Proposed Constitutional Amendments at the Convention of States (Poll)

[frigidweirdo]

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.

1) You think the "Feinsteins and McConnells and Bidens" are the problem?

There's a political party in Italy, I'm struggling to find the name of it, and they allowed candidates to serve only one term. It didn't work out, all their decent candidates soon had to leave their jobs as MPs and then other ones came in who weren't as good and nobody trusted them.
The problem in the US is A) that you get Congressmen and women who are going for the money. So, some group will pay them to do whatever they're told. Which means it's not Congress in charge of Congress, it's not the voters getting represented, it's big money that's represented.
That exists NOW. And changing Congressmen and women around all the time will make it EASIER for big money to do this.

You might get rid of someone like Biden, but there will be worse than Biden coming along to take the money, using their influence for the short time they have it. It doesn't solve a thing.

2) There's a HUGE problem with how justices are appointed. How do you become a US Supreme Court justice? You have to attract the eye of someone. How do you do that? By appealing to their partisan nature. So, sensible judges get overlooked. Why put someone on the court who could go against your side? You're losing your vote. It's like voting third party.

So, judges who are ambitious gain attention by ruling to the political side of the party they're trying to attract. Which leads to very, very partisan politics.

Justices should be impartial, we literally look at justices now and say "they're on the left, they're on the right, they were appointed by a right winger, they were appointed by a left winger" There's no impartial.

3) Perhaps you don't understand what a balanced budget would mean. People take out money to pay for things to boost the economy to get richer, to then be able to pay off the debt and make some more on top of that.
Yes, there's a problem in the US with the amount of interest being paid. The problem is who owns this debt? Ah, big money, who pay a lot of the "representatives" to vote the way they want it, or like the Koch brothers who have decided to manipulate politics and voters as much as humanly possible and beyond.

5) The problem with 50% is that it'd lead to too much instability. You can already see how cutthroat the Senate and House are, you just need to get to that 50%+1 position and then you can start doing whatever you like.
Let's take the gerrymandering in North Carolina, US House elections:

In 2018 Republicans won 10 out of 13 seats.
In 2020 Republicans won 8 out of 13 seats.
In 2022 Republicans won 7 out of 14 seats.

Why do you think the Republicans saw their percentage go from 76% to 50%??
Because of gerrymandering. How did they do it?

North Carolina’s extreme new gerrymander, explained

New election maps passed into law could be worse for Democrats than their recent loss in Virginia.

www.vox.com

"“Ten years ago, North Carolina’s legislature drew an extremely gerrymandered congressional map. It was so gerrymandered that they were ordered to redraw it. Twice,” says Will Adler, an expert on gerrymandering at the Center for Democracy and Technology think tank. “This map appears to be at least as extreme as the ones drawn in the last cycle.”"
This is a North Carolina that in 2012 voted 48% for Obama and 50% for Romney. The state isn't heavily Republican.

However in 2012 the Republicans won 77 out of 120 seats in their own House election. They'd find themselves, one year, above the 50% mark, then they're gerrymander to hell, putting in policies to give themselves the power.
This is what would happen on a national level, the battleground states would be so awash with money, they'd literally decide the outcome of the US, because the Federal govt wouldn't matter any more. You could control the US just by having 50%+1 of the states.

6) Yes, the states could take back "sovereignty". And what would they do with it?

 

[bripat9643]

1) You think the "Feinsteins and McConnells and Bidens" are the problem?

There's a political party in Italy, I'm struggling to find the name of it, and they allowed candidates to serve only one term. It didn't work out, all their decent candidates soon had to leave their jobs as MPs and then other ones came in who weren't as good and nobody trusted them.
The problem in the US is A) that you get Congressmen and women who are going for the money. So, some group will pay them to do whatever they're told. Which means it's not Congress in charge of Congress, it's not the voters getting represented, it's big money that's represented.
That exists NOW. And changing Congressmen and women around all the time will make it EASIER for big money to do this.

You might get rid of someone like Biden, but there will be worse than Biden coming along to take the money, using their influence for the short time they have it. It doesn't solve a thing.

2) There's a HUGE problem with how justices are appointed. How do you become a US Supreme Court justice? You have to attract the eye of someone. How do you do that? By appealing to their partisan nature. So, sensible judges get overlooked. Why put someone on the court who could go against your side? You're losing your vote. It's like voting third party.

So, judges who are ambitious gain attention by ruling to the political side of the party they're trying to attract. Which leads to very, very partisan politics.

Justices should be impartial, we literally look at justices now and say "they're on the left, they're on the right, they were appointed by a right winger, they were appointed by a left winger" There's no impartial.

3) Perhaps you don't understand what a balanced budget would mean. People take out money to pay for things to boost the economy to get richer, to then be able to pay off the debt and make some more on top of that.
Yes, there's a problem in the US with the amount of interest being paid. The problem is who owns this debt? Ah, big money, who pay a lot of the "representatives" to vote the way they want it, or like the Koch brothers who have decided to manipulate politics and voters as much as humanly possible and beyond.

5) The problem with 50% is that it'd lead to too much instability. You can already see how cutthroat the Senate and House are, you just need to get to that 50%+1 position and then you can start doing whatever you like.
Let's take the gerrymandering in North Carolina, US House elections:

In 2018 Republicans won 10 out of 13 seats.
In 2020 Republicans won 8 out of 13 seats.
In 2022 Republicans won 7 out of 14 seats.

Why do you think the Republicans saw their percentage go from 76% to 50%??
Because of gerrymandering. How did they do it?

North Carolina’s extreme new gerrymander, explained

New election maps passed into law could be worse for Democrats than their recent loss in Virginia.

www.vox.com

"“Ten years ago, North Carolina’s legislature drew an extremely gerrymandered congressional map. It was so gerrymandered that they were ordered to redraw it. Twice,” says Will Adler, an expert on gerrymandering at the Center for Democracy and Technology think tank. “This map appears to be at least as extreme as the ones drawn in the last cycle.”"
This is a North Carolina that in 2012 voted 48% for Obama and 50% for Romney. The state isn't heavily Republican.

However in 2012 the Republicans won 77 out of 120 seats in their own House election. They'd find themselves, one year, above the 50% mark, then they're gerrymander to hell, putting in policies to give themselves the power.
This is what would happen on a national level, the battleground states would be so awash with money, they'd literally decide the outcome of the US, because the Federal govt wouldn't matter any more. You could control the US just by having 50%+1 of the states.

6) Yes, the states could take back "sovereignty". And what would they do with it?

We don't want term limits only for our side, dumbass. We specifically want term limits for the criminals you put in office.

 

[boedicca]

Repeal 17th Amendment

Forbid Federal ownership of state lands except for the purposes of military installations, courts, and regional offices. One of the many reasons CA is frelled up is that the Fed's own 45% of the land mass.

 

[Esdraelon]

Congress will not call together a Convention of the States in order to gut Congress' power

An Article V convention of states is the constitution's work-around if the people of the country want amendments to the constitution and the Congress will not obey those desires. Congress is not involved at all in calling or managing a convention of states in any way. The whole concept was designed by our Founders as a check on an out-of-control Legislative body.

That said, I have looked into the process, and in the real world, the world where DC and its media can crush citizens who step out of line, there is simply no way to get that many state legislatures to agree on more than one or two items that would acceptable to all, then when the convention meets, those state legislators will have to vote in sufficient numbers to pass the said amendment (s). Can you imagine how vulnerable local/state politicians would be to outside pressure, threats, bribes...

After watching the level of corruption and the use of raw power and even our courts to silence political opposition, I think it would take a miracle for such a mechanism to be successful. The truth is, we are hopelessly, irredeemably broken and the only peaceful path left for us is to find some limited common ground to discuss how states can secede without violence.

If the DC crowd refuses to listen and refuses to do the right thing concerning restoring trust in our elections then violence will happen. To imagine that 100+ million Americans who strenuously disagree with the fiscal and social engineering of the Left would simply be shouted down or threatened into silence by the other half of the country, is foolishness.
We will find a way to live together with one law for all or this country will fall apart and the only "winners" will be a Marxist ruling class.
*SPOILER ALERT* - These situations have happened multiple times in the 20th century and they almost always end with mass graves.

 

[Esdraelon]

We don't want term limits only for our side, dumbass. We specifically want term limits for the criminals you put in office.

I used to strongly support the idea of limiting terms for elected representatives but after watching how the permanent bureaucracy in DC was able to hamstring and paralyze a duly elected president, I no longer believe term limits would be an answer.
For that idea to work, we'd first have to dismantle the current civil service system. That thing has become a monster and the real power in DC is unelected. Trump posed a threat to their game and they did everything but assassinate him. I don't think there is a cure for the toxicity of DC other than to cleanse the ground with nuclear fire and start over by hanging anyone who tried to deviate from our constitution.

Since neither of those things is going to happen, the only solution left for Americans who live outside the blue cesspools is to form alliances among like-minded state populations and create our own rules on commerce and interstate trade and common laws that those states agree to be bound by.

DC only has power to the extent that the people are too fearful to challenge them. I think we're approaching a tipping point where the misery that DC is causing, outweighs the fear they wield. Those on the Left think they can do what the hell they want and as long as the media echoes their beliefs, the rest of us are compelled to go along or else. The thing is, DC has no power to compel millions of us at the state level. What can they do? Build camps and round up thousands or tens of thousands of dissenters? Not that I'd put it past them if they thought they could but there's a very good reason why they are perpetually trying to nullify 2A. They talk a lot of shit about F16s and tanks but the truth is, they FEAR an armed population because they know they'd have no chance to keep a volunteer military working for them against their friends and neighbors.

 

[kyzr]

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.

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 nothing to to with acquiring or developing land by the feds. The EPA would still retain the power to regulate environmental actions.

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

1. We disagree on term limits. I prefer short terms in Congress and not a lifetime of being a politician. Let them work outside of politics to understand how we live.

2. Right now the EPA over-regulates. We want the States to have more control. Biden shut down ANWR and most drilling. Some states, like AK, want to drill, and mine for rare metals. This amendment would take power from the Feds and give it back to the states. Even blue states would like this amendment.

3. How did it fail, link please.

 

[Coyote]

I don’t think we should be messing with the Constitution. For the most part, we are no way as far thinking or educated as the framers were. It has lasted almost 250 years. No other country can claim that. To rewrite it, primarily for the purpose of political ideology, is dangerous. There is an amendment process, and it isn’t easy, for good reason, but it is there.

 

[kyzr]

1) You think the "Feinsteins and McConnells and Bidens" are the problem?

There's a political party in Italy, I'm struggling to find the name of it, and they allowed candidates to serve only one term. It didn't work out, all their decent candidates soon had to leave their jobs as MPs and then other ones came in who weren't as good and nobody trusted them.
The problem in the US is A) that you get Congressmen and women who are going for the money. So, some group will pay them to do whatever they're told. Which means it's not Congress in charge of Congress, it's not the voters getting represented, it's big money that's represented.
That exists NOW. And changing Congressmen and women around all the time will make it EASIER for big money to do this.

You might get rid of someone like Biden, but there will be worse than Biden coming along to take the money, using their influence for the short time they have it. It doesn't solve a thing.

2) There's a HUGE problem with how justices are appointed. How do you become a US Supreme Court justice? You have to attract the eye of someone. How do you do that? By appealing to their partisan nature. So, sensible judges get overlooked. Why put someone on the court who could go against your side? You're losing your vote. It's like voting third party.

So, judges who are ambitious gain attention by ruling to the political side of the party they're trying to attract. Which leads to very, very partisan politics.

Justices should be impartial, we literally look at justices now and say "they're on the left, they're on the right, they were appointed by a right winger, they were appointed by a left winger" There's no impartial.

3) Perhaps you don't understand what a balanced budget would mean. People take out money to pay for things to boost the economy to get richer, to then be able to pay off the debt and make some more on top of that. Yes, there's a problem in the US with the amount of interest being paid. The problem is who owns this debt? Ah, big money, who pay a lot of the "representatives" to vote the way they want it, or like the Koch brothers who have decided to manipulate politics and voters as much as humanly possible and beyond.

5) The problem with 50% is that it'd lead to too much instability. You can already see how cutthroat the Senate and House are, you just need to get to that 50%+1 position and then you can start doing whatever you like. Why do you think the Republicans saw their percentage go from 76% to 50%?? Because of gerrymandering. How did they do it?

"“Ten years ago, North Carolina’s legislature drew an extremely gerrymandered congressional map. It was so gerrymandered that they were ordered to redraw it. Twice,” says Will Adler, an expert on gerrymandering at the Center for Democracy and Technology think tank. “This map appears to be at least as extreme as the ones drawn in the last cycle.”"
This is a North Carolina that in 2012 voted 48% for Obama and 50% for Romney. The state isn't heavily Republican.

However in 2012 the Republicans won 77 out of 120 seats in their own House election. They'd find themselves, one year, above the 50% mark, then they're gerrymander to hell, putting in policies to give themselves the power.
This is what would happen on a national level, the battleground states would be so awash with money, they'd literally decide the outcome of the US, because the Federal govt wouldn't matter any more. You could control the US just by having 50%+1 of the states.

6) Yes, the states could take back "sovereignty". And what would they do with it?

Very thoughtful response, thank you!

1. We disagree. I want congressmen and senators to live outside of DC to see what we deal with. Right now they are professional politicians in the DC bubble. I prefer term limits.

2. Its my understanding that the Federalist Society recommended the USSC justices to Trump.
I don't know how Obama picked Merrick Garland, probably because he was very liberal. Presidents will/should nominate highly qualified people that the Senate would approve.

How the Federalist Society came to dominate the Supreme Court

In a new audiobook “Takeover,” Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman explores the rise of the Federalist Society.

news.harvard.edu

3. You keep referencing the Koch Brothers. I can point to George Soros. Billionaires can spend THEIR money any way they want, that is "free speech". Sam Bankman Fried robbed FTC and gave $40m to the democrats to buy the senate. Zuckerbucks (google it) bought WI in 2020, etc. There is no way to prevent money from influencing elections. The Balanced Budget Amendment would require raising taxes, like a 4% Federal Sales Tax, or a Remittance Tax on money sent out of the US, or a Transaction Tax on all financial transactions, as well as removing the cap on SS earnings. That would balance the Budget.

4. OK

5. Gerrymandering has nothing to do with States overruling Federal laws. If 26 states vote to repeal a Federal Law, its repealed. Simple.

6. States would have MORE SOVEREIGNTY, that's the point. All states would vote for that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Very thoughtful response, thank you!

1. We disagree. I want congressmen and senators to live outside of DC to see what we deal with. Right now they are professional politicians in the DC bubble. I prefer term limits.

2. Its my understanding that the Federalist Society recommended the USSC justices to Trump.
I don't know how Obama picked Merrick Garland, probably because he was very liberal. Presidents will/should nominate highly qualified people that the Senate would approve.

How the Federalist Society came to dominate the Supreme Court

In a new audiobook “Takeover,” Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman explores the rise of the Federalist Society.

news.harvard.edu

3. You keep referencing the Koch Brothers. I can point to George Soros. Billionaires can spend THEIR money any way they want, that is "free speech". Sam Bankman Fried robbed FTC and gave $40m to the democrats to buy the senate. Zuckerbucks (google it) bought WI in 2020, etc. There is no way to prevent money from influencing elections. The Balanced Budget Amendment would require raising taxes, like a 4% Federal Sales Tax, or a Remittance Tax on money sent out of the US, or a Transaction Tax on all financial transactions, as well as removing the cap on SS earnings. That would balance the Budget.

4. OK

5. Gerrymandering has nothing to do with States overruling Federal laws. If 26 states vote to repeal a Federal Law, its repealed. Simple.

6. States would have MORE SOVEREIGNTY, that's the point. All states would vote for that.

1) Thing is, term limits won't get you what you want.

It's like putting a cabbage on your wound, it won't solve the problem.

You want Congressmen and women who live in their communities, who understand their people, who try and improve their communities and their countries.
And what you'll get are controllers who control the people who see a quick buck as a yes man in Congress. Control isn't with Congressmen and women even now. Giving the powers that be more control by weakening the Congressmen and women isn't going to help.

Proportional Representation is what you want.

Why? Because you'll have more political parties.

Right now there are two parties that stand for not much, they try and stand for stuff that's kind of secondary, or they just plain lie, because they need to attract enough people to win, it's all watered down.
In Germany they have six viable political parties (because they have a 5% cut off for parties to get seats). Each party stands for something different, people know what they stand for.
New parties can appear out of nowhere and stand for a single issue or a limited range of issues and push larger parties.
The AfD was founded in 2013 and gained 12.6% of the vote by 2017. In the UK with FPTP, UKIP was founded in the early 1990s, gained 12.6% of the vote by 2015 and got one seat.
The AfD have changed German politics very quickly. The CDU/CSU had to change tact very quickly, they couldn't do it, so they lost seats, lost control of the government.

You'll also have more oversight. Right now the Reps and Dems have to police themselves, and aren't doing a good job, simply because they know that people don't have another choice. More parties means more oversight, more people power.

2) Let's see the impact of how Supreme Court justices are chosen.

There are nine justices. 6 are conservative.

Biden has got one so far. He's been in power for 2 1/2 years.
Trump got three. He was in power for 4 years.
Obama got two. He was in power for 8 years.
Dubya got two. He was in power for 8 years.
Clinton's have both gone.
Bush senior has one (out of the two he appointed).

Trump, with his three, didn't win the popular vote. Dubya with his two didn't win the popular vote in his first election.
So, five out of nine justices have been appointed by presidents who became president without the popular vote.
If we count up the votes, we'll fine the Democrats coming out on top, but the way the Republicans function has led to a Republican majority, in spite of how the people of the US are voting.
So the system leads to justices who are too partisan, then leads to one party gaining control of the Supreme Court with, at best, unethical practices that are just pushing politics more and more and more partisan every year.

3) No, spending money is not "free speech", except to the corrupt justices on the Supreme Court who happen to do the bidding of the big money.

The ruling that allowed unlimited money to be spend manipulating voters was Citizens United v. FEC.

Clarence "I'll accept any bribe from the right" Thomas voted in favor of that. And some of the other Republican justices have a few black marks against themselves too.
Along with the FPTP system, allowing the rich to spend as much money as they want is leading to a, quick frankly, untenable political system. It's going to collapse at some point because there's too much corruption, and it's being openly flaunted, see Trump and Thomas as some prime examples (and you can almost certainly put Biden in there too).

That the German federal election cost LESS than one US Senate seat is telling about how the two different political systems function, and why FPTP is good for the rich and powerful, and bad for the people.

5) Gerrymandering has everything to do with it.

Say you need 26 states to be able to control Congress, so you gerrymander a few states.
Republicans control 26 governors, 29 state senates and 28 state houses.

Why?
Democrats have won the popular vote in every Presidential election, except for the post 9/11 election of Dubya's since Bush senior won the Presidential election in 1988.
That's one out of seven for the Republicans in over 30 years.
In the House you have a give and take between both parties, but generally when Democrats win they win by a much higher margin.

In the Senate, the Dems have a majority of 15 million based on the last three elections.
The last time the Dems didn't have a majority from the last three elections was in 2002. Eight of the nine justices have been selected in this time of Democratic majority, and it's been majority for the Republicans 5-3 in that time.
That makes no sense, and that's working within the Dem/Rep framework, which, with Proportional Representation, wouldn't even be the case.

6) More sovereignty? Do they have like sovereignty points or something? How does "more sovereignty" do anything here?

 

[westwall]

Proponents of a article 5 convention of states can shove it right up their ass along with a cactus....Careful what you wish for.

Our Founding Fathers did not create Article V to rein in the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. The Constitution they had just written already did that. That was the reason for drafting the Constitution in the first place.

When the people meet in convention they are under no obligation to abide by the terms of the state resolutions. That is why Article V establishes no procedures, other than to apply.

Once two-thirds apply, Congress shall call a convention, and once the convention convenes, it is under the highest sovereign authority of a free country: the people. (yeah right)

At that point the rules, procedures, and agenda are set by the convention.

Neither Congress nor the state legislatures have any authority or control over a convention once it is called to order.

The Danger of a Convention of States

This article refutes the most common claims of an intense drive to stampede the public and state legislators into calling for a dangerous second constitutional

www.freedomfirstsociety.org

Sorry but I don't want a rouge's gallery of leftists and RINOs determining our direction....They are fucking up things royally the way it is.

Correct. Enforce the COTUS as is.

 

[FA_Q2]

1. We disagree on term limits. I prefer short terms in Congress and not a lifetime of being a politician. Let them work outside of politics to understand how we live.

Obviously we disagree. The question for me is why you think limiting term limits of bad politicians fixes anything when, in my mind, none of the root causes that put that politician in power in the first place. I just do not see anything that supports the idea that term limits actually change anything.

Indeed, it is awfully strange to state that the prime problem we have with politicians is that they have to damn much experience. This concept is nonsensical in any other context whatsoever. In no other field anywhere would we state that the prime problem is experience except in this one instance. The ultimate question seems to never be answered here: why is it the case in this one filed where experience is a bad thing?

2. Right now the EPA over-regulates. We want the States to have more control. Biden shut down ANWR and most drilling. Some states, like AK, want to drill, and mine for rare metals. This amendment would take power from the Feds and give it back to the states. Even blue states would like this amendment.

That just restates what you already said. How does that address my question?

3. How did it fail, link please.

?
It was a well known problem that led to the current constitution. Why do you think that regulating commerce is in the constitution in the first place? Because it was easily recognized as one of the chief failures in the articles of confederation:

Identifying Defects in the Constitution | To Form a More Perfect Union | Articles and Essays | Documents from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789 | Digital Collections | Library of Congress

By the United States in Congress Assembled. November 1,1783. Annapolis: Printed by John Dunlap, 1784. Library of Congress, Rare Book and Special Collections Division. With the passage of time, weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation became apparent; Congress commanded little respect and no...

www.loc.gov

Our founders recognized that federal power was lacking in interstate commerce which made trade very difficult, both inter and intra nationally. The idea that you would no longer be able to create a product and sell it in the US but instead you would need to create a product and sell in in CA and repeat the process 49 more times. That would absolutely destroy the value of trade with the US in general and have a massive impact on our ability to trade internationally.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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)

All should be opposed as ridiculous rightwing idiocy – a moronic laundry list of conservative contempt for democracy and the rule of law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Term limits for Congress (9 terms in the House and 3 terms in the Senate)

We already have term limits – they’re called elections; the people have the right to elect whomever they want for as long as they want.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Cap U.S. Supreme Court judges at nine & a quorum at six

Actually the number should be increased consistent with the number of circuit courts of appeal.

This is a bad faith proposal by the partisan right to maintain the current conservative majority, having nothing to do with sound, responsible jurisprudence.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Balanced Budget Amendment

Reckless, irresponsible, wrongheaded conservative fiscal dogma.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Set boundaries to the Commerce Clause ( the Department of Commerce will be eliminated, states regulate commerce)

Reckless, irresponsible, wrongheaded, bad faith proposal by conservatives as an attack on public accommodations laws; such an amendment would void the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and nullify Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964).

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Enable states to overrule federal laws and regulations (a simple majority of all state legislatures (i.e. 26) can repeal any federal law)

A representable attack by the right on democracy and the protected liberties of the people.

It comes as no surprise that conservatives would advocate voiding the Supremacy Clause and in essence eliminating our national government along with its protections afforded to citizens of the United States.

Federalism was our Nation's own discovery. The Framers split the atom of sovereignty. It was the genius of their idea that our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other.

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995).

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Stop the federal government from seizing states' land and resources (all land and resources within a state shall be regulated by that state)

Not ‘stop’ the Federal government – eliminate the Federal government; eliminate federalism, eliminate the Republic, eliminate the rights and protected liberties of the people as safeguarded by the Federal government.

These aren’t ‘amendments’ to the Constitution – this is a call by the authoritarian, anti-democratic right to do away with the Constitution altogether and balkanize the American nation, allowing states to violate citizens' rights where those rights would no longer exist - the conservative goal to establish tyranny and totalitarianism.

 

[ReinyDays]

Congress is not involved at all in calling or managing a convention of states in any way.

I took the trouble to post Article V ... you still won't read it, will you? ...

The text is clear ... the States can only APPLY to Congress for a Constitutional Convention ... Congress herself decides whether the Convention created or not ...

 

[kyzr]

1) Thing is, term limits won't get you what you want. It's like putting a cabbage on your wound, it won't solve the problem.
You want Congressmen and women who live in their communities, who understand their people, who try and improve their communities and their countries.
And what you'll get are controllers who control the people who see a quick buck as a yes man in Congress. Control isn't with Congressmen and women even now. Giving the powers that be more control by weakening the Congressmen and women isn't going to help. Proportional Representation is what you want. Why? Because you'll have more political parties.
Right now there are two parties that stand for not much, they try and stand for stuff that's kind of secondary, or they just plain lie, because they need to attract enough people to win, it's all watered down. In Germany they have six viable political parties (because they have a 5% cut off for parties to get seats). Each party stands for something different, people know what they stand for.
New parties can appear out of nowhere and stand for a single issue or a limited range of issues and push larger parties.
The AfD was founded in 2013 and gained 12.6% of the vote by 2017. In the UK with FPTP, UKIP was founded in the early 1990s, gained 12.6% of the vote by 2015 and got one seat.
The AfD have changed German politics very quickly. The CDU/CSU had to change tact very quickly, they couldn't do it, so they lost seats, lost control of the government.
You'll also have more oversight. Right now the Reps and Dems have to police themselves, and aren't doing a good job, simply because they know that people don't have another choice. More parties means more oversight, more people power.

2) Let's see the impact of how Supreme Court justices are chosen. There are nine justices. 6 are conservative.
Biden has got one so far. He's been in power for 2 1/2 years.
Trump got three. He was in power for 4 years. Obama got two. He was in power for 8 years. Dubya got two. He was in power for 8 years. Clinton's have both gone.
Trump, with his three, didn't win the popular vote. Dubya with his two didn't win the popular vote in his first election.
So, five out of nine justices have been appointed by presidents who became president without the popular vote.
If we count up the votes, we'll fine the Democrats coming out on top, but the way the Republicans function has led to a Republican majority, in spite of how the people of the US are voting.
So the system leads to justices who are too partisan, then leads to one party gaining control of the Supreme Court with, at best, unethical practices that are just pushing politics more and more and more partisan every year.

3) No, spending money is not "free speech", except to the corrupt justices on the Supreme Court who happen to do the bidding of the big money.
The ruling that allowed unlimited money to be spend manipulating voters was Citizens United v. FEC.
Clarence "I'll accept any bribe from the right" Thomas voted in favor of that. And some of the other Republican justices have a few black marks against themselves too.
Along with the FPTP system, allowing the rich to spend as much money as they want is leading to a, quick frankly, untenable political system. It's going to collapse at some point because there's too much corruption, and it's being openly flaunted, see Trump and Thomas as some prime examples (and you can almost certainly put Biden in there too).
That the German federal election cost LESS than one US Senate seat is telling about how the two different political systems function, and why FPTP is good for the rich and powerful, and bad for the people.

5) Gerrymandering has everything to do with it. Say you need 26 states to be able to control Congress, so you gerrymander a few states. Republicans control 26 governors, 29 state senates and 28 state houses. Why? Democrats have won the popular vote in every Presidential election, except for the post 9/11 election of Dubya's since Bush senior won the Presidential election in 1988.
That's one out of seven for the Republicans in over 30 years. In the House you have a give and take between both parties, but generally when Democrats win they win by a much higher margin.
In the Senate, the Dems have a majority of 15 million based on the last three elections.
The last time the Dems didn't have a majority from the last three elections was in 2002. Eight of the nine justices have been selected in this time of Democratic majority, and it's been majority for the Republicans 5-3 in that time. That makes no sense, and that's working within the Dem/Rep framework, which, with Proportional Representation, wouldn't even be the case.

6) More sovereignty? Do they have like sovereignty points or something? How does "more sovereignty" do anything here?

1. You don't know that Term Limits won't improve Congress, i.e. prove it. Getting rid of the old fart "dead wood" has to improve things. There won't be more political parties either. Big money donors won't buck the Rs and Ds, they know where the "bases" are. Germany isn't like the US.

2. The US Constitution says how USSC justices are selected. There is no amendment pending to change that.

3. I'm seeing Biden as more corrupt than Thomas or Trump.

5. You can't "gerrymander" states. Their borders are set. There is no "popular vote" in the Constitution. The Founders were very careful to not allow the big states to dominate the small states. That's why we have a Senate and a House. IMHO States will jump at the chance to have more power over the Feds for when the opposition passes onerous legislation.
Like allowing trans men to compete against females, as an example.