The reason for leaving it out was (Just conjecture) to keep every minor disagreement from becoming a threat to dissolve the Union


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 7, 2016)

Art III authorizes the Court.

An amendment would be required to eliminate it.


----------



## Skylar (Feb 9, 2016)

12icer said:


> Me too They could dissolve the court too. I cant find legal, or Constitutional grounds for a state to withdraw. The Articles of Confederation contained the right for a State to withdraw, but the framers of the Constitution left it out. The reason for leaving it out was (Just conjecture) to keep every minor disagreement from becoming a threat to dissolve the Union



The reason it was left out is that the Constitution changed the nature of individual States. Under the Article of Confederation, they remained sovereign....with the Union being merely a 'league of friendship'. Under the Constitution, the States ceased to be individual sovereigns and instead became members of a republic.


----------



## 12icer (Feb 9, 2016)

Ah well That's a long drawn out discussion, I don't even have the time for. Good call though maybe a little simplified like my "disagreement" Since the war powers, treaty limits, military appointments, and A myriad of other things changed from one to the other. Back in a few weeks to see whats up!!


----------



## I amso IR (Feb 14, 2016)

Simply declare war and then win. That is how to leave the Union, good luck with that! Oh, and good luck with the UN also. Although that _could change _with Hillary or Bern in office. "What, me worry?" nah.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Feb 14, 2016)

Cons should all move to Texas and get minimum wage jobs working in the oil fields, then secede. 

I hear the cartels in Mexico are looking to invade a small country to make their new stronghold, you cons could fight the Alamo battle all over again! Yeeehawww.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 15, 2016)

IsaacNewton said:


> Cons should all move to Texas and get minimum wage jobs working in the oil fields, then secede.
> 
> I hear the cartels in Mexico are looking to invade a small country to make their new stronghold, you cons could fight the Alamo battle all over again! Yeeehawww.



You don't need to secede.
All the millionaires know how to deduct enough business expenses where they can do what they want outside govt, and give the very minimum to govt.


----------

