Proposed Constitutional Amendments at the Convention of States (Poll)

[FA_Q2]

1 is just pointless, I have very little interest in term limits. All you are doing is shifting the power from pols to parties. If people are going to vote the same idiot in again removing that idiot just means another bobble head will take the spot.

The problem is the electorate. You cant fix that by chaging out the pols.

6 I have no idea. What are you trying to stop here. Can you give me an example where the state was against the feds acquiring and using land?

The rest I can get behind in principal. The commerce clause absolutely needs boundaries even though those boundaries were put in place. The government just decided that they can be ignored. however, the states cannot be the sole power regulating commerce, the feds need the power to regulate it BETWEEN states. The confederacy failed and that was a major reason why.

 

[Independent thinker]

Typically a quorum is the minimum number of members to take an official action, in this case make an official decision.

But, in this case, when exactly is the quorum? Is it when they are hearing the case or is it after they hear the case and they are making their decisions? Could you have all nine judges hear the case and then not have a quorum at decision time?

 

[g5000]

Here is a summary of the proposed Amendments to the US Constitution pending approval at the Convention of States.
If/when 38 state legislatures approve any of the following proposed amendments they are approved, and NOT subject to review by the president, congress, nor the Supreme Court.

1) Term limits for Congress (9 terms in the House and 3 terms in the Senate)
2) Cap U.S. Supreme Court judges at nine & a quorum at six
3) Balanced Budget Amendment
4) Set boundaries to the Commerce Clause ( the Department of Commerce will be eliminated, states regulate commerce)
5) Enable states to overrule federal laws and regulations (a simple majority of all state legislatures (i.e. 26) can repeal any federal law)
6) Stop the federal government from seizing states' land and resources (all land and resources within a state shall be regulated by that state)

Be careful what you wish for. A constitutional convention would probably have a repeal of the Second Amendment on the menu.

 

[FA_Q2]

Be careful what you wish for. A constitutional convention would probably have a repeal of the Second Amendment on the menu.

This has always been the problem with dreams of a national convention. The fact is that the people calling for it are not in the majority and that is why they are calling for it. Being in the minority basically ensures that the outcome will not be what they want but rather moving in the complete opposite direction.

But they will never believe that until it is to late. Then, somehow, the 'deep state' will have 'stolen' the process.

 

[kyzr]

1 is just pointless, I have very little interest in term limits. All you are doing is shifting the power from pols to parties. If people are going to vote the same idiot in again removing that idiot just means another bobble head will take the spot. The problem is the electorate. You cant fix that by chaging out the pols.

6 I have no idea. What are you trying to stop here. Can you give me an example where the state was against the feds acquiring and using land?

The rest I can get behind in principal. The commerce clause absolutely needs boundaries even though those boundaries were put in place. The government just decided that they can be ignored. however, the states cannot be the sole power regulating commerce, the feds need the power to regulate it BETWEEN states. The confederacy failed and that was a major reason why.

1. #1 term limits makes it harder for lobbyists to buy and keep pols. Pols need to know that they will be going back and live under the laws they pass. Besides the obvious rationale' of keeping senile space takers out of Congress, like Feinstein and McConnell. Fresh blood is always good, professional pols is not a good idea.

2. True that the electorate can be dumbasses, look at Fetterman. The biased MSM doesn't help matters.

3. #6 gives the states the authority to develop their resources or not. Biden stopped drilling in AK and all over. That ends. Biden stopped mining for needed metals. That ends. The states have control of their land, NOT the Federal government. No more Federal Lands unless they get state approval, etc.

4. Why can't states regulate their own commerce? I can see the Feds regulating commerce with regardc to tariffs and sanctions, but not domestic commerce.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Here is a summary of the proposed Amendments to the US Constitution pending approval at the Convention of States.
If/when 38 state legislatures approve any of the following proposed amendments they are approved, and NOT subject to review by the president, congress, nor the Supreme Court.

1) Term limits for Congress (9 terms in the House and 3 terms in the Senate)
2) Cap U.S. Supreme Court judges at nine & a quorum at six
3) Balanced Budget Amendment
4) Set boundaries to the Commerce Clause ( the Department of Commerce will be eliminated, states regulate commerce)
5) Enable states to overrule federal laws and regulations (a simple majority of all state legislatures (i.e. 26) can repeal any federal law)
6) Stop the federal government from seizing states' land and resources (all land and resources within a state shall be regulated by that state)

The sort of proposals that don't get to the heart of the problems in the US.

1) Is just ridiculously stupid.
2) Clearly doesn't address the problem of how Supreme Court Justices are appointed.
3) Unrealistic.
4) Might work, but the realities of the modern day US need to be taken into account.
5) Might work, though 50% would cause huge problems.
6) You might as well just change the whole constitution.

 

[kyzr]

But, in this case, when exactly is the quorum? Is it when they are hearing the case or is it after they hear the case and they are making their decisions? Could you have all nine judges hear the case and then not have a quorum at decision time?

Suppose three justices abstain. If the other six reach a 4-2 consensus its an official ruling.
1. If 9 justices hear a case its a quorum.
2. If 6 justices hear a case its a quorum.
I don't know why they picked 6 justices as a minimum. But it makes some sense.

 

[kyzr]

Be careful what you wish for. A constitutional convention would probably have a repeal of the Second Amendment on the menu.

Nope. Just what I have in the OP.

 

[kyzr]

This has always been the problem with dreams of a national convention. The fact is that the people calling for it are not in the majority and that is why they are calling for it. Being in the minority basically ensures that the outcome will not be what they want but rather moving in the complete opposite direction.
But they will never believe that until it is to late. Then, somehow, the 'deep state' will have 'stolen' the process.

If you count the red state legislatures, and blue state legislatures, neither has a super-majority of 38 needed to pass an Amendment.
Any new Amendment would need to be a "no-brainer" for the States.
#1 and #2 look like bi-partisan approvals.
#5 looks doubtful.

#3 and #4 are borderline pass/fails.

The deep state is not invited. Only state reps with an approved agenda.

 

[The Duke]

Here is a summary of the proposed Amendments to the US Constitution pending approval at the Convention of States.
If/when 38 state legislatures approve any of the following proposed amendments they are approved, and NOT subject to review by the president, congress, nor the Supreme Court.

1) Term limits for Congress (9 terms in the House and 3 terms in the Senate)
2) Cap U.S. Supreme Court judges at nine & a quorum at six
3) Balanced Budget Amendment
4) Set boundaries to the Commerce Clause ( the Department of Commerce will be eliminated, states regulate commerce)
5) Enable states to overrule federal laws and regulations (a simple majority of all state legislatures (i.e. 26) can repeal any federal law)
6) Stop the federal government from seizing states' land and resources (all land and resources within a state shall be regulated by that state)

9 terms in the house? That's absolutely useless! No more than 4-5.

 

[kyzr]

The sort of proposals that don't get to the heart of the problems in the US.

1) Is just ridiculously stupid.
2) Clearly doesn't address the problem of how Supreme Court Justices are appointed.
3) Unrealistic.
4) Might work, but the realities of the modern day US need to be taken into account.
5) Might work, though 50% would cause huge problems.
6) You might as well just change the whole constitution.

1) Term limits for Congress (9 terms in the House and 3 terms in the Senate)
2) Cap U.S. Supreme Court judges at nine & a quorum at six
3) Balanced Budget Amendment
4) Set boundaries to the Commerce Clause ( the Department of Commerce will be eliminated, states regulate commerce)
5) Enable states to overrule federal laws and regulations (a simple majority of all state legislatures (i.e. 26) can repeal any federal law)
6) Stop the federal government from seizing states' land and resources (all land and resources within a state shall be regulated by that state)

1. Is not stupid, its needed to keep Feinsteins and McConnells and Bidens out of Congress too long. Congress needs faster turnaround to be current.
2. There is no problem how justices are appointed. Why do you think there is?
3. Fitch just put a shot across the bow. We need a Balanced Budget. We now pay $1T in interest on the Debt.
4. OK
5. 50% of what? What huge problems? Look at the abortion issue. Each state has their own flavor base on their populations.
6. The States could take back their sovereignty. The Constitution has Division and Separation of Powers.

 

[rampart]

Here is a summary of the proposed Amendments to the US Constitution pending approval at the Convention of States.
If/when 38 state legislatures approve any of the following proposed amendments they are approved, and NOT subject to review by the president, congress, nor the Supreme Court.

1) Term limits for Congress (9 terms in the House and 3 terms in the Senate)
2) Cap U.S. Supreme Court judges at nine & a quorum at six
3) Balanced Budget Amendment
4) Set boundaries to the Commerce Clause ( the Department of Commerce will be eliminated, states regulate commerce)
5) Enable states to overrule federal laws and regulations (a simple majority of all state legislatures (i.e. 26) can repeal any federal law)
6) Stop the federal government from seizing states' land and resources (all land and resources within a state shall be regulated by that state)

are you guys nuts? what on that list helps US?

this convention is sponsored by koch (americans for prosperity) and will pass anything his huge contributors want.

if you want any of these amendments, start the usual process. if the gavel bangs on a convention every clause in the constitution becomes negotiable.

 

[rampart]

9 terms in the house? That's absolutely useless! No more than 4-5.

hey faggot . if you want your congresscritter term limited, don't re elect it.

thought i was ignoring your stupid azz. must check that.,

 

[kyzr]

are you guys nuts? what on that list helps US?
this convention is sponsored by koch (americans for prosperity) and will pass anything his huge contributors want.
if you want any of these amendments, start the usual process. if the gavel bangs on a convention every clause in the constitution becomes negotiable.

The above poll says that most people support 3 or 4 of the proposed amendments.
They take power from the Feds and give it back to the States.

 

[rampart]

The above poll says that most people support 3 or 4 of the proposed amendments.
They take power from the Feds and give it back to the States.

well, that is backwards. (and not exactly news)

 

[Independent thinker]

Suppose three justices abstain. If the other six reach a 4-2 consensus its an official ruling.
1. If 9 justices hear a case its a quorum.
2. If 6 justices hear a case its a quorum.
I don't know why they picked 6 justices as a minimum. But it makes some sense.

Again, my future fears are that we may only have 7 justices to hear a case because one party has been dragging their feet severely and refusing to confirm two appointments. So, let's just say one party has 4 justices while the other party has 3. In an important case with big ramifications, 2 judges or more from one party, if they see the case going against them, may decide to abstain from a decision, making only 5 judges, which would not be a quorum. In fact, they could still do that today. Let's say we have 9 judges and a 5-4 split. If one side's judges see the case going South for them 4 could recuse themselves, not leaving a quorum of 6.

 

[kyzr]

Again, my future fears are that we may only have 7 justices to hear a case because one party has been dragging their feet severely and refusing to confirm two appointments. So, let's just say one party has 4 justices while the other party has 3. In an important case with big ramifications, 2 judges or more from one party, if they see the case going against them, may decide to abstain from a decision, making only 5 judges, which would not be a quorum. In fact, they could still do that today. Let's say we have 9 judges and a 5-4 split. If one side's judges see the case going South for them 4 could recuse themselves, not leaving a quorum of 6.

I'm not seeing ANY difference about the quorum from now.

28 U.S. Code § 1 - Number of justices; quorum

www.law.cornell.edu

Rule 4. Sessions and Quorum

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[bripat9643]

Be careful what you wish for. On the surface some Amendments might look legitimate but they might also be filled with booby traps. The last thing we want is a "constitutional Convention" during a democrat majority. Lefties are big on choice for mothers who want to kill their unborn but they think it's O.K. to take political choices away from citizens in the voting booth.

Congress doesn't choose who goes to the convention. The various states to that.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Congress doesn't choose who goes to the convention. The various states to that.

Which actually raises an interesting question.

Is there a law somewhere (because it's not in the COTUS) about how the States choose their delegate(s):

• Is it 1 delegate per state?
• Is it 2 delegates per state?
• Is it 1 delegate per member of Congress? Basically the number of delegates equals the number of Electoral College voters. So Wyoming get 3 delegates, Florida 30 delegates?

Anyone have some hard info on this?

WW

 

[FA_Q2]

1. #1 term limits makes it harder for lobbyists to buy and keep pols. Pols need to know that they will be going back and live under the laws they pass. Besides the obvious rationale' of keeping senile space takers out of Congress, like Feinstein and McConnell. Fresh blood is always good, professional pols is not a good idea.

No it does not.

They just buy the local party rather than the specific pol. You would need to back up the assertion that chaining the name on the ticket changes the ability to influence the position they represent. I see no reason why that would be the case.

2. True that the electorate can be dumbasses, look at Fetterman. The biased MSM doesn't help matters.

3. #6 gives the states the authority to develop their resources or not. Biden stopped drilling in AK and all over. That ends. Biden stopped mining for needed metals. That ends. The states have control of their land, NOT the Federal government. No more Federal Lands unless they get state approval, etc.

How would it do that? The point read as though the feds would not have the ability to take and develop state lands as they want. What you are talking about is making a particular action illegal - that has noting to to with acquiring or developing land by the feds.

The EPA would still retain the power to regulate environmental actions.

4. Why can't states regulate their own commerce? I can see the Feds regulating commerce with regardc to tariffs and sanctions, but not domestic commerce.

Because it failed. We tried that and it does not work. History and fact are better predictors of outcomes than ideology.