A Constitutional Convention is Needed

[OKTexas]

jesus christ, what an idiotic post

Really, it jives with the man that wrote the article. Ever heard of Madison?

you wouldn't know Madison if you tripped over him you Texas sized imbecile

Poor Dainty boy, no need to get your ass up, change is coming and you'll love it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

to reassert our founding principles of federalism, i.e., State sovereignty and limits on Federal authority. Over the years, these principles have been "temporarily" suspended due to exigent circumstances such as wars and Southern segregation. For example, the Federal Income Tax, which was first established to finance World War I (the war Wilson promised to keep us out of), turned out to be the fox that has almost destroyed the chicken coop. Through this preeminent taxing and spending authority, the federal government was then able to circumvent virtually all of its Constitutional restrictions. More recently, a clearly unconstitutional 55 mph national speed limit was imposed by withholding federal highway dollars if States did not "voluntarily" adopt this limit.

There are certain areas where a broad consensus exits for the legitimate exercise of federal power. However, these have long been exceeded by political interest groups who have realized that they can exert their will on the entire nation by targeting specific Congressional elections with huge outside contributions. This may be the best argument for public financing of these elections.

At this point, the only way to limit federal imposition and reexert state authority may be for 2/3 of the States to call for a Constitutional Convention. Despite predictions of doom from its opponents, any proposed Constitutional Amendments resulting from this procedure would still require ratification by 3/4 of the States; the only difference being that it could not be held hostage by a small group of activists in the House or Senate.

Disagree.

This is a merely a partisan attempt in bad faith by the extreme right and libertarians to destroy the Republic and subject fundamental, inalienable rights to majority rule. The people are entitled to their civil rights regardless their state of residence. This is also an attempt to destroy Constitutionally authorized regulatory policy necessary and proper in a modern, 21st Century industrialized nation.

That conservatives and libertarians disagree with over 200 years of Constitutional case law does not give them license to attempt to destroy that case law, or to subject American citizens of the many states to the capricious whims of voters.

There are certain areas where a broad consensus exits for the legitimate exercise of federal power. However, these have long been exceeded by political interest groups who have realized that they can exert their will on the entire nation by targeting specific Congressional elections with huge outside contributions. This may be the best argument for public financing of these elections.

Nonsense.

‘Political interest groups’ are citizens just as entitled to participate in the arena of political debate, discourse, and advocacy as any other citizen.

The remedy is not to violate their civil liberties simply because they’re successful in their efforts.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Really, it jives with the man that wrote the article. Ever heard of Madison?

you wouldn't know Madison if you tripped over him you Texas sized imbecile

Poor Dainty boy, no need to get your ass up, change is coming and you'll love it.

What, your male nurse going to change your diaper?

 

[Flopper]

Show me the Constitutional authority for them. Have you got any idea how much tax revenue they deprive the states of? Honestly I would have no problem amending the Constitution to allow for the National Parks, but there is no reason to have all the national forest, wilderness areas, grass lands and other areas that serve no compelling national interest. Are you aware that the federal government own or controls almost 60% of the state of Utah?

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution declares that “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.” A national park system, which is part of the “provision” for the “general Welfare of the United States,” and therefore fits perfectly well within the constitutional authority of the Congress.

The courts have interpreted the general welfare to include a multitude of federal services including parks and monuments. One can not expect the founders to specify in detail all actions of the government hundreds of years in the future.

They were very specific what lands the congress could control in clause 17, was that clause just an exercise in futility. I think not, Clause one gave congress the power to raised revenue to be spent on two categories, those categories were further defined and limited by the remainder of the article. Using the courts interpretation there would have been no need for the rest of the article. Simply they got that one wrong.

Clause 17 is quite specific but it's not reasonable to expect the founders would foresee all future needs for federal ownership of land. They certainly would not see the need for national parks and monuments just as they would not see the need for environmental protection, immigration laws, federal regulation of interstate transportation and communication or a host of laws brought about by social change.

 

[OKTexas]

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution declares that “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.” A national park system, which is part of the “provision” for the “general Welfare of the United States,” and therefore fits perfectly well within the constitutional authority of the Congress.

The courts have interpreted the general welfare to include a multitude of federal services including parks and monuments. One can not expect the founders to specify in detail all actions of the government hundreds of years in the future.

They were very specific what lands the congress could control in clause 17, was that clause just an exercise in futility. I think not, Clause one gave congress the power to raised revenue to be spent on two categories, those categories were further defined and limited by the remainder of the article. Using the courts interpretation there would have been no need for the rest of the article. Simply they got that one wrong.

Clause 17 is quite specific but it's not reasonable to expect the founders would foresee all future needs for federal ownership of land. They certainly would not see the need for national parks and monuments just as they would not see the need for environmental protection, immigration laws, federal regulation of interstate transportation and communication or a host of laws brought about by social change.

Not liking the limits placed by the Constitution is not a justification for ignoring it, that is the very purpose of Article 5. Lazy people who have no respect for the document try to force change through the courts instead of doing it the proper way where the states and the people have a say. That is not what the founders intended they expected vigorous debate to precede major changes is federal authority. Complicity in the courts have done more harm to our republic than any other institution.