Texas Governor Leads The Charge

[OKTexas]

An Amendment versus an Amendment that would allow the States to vote on a decision made by SCOTUS are 2 different animals.............SCOTUS rules.......and 3/4ths of the states don't agree...........via a vote...............and without an Amendment would overturn that decision.

The amendment is the check that the States already have. The only difference between what you're describing and what I'm describing.....is 'voting' compared to 'ratification'. With ratification being, unsurprisingly, a vote.

It might be if congress didn't ignore States when they file applications for a convention, like they've done for decades. More than 700 applications, not one convention.

2/3rds of the several states have called for a convention....700 times in the last 'decades'?

Yeah, I'm definitely gonna need to see more than you citing you on that one.

I've already posted a link in this thread, feel free to go back and read it.

The thread is 20 pages long. Give me the post number and I'll be happy to.

I posted it, I did my job, now it's time you did yours and try to keep up.

 

[xband]

T for Texas and T for Tennessee.

 

[OKTexas]

So what about his latest pen and a phone feat.................Gun control around Congress...............You willing to throw him under the bus?

And what Supreme Court ruling did Obama just overturn? I've checked McDonald v. Chicago. None of Obama's gun control proposals are forbidden within it.

Nope, it's in Article I, he is trying to expand the definition of doing business beyond what is contained in the existing law, a definition that congress has rejected on at least 3 occasions, he is trying to legislate and he does not have that authority.

Laughing....Obama has jack shit to do with any such amendment by the States. He plays no role in it.

You're losing on the amendment front. So you're trying to change the topic to Obama, who has nothing to do with it.

You just blinked.

Hey dumb ass, the subject is your dear leaders gun control proposals, you folks brought it up.

Hey dipshit.......the subject is the Texas governor calling for a constitutional convention. And YOU brought up Obama in our conversation.

Right about where your argument on the convention broke.

You blinked.

You might want to read the last 6 posts in this string, I didn't change the subject, Eagle and you did, I simply responded to your post to Eagle.

 

[Skylar]

The amendment is the check that the States already have. The only difference between what you're describing and what I'm describing.....is 'voting' compared to 'ratification'. With ratification being, unsurprisingly, a vote.

It might be if congress didn't ignore States when they file applications for a convention, like they've done for decades. More than 700 applications, not one convention.

2/3rds of the several states have called for a convention....700 times in the last 'decades'?

Yeah, I'm definitely gonna need to see more than you citing you on that one.

I've already posted a link in this thread, feel free to go back and read it.

The thread is 20 pages long. Give me the post number and I'll be happy to.

I posted it, I did my job, now it's time you did yours and try to keep up.

Oh, I knew you'd try to keep that 'link' as obscure as possible. I already looked it up. And instead of the 700 times that 2/3rds of the States have called for a constitutional convention and been 'ignored' by Congress...

.....the 'link' cites 2. A balanced budget amendment and an apportionment amendment.

And that's if we group any calls for a convention that are even remotely similar as the 'same amendment'. And if we consider calls separated by hundreds of years as a call for the same convention.

With your source citing a call in 1789 with a call in 1989 as a call for the exact same convention.

 

[Skylar]

And what Supreme Court ruling did Obama just overturn? I've checked McDonald v. Chicago. None of Obama's gun control proposals are forbidden within it.

Nope, it's in Article I, he is trying to expand the definition of doing business beyond what is contained in the existing law, a definition that congress has rejected on at least 3 occasions, he is trying to legislate and he does not have that authority.

Laughing....Obama has jack shit to do with any such amendment by the States. He plays no role in it.

You're losing on the amendment front. So you're trying to change the topic to Obama, who has nothing to do with it.

You just blinked.

Hey dumb ass, the subject is your dear leaders gun control proposals, you folks brought it up.

Hey dipshit.......the subject is the Texas governor calling for a constitutional convention. And YOU brought up Obama in our conversation.

Right about where your argument on the convention broke.

You blinked.

You might want to read the last 6 posts in this string, I didn't change the subject, Eagle and you did, I simply responded to your post to Eagle.

Here's the exchange leading up to your rout to 'Obama', despite the executive having exactly nothing to do with amendments. The president isn't even mentioned in Article V in any capacity:

Note to dumb ass, one State couldn't do a damn thing by themselves. Also the supremacy clause only applies to enumerated powers, not the extra constitutional crap the feds have taken.

Note to the childishly naive: If you *really* think that the States would limit themselves to your pet projects.......you're deluding yourself. They would strip Americans of *so* many rights so fast, it would make your head spin. As you'd undo the Supremacy Clause.

As they wouldn't be limited to issues you believe the federal government has overstepped. That's the part you don't get.

Checks already exist: amendments. Abbot wants to lower the bar on that check and make it easier to use. Unsurprisingly to almost the exact number of Republican legislatures. Its not going to happen.

You seem to think I would care, I trust the legislatures of 33 sovereign States over the federal leviathan any freaking day. The feds were never intended to have the power they have assumed with the complicity of the federal courts, it's time the States take their power back.

I favor rights over powers. Which is what puts me at odds with most conservatives. As they favor power over rights. With most of the rulings they most adamantly oppose being rights protected by the government from State interference.

And it would be these rights that the States controlled by republican legislatures would go after first. Turning rights that exist today...into crimes.

No thank you. I'm quite happy with the threshold of overturning USSC decisions staying at 3/4.

Then you must really hate the guy with a pen and a phone......................

Not particularly.

Now show me where I mentioned Obama before you brought him up?

You can't. You desperately tried to change the topic because you know I was right about the republican states targeting rights and stripping them from citizens if the threshold of overturning a USSC decision was dropped to the number of state legislatures the GOP controls right now.

And what choice did you have? We both know I'm right.

 

[OKTexas]

Oh, and your site lists 2 amendments that it claims have the requisite number of votes necessary to initiate a Article V convention. Balanced Budget amendments and apportionment applications.

Not 700.

And that's when it groups similarly themed calls over spans of hundreds of years as a call for Amendment V conventions. The balanced budget amendment, for example.....includes calls by NY in 1789 beside calls for its own balanced budget amendment in 1989 by South Dakota.

200 years apart.

Where does Article V say the applications expire or they must be on the same subject? It only requires 2/3rds of the States to make an application. that's been done many times over and congress has refused to do it's job.

 

[OKTexas]

Nope, it's in Article I, he is trying to expand the definition of doing business beyond what is contained in the existing law, a definition that congress has rejected on at least 3 occasions, he is trying to legislate and he does not have that authority.

Laughing....Obama has jack shit to do with any such amendment by the States. He plays no role in it.

You're losing on the amendment front. So you're trying to change the topic to Obama, who has nothing to do with it.

You just blinked.

Hey dumb ass, the subject is your dear leaders gun control proposals, you folks brought it up.

Hey dipshit.......the subject is the Texas governor calling for a constitutional convention. And YOU brought up Obama in our conversation.

Right about where your argument on the convention broke.

You blinked.

You might want to read the last 6 posts in this string, I didn't change the subject, Eagle and you did, I simply responded to your post to Eagle.

Here's the exchange leading up to your rout to 'Obama', despite the executive having exactly nothing to do with amendments. The president isn't even mentioned in Article V in any capacity:

Note to the childishly naive: If you *really* think that the States would limit themselves to your pet projects.......you're deluding yourself. They would strip Americans of *so* many rights so fast, it would make your head spin. As you'd undo the Supremacy Clause.

As they wouldn't be limited to issues you believe the federal government has overstepped. That's the part you don't get.

Checks already exist: amendments. Abbot wants to lower the bar on that check and make it easier to use. Unsurprisingly to almost the exact number of Republican legislatures. Its not going to happen.

You seem to think I would care, I trust the legislatures of 33 sovereign States over the federal leviathan any freaking day. The feds were never intended to have the power they have assumed with the complicity of the federal courts, it's time the States take their power back.

I favor rights over powers. Which is what puts me at odds with most conservatives. As they favor power over rights. With most of the rulings they most adamantly oppose being rights protected by the government from State interference.

And it would be these rights that the States controlled by republican legislatures would go after first. Turning rights that exist today...into crimes.

No thank you. I'm quite happy with the threshold of overturning USSC decisions staying at 3/4.

Then you must really hate the guy with a pen and a phone......................

Not particularly.

Now show me where I mentioned Obama before you brought him up?

You can't. You desperately tried to change the topic because you know I was right about the republican states targeting rights and stripping them from citizens if the threshold of overturning a USSC decision was dropped to the number of state legislatures the GOP controls right now.

And what choice did you have? We both know I'm right.

This is what eagle said in post 156

So what about his latest pen and a phone feat.................Gun control around Congress...............You willing to throw him under the bus?

This is what you said in post 158

And what Supreme Court ruling did Obama just overturn? I've checked McDonald v. Chicago. None of Obama's gun control proposals are forbidden within it.

This was my response to you in post 184

Nope, it's in Article I, he is trying to expand the definition of doing business beyond what is contained in the existing law, a definition that congress has rejected on at least 3 occasions, he is trying to legislate and he does not have that authority.

So tell me again, who brought up your dear leader? It wasn't me.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and your site lists 2 amendments that it claims have the requisite number of votes necessary to initiate a Article V convention. Balanced Budget amendments and apportionment applications.

Not 700.

And that's when it groups similarly themed calls over spans of hundreds of years as a call for Amendment V conventions. The balanced budget amendment, for example.....includes calls by NY in 1789 beside calls for its own balanced budget amendment in 1989 by South Dakota.

200 years apart.

Where does Article V say the applications expire or they must be on the same subject? It only requires 2/3rds of the States to make an application. that's been done many times over and congress has refused to do it's job.

Unless there's some reference to previous calls, specifically....you're going to have a hard time arguing that NY in 1789 was calling for the same convention that say, Tennessee called for in 1989. As the wording was radically different, nor did one make reference to the other. And are merely similarly themed.

While ratification of amendments are are intrinsically linked. As they all referencing a single, explicit amendment.

And when you said that the 'congress keeps ignoring' these petitions.........you mean both times, huh? Has NY complained that its 1789 petition wasn't honored when Tennessee asked in 1989? Then you're *really* unlikely to get the States up in arms about how Congress is 'ignoring' their calls for a convention.

So much for your '700 times'. No wonder you wouldn't tell me where you hid the link.

Can you see why your imagination on how the states are going to react doesn't amount to much? You're only demonstrating why I prefer to stick with reality: specifically, the process described in Article V rather than whatever fantasy you make up.

 

[Skylar]

Laughing....Obama has jack shit to do with any such amendment by the States. He plays no role in it.

You're losing on the amendment front. So you're trying to change the topic to Obama, who has nothing to do with it.

You just blinked.

Hey dumb ass, the subject is your dear leaders gun control proposals, you folks brought it up.

Hey dipshit.......the subject is the Texas governor calling for a constitutional convention. And YOU brought up Obama in our conversation.

Right about where your argument on the convention broke.

You blinked.

You might want to read the last 6 posts in this string, I didn't change the subject, Eagle and you did, I simply responded to your post to Eagle.

Here's the exchange leading up to your rout to 'Obama', despite the executive having exactly nothing to do with amendments. The president isn't even mentioned in Article V in any capacity:

You seem to think I would care, I trust the legislatures of 33 sovereign States over the federal leviathan any freaking day. The feds were never intended to have the power they have assumed with the complicity of the federal courts, it's time the States take their power back.

I favor rights over powers. Which is what puts me at odds with most conservatives. As they favor power over rights. With most of the rulings they most adamantly oppose being rights protected by the government from State interference.

And it would be these rights that the States controlled by republican legislatures would go after first. Turning rights that exist today...into crimes.

No thank you. I'm quite happy with the threshold of overturning USSC decisions staying at 3/4.

Then you must really hate the guy with a pen and a phone......................

Not particularly.

Now show me where I mentioned Obama before you brought him up?

You can't. You desperately tried to change the topic because you know I was right about the republican states targeting rights and stripping them from citizens if the threshold of overturning a USSC decision was dropped to the number of state legislatures the GOP controls right now.

And what choice did you have? We both know I'm right.

This is what eagle said in post 156

So what about his latest pen and a phone feat.................Gun control around Congress...............You willing to throw him under the bus?

This is what you said in post 158

And what Supreme Court ruling did Obama just overturn? I've checked McDonald v. Chicago. None of Obama's gun control proposals are forbidden within it.

This was my response to you in post 184

Nope, it's in Article I, he is trying to expand the definition of doing business beyond what is contained in the existing law, a definition that congress has rejected on at least 3 occasions, he is trying to legislate and he does not have that authority.

So tell me again, who brought up your dear leader? It wasn't me.

And when did your ilk desperately try to shift the topic to Obama?

Post 149. That preceded everything you just cited. Its not a topic I brought up....as the Executive has nothing to do with amendments. Literally nothing. A president plays no role in passing them, proposing, calling conventions for them, nor votes in any adjudication process. Making Obama one of the most irrelevant people you could cite if you're trying to discuss this topic.

If you're trying to avoid the topic of the OP.......then of course that's where you'd flee.

As even now you know I'm right. Notice you don't actually disagree that republican states would target *rights*, seeking to stripping them from citizens if the threshold of overturning Supreme Court decisions was dropped from 3/4 to the number of state legislatures republicans control right now.

In fact, you avoid the topic fastidiously. Bringing up anything, even something as irrelevant as the executive, rather than discuss the topic.

 

[OKTexas]

Oh, and your site lists 2 amendments that it claims have the requisite number of votes necessary to initiate a Article V convention. Balanced Budget amendments and apportionment applications.

Not 700.

And that's when it groups similarly themed calls over spans of hundreds of years as a call for Amendment V conventions. The balanced budget amendment, for example.....includes calls by NY in 1789 beside calls for its own balanced budget amendment in 1989 by South Dakota.

200 years apart.

Where does Article V say the applications expire or they must be on the same subject? It only requires 2/3rds of the States to make an application. that's been done many times over and congress has refused to do it's job.

Unless there's some reference to previous calls, specifically....you're going to have a hard time arguing that NY in 1789 was calling for the same convention that say, Tennessee called for in 1989. As the wording was radically different, nor did one make reference to the other. And are merely similarly themed.

While ratification of amendments are are intrinsically linked. As they all referencing a single, explicit amendment.

And when you said that the 'congress keeps ignoring' these petitions.........you mean both times, huh? Has NY complained that its 1789 petition wasn't honored when Tennessee asked in 1989? Then you're *really* unlikely to get the States up in arms about how Congress is 'ignoring' their calls for a convention.

Can you see why your imagination on how the states are going to react doesn't amount to much? You're only demonstrating why I prefer to stick with reality: specifically, the process described in Article V rather than whatever fantasy you make up.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact the applications don't expire and they don't need to be on the same subject. After all isn't that the whole purpose for a convention, for States to make proposals, then they collectively consider them or suggest changes and then submit the ones they chose for ratification? Your nonsense that they need to move in lockstep from day one is, how did you put it, lunacy?

 

[OKTexas]

Hey dumb ass, the subject is your dear leaders gun control proposals, you folks brought it up.

Hey dipshit.......the subject is the Texas governor calling for a constitutional convention. And YOU brought up Obama in our conversation.

Right about where your argument on the convention broke.

You blinked.

You might want to read the last 6 posts in this string, I didn't change the subject, Eagle and you did, I simply responded to your post to Eagle.

Here's the exchange leading up to your rout to 'Obama', despite the executive having exactly nothing to do with amendments. The president isn't even mentioned in Article V in any capacity:

I favor rights over powers. Which is what puts me at odds with most conservatives. As they favor power over rights. With most of the rulings they most adamantly oppose being rights protected by the government from State interference.

And it would be these rights that the States controlled by republican legislatures would go after first. Turning rights that exist today...into crimes.

No thank you. I'm quite happy with the threshold of overturning USSC decisions staying at 3/4.

Then you must really hate the guy with a pen and a phone......................

Not particularly.

Now show me where I mentioned Obama before you brought him up?

You can't. You desperately tried to change the topic because you know I was right about the republican states targeting rights and stripping them from citizens if the threshold of overturning a USSC decision was dropped to the number of state legislatures the GOP controls right now.

And what choice did you have? We both know I'm right.

This is what eagle said in post 156

So what about his latest pen and a phone feat.................Gun control around Congress...............You willing to throw him under the bus?

This is what you said in post 158

And what Supreme Court ruling did Obama just overturn? I've checked McDonald v. Chicago. None of Obama's gun control proposals are forbidden within it.

This was my response to you in post 184

Nope, it's in Article I, he is trying to expand the definition of doing business beyond what is contained in the existing law, a definition that congress has rejected on at least 3 occasions, he is trying to legislate and he does not have that authority.

So tell me again, who brought up your dear leader? It wasn't me.

And when did your ilk desperately try to shift the topic to Obama?

Post 149. That preceded everything you just cited. Its not a topic I brought up....as the Executive has nothing to do with amendments. Literally nothing. A president plays no role in passing them, proposing, calling conventions for them, nor votes in any adjudication process. Making Obama one of the most irrelevant people you could cite if you're trying to discuss this topic.

If you're trying to avoid the topic of the OP.......then of course that's where you'd flee.

As even now you know I'm right. Notice you don't actually disagree that republican states would target *rights*, seeking to stripping them from citizens if the threshold of overturning Supreme Court decisions was dropped from 3/4 to the number of state legislatures republicans control right now.

In fact, you avoid the topic fastidiously. Bringing up anything, even something as irrelevant as the executive, rather than discuss the topic.

You're the one that chose to respond to, what you call an off topic post, I just followed the string, which you seem to be having problems understanding. BTW I think I've discussed the topic of the OP just as effectively, if not more so, than yourself. You seem to struck on only one proposal. So feel free to piss up a rope.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and your site lists 2 amendments that it claims have the requisite number of votes necessary to initiate a Article V convention. Balanced Budget amendments and apportionment applications.

Not 700.

And that's when it groups similarly themed calls over spans of hundreds of years as a call for Amendment V conventions. The balanced budget amendment, for example.....includes calls by NY in 1789 beside calls for its own balanced budget amendment in 1989 by South Dakota.

200 years apart.

Where does Article V say the applications expire or they must be on the same subject? It only requires 2/3rds of the States to make an application. that's been done many times over and congress has refused to do it's job.

Unless there's some reference to previous calls, specifically....you're going to have a hard time arguing that NY in 1789 was calling for the same convention that say, Tennessee called for in 1989. As the wording was radically different, nor did one make reference to the other. And are merely similarly themed.

While ratification of amendments are are intrinsically linked. As they all referencing a single, explicit amendment.

And when you said that the 'congress keeps ignoring' these petitions.........you mean both times, huh? Has NY complained that its 1789 petition wasn't honored when Tennessee asked in 1989? Then you're *really* unlikely to get the States up in arms about how Congress is 'ignoring' their calls for a convention.

Can you see why your imagination on how the states are going to react doesn't amount to much? You're only demonstrating why I prefer to stick with reality: specifically, the process described in Article V rather than whatever fantasy you make up.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact the applications don't expire and the don't need to be on the same subject.

I didn't ignore it. I addressed it specifically:

Unless there's some reference to previous calls, specifically....you're going to have a hard time arguing that NY in 1789 was calling for the same convention that say, Tennessee called for in 1989. As the wording was radically different, nor did one make reference to the other. And are merely similarly themed.

Which you ignored completely. You're assuming that if a call has even a vaguely similar theme, its the call for a convention on the exact same amendment. That's a huge assumption.

And given that your premise was how the States would react to Congress as they 'keep ignoring their calls for conventions'.....the fact that literal CENTURIES separate these calls would have an enormous impact that reaction. As a balanced budget amendment for congress isn't a major priority for NY state legislatures today.

And of course, your number plummeted from 700......to 2. With those two requiring some rather serious stretching to work.

No wonder you wouldn't tell me where to find the link. You didn't want me checking it.

 

[Skylar]

Hey dipshit.......the subject is the Texas governor calling for a constitutional convention. And YOU brought up Obama in our conversation.

Right about where your argument on the convention broke.

You blinked.

You might want to read the last 6 posts in this string, I didn't change the subject, Eagle and you did, I simply responded to your post to Eagle.

Here's the exchange leading up to your rout to 'Obama', despite the executive having exactly nothing to do with amendments. The president isn't even mentioned in Article V in any capacity:

Then you must really hate the guy with a pen and a phone......................

Not particularly.

Now show me where I mentioned Obama before you brought him up?

You can't. You desperately tried to change the topic because you know I was right about the republican states targeting rights and stripping them from citizens if the threshold of overturning a USSC decision was dropped to the number of state legislatures the GOP controls right now.

And what choice did you have? We both know I'm right.

This is what eagle said in post 156

So what about his latest pen and a phone feat.................Gun control around Congress...............You willing to throw him under the bus?

This is what you said in post 158

And what Supreme Court ruling did Obama just overturn? I've checked McDonald v. Chicago. None of Obama's gun control proposals are forbidden within it.

This was my response to you in post 184

Nope, it's in Article I, he is trying to expand the definition of doing business beyond what is contained in the existing law, a definition that congress has rejected on at least 3 occasions, he is trying to legislate and he does not have that authority.

So tell me again, who brought up your dear leader? It wasn't me.

And when did your ilk desperately try to shift the topic to Obama?

Post 149. That preceded everything you just cited. Its not a topic I brought up....as the Executive has nothing to do with amendments. Literally nothing. A president plays no role in passing them, proposing, calling conventions for them, nor votes in any adjudication process. Making Obama one of the most irrelevant people you could cite if you're trying to discuss this topic.

If you're trying to avoid the topic of the OP.......then of course that's where you'd flee.

As even now you know I'm right. Notice you don't actually disagree that republican states would target *rights*, seeking to stripping them from citizens if the threshold of overturning Supreme Court decisions was dropped from 3/4 to the number of state legislatures republicans control right now.

In fact, you avoid the topic fastidiously. Bringing up anything, even something as irrelevant as the executive, rather than discuss the topic.

You're the one that chose to respond to, what you call an off topic post, I just followed the string, which you seem to be having problems understanding. BTW I think I've discussed the topic of the OP just as effectively, if not more so, than yourself. You seem to struck on only one proposal. So feel free to piss up a rope.

No, you followed Eagle's string, trying to dodge the topic that wasn't working for you. Desperately trying to shift the topic to irrelevance. As the Executive plays no role in amendments. Which you already know.

As why would you try to shift the topic to such irrelevance? Because you know that I'm right when I say that republican state legislatures would target *rights*, seeking to strip them away if the threshold of overturning the Supreme Court dropped from 3/4 to 2/3ds.

Even now you won't touch it with a 10 foot poll. So you fled. Keep running. We both know I'm right.

 

[Skylar]

So, no.....there will be no amendment, as its abundantly obvious that Abbot wants to lower the threshold to overturn Supreme Court rulings to 2/3rds....because that's the number of State Legislatures that republicans control right now. And the first thing that these republican legislatures would do is try to strip citizens of rights.

Stripping citizens of their rights may be a conservative priority, but its not shared by 3/4s of States.

 

[OKTexas]

Oh, and your site lists 2 amendments that it claims have the requisite number of votes necessary to initiate a Article V convention. Balanced Budget amendments and apportionment applications.

Not 700.

And that's when it groups similarly themed calls over spans of hundreds of years as a call for Amendment V conventions. The balanced budget amendment, for example.....includes calls by NY in 1789 beside calls for its own balanced budget amendment in 1989 by South Dakota.

200 years apart.

Where does Article V say the applications expire or they must be on the same subject? It only requires 2/3rds of the States to make an application. that's been done many times over and congress has refused to do it's job.

Unless there's some reference to previous calls, specifically....you're going to have a hard time arguing that NY in 1789 was calling for the same convention that say, Tennessee called for in 1989. As the wording was radically different, nor did one make reference to the other. And are merely similarly themed.

While ratification of amendments are are intrinsically linked. As they all referencing a single, explicit amendment.

And when you said that the 'congress keeps ignoring' these petitions.........you mean both times, huh? Has NY complained that its 1789 petition wasn't honored when Tennessee asked in 1989? Then you're *really* unlikely to get the States up in arms about how Congress is 'ignoring' their calls for a convention.

Can you see why your imagination on how the states are going to react doesn't amount to much? You're only demonstrating why I prefer to stick with reality: specifically, the process described in Article V rather than whatever fantasy you make up.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact the applications don't expire and the don't need to be on the same subject.

I didn't ignore it. I addressed it specifically:

Unless there's some reference to previous calls, specifically....you're going to have a hard time arguing that NY in 1789 was calling for the same convention that say, Tennessee called for in 1989. As the wording was radically different, nor did one make reference to the other. And are merely similarly themed.

Which you ignored completely. You're assuming that if a call has even a vaguely similar theme, its the call for a convention on the exact same amendment. That's a huge assumption.

And given that your premise was how the States would react to Congress as they 'keep ignoring their calls for conventions'.....the fact that literal CENTURIES separate these calls would have an enormous impact that reaction. As a balanced budget amendment for congress isn't a major priority for NY state legislatures today.

And of course, your number plummeted from 700......to 2. With those two requiring some rather serious stretching to work.

No wonder you wouldn't tell me where to find the link. You didn't want me checking it.

All smoke, mirrors and deflection, and the fact that you hadn't yet seen the link is purely a reflection on your not reading the thread before jumping in, I wanted everyone in the thread to see it, that's why I posted it, duhhhhhhhhhhhh!! I'm not going to repost a link for one ignorant person.

 

[OKTexas]

So, no.....there will be no amendment, as its abundantly obvious that Abbot wants to lower the threshold to overturn Supreme Court rulings to 2/3rds....because that's the number of State Legislatures that republicans control right now. And the first thing that these republican legislatures would do is try to strip citizens of rights.

Stripping citizens of their rights may be a conservative priority, but its not shared by 3/4s of States.

Then the Amendment wouldn't be ratified, would it?

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and your site lists 2 amendments that it claims have the requisite number of votes necessary to initiate a Article V convention. Balanced Budget amendments and apportionment applications.

Not 700.

And that's when it groups similarly themed calls over spans of hundreds of years as a call for Amendment V conventions. The balanced budget amendment, for example.....includes calls by NY in 1789 beside calls for its own balanced budget amendment in 1989 by South Dakota.

200 years apart.

Where does Article V say the applications expire or they must be on the same subject? It only requires 2/3rds of the States to make an application. that's been done many times over and congress has refused to do it's job.

Unless there's some reference to previous calls, specifically....you're going to have a hard time arguing that NY in 1789 was calling for the same convention that say, Tennessee called for in 1989. As the wording was radically different, nor did one make reference to the other. And are merely similarly themed.

While ratification of amendments are are intrinsically linked. As they all referencing a single, explicit amendment.

And when you said that the 'congress keeps ignoring' these petitions.........you mean both times, huh? Has NY complained that its 1789 petition wasn't honored when Tennessee asked in 1989? Then you're *really* unlikely to get the States up in arms about how Congress is 'ignoring' their calls for a convention.

Can you see why your imagination on how the states are going to react doesn't amount to much? You're only demonstrating why I prefer to stick with reality: specifically, the process described in Article V rather than whatever fantasy you make up.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact the applications don't expire and the don't need to be on the same subject.

I didn't ignore it. I addressed it specifically:

Unless there's some reference to previous calls, specifically....you're going to have a hard time arguing that NY in 1789 was calling for the same convention that say, Tennessee called for in 1989. As the wording was radically different, nor did one make reference to the other. And are merely similarly themed.

Which you ignored completely. You're assuming that if a call has even a vaguely similar theme, its the call for a convention on the exact same amendment. That's a huge assumption.

And given that your premise was how the States would react to Congress as they 'keep ignoring their calls for conventions'.....the fact that literal CENTURIES separate these calls would have an enormous impact that reaction. As a balanced budget amendment for congress isn't a major priority for NY state legislatures today.

And of course, your number plummeted from 700......to 2. With those two requiring some rather serious stretching to work.

No wonder you wouldn't tell me where to find the link. You didn't want me checking it.

All smoke, mirrors and deflection, and the fact that you hadn't yet seen the link is purely a reflection on your not reading the thread before jumping in, I wanted everyone in the thread to see it, that's why I posted it, duhhhhhhhhhhhh!! I'm not going to repost a link for one ignorant person.

Laughing.....says the guy whose number of instances where the congress had 'ignored' 2/3rds of the State legislatures call for a constitutional convention dropped from 700...

....to 2. And even those 2 are a stretch. Where you have to assume that a calls for vaguely similar themes separate by CENTURIES are a call for the same convention.

Now it makes sense why you wouldn't tell me where the link was. You didn't anyone fact checking it.

 

[Skylar]

So, no.....there will be no amendment, as its abundantly obvious that Abbot wants to lower the threshold to overturn Supreme Court rulings to 2/3rds....because that's the number of State Legislatures that republicans control right now. And the first thing that these republican legislatures would do is try to strip citizens of rights.

Stripping citizens of their rights may be a conservative priority, but its not shared by 3/4s of States.

Then the Amendment wouldn't be ratified, would it?

The amendment won't be ratified. What part of that did you not understand? Even the odds of the convention are laughably slim.

Abbot is just playing to emotion. Like the 50th and 60th empty vote to defund Obamacare. Its the kind of useless pandering to your base to no particular end that conservatives eat up.

 

[OKTexas]

Where does Article V say the applications expire or they must be on the same subject? It only requires 2/3rds of the States to make an application. that's been done many times over and congress has refused to do it's job.

Unless there's some reference to previous calls, specifically....you're going to have a hard time arguing that NY in 1789 was calling for the same convention that say, Tennessee called for in 1989. As the wording was radically different, nor did one make reference to the other. And are merely similarly themed.

While ratification of amendments are are intrinsically linked. As they all referencing a single, explicit amendment.

And when you said that the 'congress keeps ignoring' these petitions.........you mean both times, huh? Has NY complained that its 1789 petition wasn't honored when Tennessee asked in 1989? Then you're *really* unlikely to get the States up in arms about how Congress is 'ignoring' their calls for a convention.

Can you see why your imagination on how the states are going to react doesn't amount to much? You're only demonstrating why I prefer to stick with reality: specifically, the process described in Article V rather than whatever fantasy you make up.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact the applications don't expire and the don't need to be on the same subject.

I didn't ignore it. I addressed it specifically:

Unless there's some reference to previous calls, specifically....you're going to have a hard time arguing that NY in 1789 was calling for the same convention that say, Tennessee called for in 1989. As the wording was radically different, nor did one make reference to the other. And are merely similarly themed.

Which you ignored completely. You're assuming that if a call has even a vaguely similar theme, its the call for a convention on the exact same amendment. That's a huge assumption.

And given that your premise was how the States would react to Congress as they 'keep ignoring their calls for conventions'.....the fact that literal CENTURIES separate these calls would have an enormous impact that reaction. As a balanced budget amendment for congress isn't a major priority for NY state legislatures today.

And of course, your number plummeted from 700......to 2. With those two requiring some rather serious stretching to work.

No wonder you wouldn't tell me where to find the link. You didn't want me checking it.

All smoke, mirrors and deflection, and the fact that you hadn't yet seen the link is purely a reflection on your not reading the thread before jumping in, I wanted everyone in the thread to see it, that's why I posted it, duhhhhhhhhhhhh!! I'm not going to repost a link for one ignorant person.

Laughing.....says the guy whose number of instances where the congress had 'ignored' 2/3rds of the State legislatures call for a constitutional convention dropped from 700...

....to 2. And even those 2 are a stretch. Where you have to assume that a calls for vaguely similar themes separate by CENTURIES are a call for the same convention.

Now it makes sense why you wouldn't tell me where the link was. You didn't anyone fact checking it.

You opinion on which applications are currently valid is just that, an opinion, the only question you need to answer is, have a sufficient number of States submitted an application for a convention. Nothing more nothing less. The when, the where, the why is irrelevant in Article V.

 

[Skylar]

Unless there's some reference to previous calls, specifically....you're going to have a hard time arguing that NY in 1789 was calling for the same convention that say, Tennessee called for in 1989. As the wording was radically different, nor did one make reference to the other. And are merely similarly themed.

While ratification of amendments are are intrinsically linked. As they all referencing a single, explicit amendment.

And when you said that the 'congress keeps ignoring' these petitions.........you mean both times, huh? Has NY complained that its 1789 petition wasn't honored when Tennessee asked in 1989? Then you're *really* unlikely to get the States up in arms about how Congress is 'ignoring' their calls for a convention.

Can you see why your imagination on how the states are going to react doesn't amount to much? You're only demonstrating why I prefer to stick with reality: specifically, the process described in Article V rather than whatever fantasy you make up.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact the applications don't expire and the don't need to be on the same subject.

I didn't ignore it. I addressed it specifically:

Unless there's some reference to previous calls, specifically....you're going to have a hard time arguing that NY in 1789 was calling for the same convention that say, Tennessee called for in 1989. As the wording was radically different, nor did one make reference to the other. And are merely similarly themed.

Which you ignored completely. You're assuming that if a call has even a vaguely similar theme, its the call for a convention on the exact same amendment. That's a huge assumption.

And given that your premise was how the States would react to Congress as they 'keep ignoring their calls for conventions'.....the fact that literal CENTURIES separate these calls would have an enormous impact that reaction. As a balanced budget amendment for congress isn't a major priority for NY state legislatures today.

And of course, your number plummeted from 700......to 2. With those two requiring some rather serious stretching to work.

No wonder you wouldn't tell me where to find the link. You didn't want me checking it.

All smoke, mirrors and deflection, and the fact that you hadn't yet seen the link is purely a reflection on your not reading the thread before jumping in, I wanted everyone in the thread to see it, that's why I posted it, duhhhhhhhhhhhh!! I'm not going to repost a link for one ignorant person.

Laughing.....says the guy whose number of instances where the congress had 'ignored' 2/3rds of the State legislatures call for a constitutional convention dropped from 700...

....to 2. And even those 2 are a stretch. Where you have to assume that a calls for vaguely similar themes separate by CENTURIES are a call for the same convention.

Now it makes sense why you wouldn't tell me where the link was. You didn't anyone fact checking it.

You opinion on which applications are currently valid is just that, any opinion, the only question you need to answer is, have a sufficient number of States submitted an application for a convention. Nothing more nothing less. The when, the where, the why is irrelevant in Article V.

There's 0.0% chance that you'll get more than 1 democratically controlled legislatures to vote with conservatives on this. As its beyond obvious that this is just a power play by conservatives to strip citizens of rights.

You simply don't have the numbers. That's not an opinion. That's math. You'll need about 5 to pass the amendment. You'll almost certainly get 0.

0 < 5 is why this is a mere fantasy. The odds of you getting even convention are ludicrously slim. As history itself has demonstrated. If this particular issue genuinely had legs, it would have already passed Congress and the Senate.