Time For a Constitutional Convention?

[Jackson]

Wrong.. Just three fast links show over 100 convictions for voter fraud. Always Democrats, it seems...

DEMOCRATS Arrested and or Convicted of Voter Fraud

And which cases would voter ID have prevented. Specifically. Your first example is the forging of a petition. Which voter ID laws wouldn't have touched. The next two examples are voting in multiple precincts. Which voter ID laws wouldn't have touched. The next three examples are absentee balloting fraud. Which voter ID wouldn't have touched.

Voter fraud in general is quite rare. In-person voter fraud is the rarest of the rare...and the only kind voter ID would touch. Texas could only find 2 instances in the last 10 years. Pennsylvania couldn't find any.

Can you show us ANY instances of voter fraud in your list that voter ID laws would have prevented?

Texas has convicted 51 people of voter fraud, according the state's Attorney General Greg Abbott

And if you'd actually read the article rather than just the title, you'd have seen this:

Over the past decade Texas has convicted 51 people of voter fraud, according the state's Attorney General Greg Abbott. Only four of those cases were for voter impersonation, the only type of voter fraud that voter ID laws prevent.

Voter Fraud It s Real But Rare - ABC News

And for this we disenfranchise 200,000 people? 4 cases, with only two actual instances....in 10 years? With Pennsylvania unable to find ANY of either?

Read your own source. It makes my case for me.

prosecutors convicted only 86 people for voter fraud

Read more:The GOP War on Voting Rolling Stone
Follow us:@rollingstone on Twitter

Again read the article rather than just the title. The issue isn't voter fraud alone...its voter fraud that Voter ID could have prevented.

Out of the 300 million votes cast in that period, federal prosecutors convicted only 86 people for voter fraud – and many of the cases involved immigrants and former felons who were simply unaware of their ineligibility. A much-hyped investigation in Wisconsin, meanwhile, led to the prosecution of only .0007 percent of the local electorate for alleged voter fraud.

Read more: The GOP War on Voting Rolling Stone
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

Immigrants and ineligible voters wouldn't have been stopped by Voter ID laws. These are problems with the registration system. The people in question shouldn't have been on the rolls to begin with. Voter ID laws wouldn't have prevented them from voting because they were actually on the voter rolls.

Are you noticing the pattern yet? Voter ID laws have virtually NO impact on voter fraud, as the only type of voter fraud that Voter ID laws could prevent almost never happens.

You are not denying there is voter fraud at all. Just that the ID would not stop that fraud. Well, let;s see. The ID should have the precinct printed on the card then they aren't going to go to 8 different precincts.

And the mail in ballots seem to be a problem so they should be for the aged or proven infirmed. Correct? Those can be hand delivered. Not wholesale as they are today.

 

[Jackson]

Balanced Budget Amendment

Term Limits

Nonsense.

A 'bba' is ridiculous and partisan, having no place in the Constitution.


And we already have term limits – they're called elections.

I agree on the term limits, but there should be a bba.

 

[Votto]

Obama is already violating the Constitution with many of his actions and Executive Orders.

What makes you think that modifying the Constitution would change anything?

Spot on. It's time to come to the realization that we live under tyranny. Government will continue on the same path it has been on since the Progressive era started over 100 years ago. This means continued government expansion as they limit freedom after freedom of it's citizens, especially focusing on those freedoms regarding trade and commerce.

Those that oppose them will be crushed.

 

[Skylar]

You are not denying there is voter fraud at all. Just that the ID would not stop that fraud.

Voter fraud is exceedingly rare. For example, in Texas they've found 51 counts in 10 years. That's out of about 58 million votes cast. Or roughly 1 out of every million votes cast. And some of these were multiple counts on a SINGLE instance. Which mean the actual occurrences of voter fraud are fewer still.

Wisconsin did a thorough investigation and found 0.0007% fraud rate. That's ludicrously low.

And of the ridiculous rare instances of voter fraud, in person voter fraud is the rarest of the rare. Pennsylvania couldn't find any cases in the last 10 years. Texas had 4 counts drawn from the same 2 cases. In 10 years. That means you'd need a presidential election, a midterm and then another presidential election before you would get ONE full instance of in person voter fraud.

You're literally more likely to be struck by lightening than the to commit in person voter fraud. By about 8 times. Which is why voter ID laws that disenfranchise 10s of thousands is so ludicrously stupid. As the supposed 'problem' the massive disenfranchisement is supposed to solve is virtually non-existent.

Voter ID is, in the fullest sense of the phrase, a solution in search of a problem.

 

[AntiParty]

Forget about impeachment: If Obama issues an executive order in violation of existing immigration law, the public outcry may be sufficient to cause 2/3 of the States to call for a Constitutional Convention to limit his authority and propose other Amendments to reform the workings of the Federal Government. The next two years may be the only opportunity to reverse the destructive path our nation is following.

If a Constitutional Convention was to be called, what Amendments would you support?

Sadly, I was drawn here by title alone. I thought for sure the Constitutionalists and the Libertarians had learned that the Constitution CAN and will change.

Then in the first sentence I saw "Obama".

The very people who use to say the Constitution cannot change want it to change, but only under their guidelines.

 

[jwoodie]

Forget about impeachment: If Obama issues an executive order in violation of existing immigration law, the public outcry may be sufficient to cause 2/3 of the States to call for a Constitutional Convention to limit his authority and propose other Amendments to reform the workings of the Federal Government. The next two years may be the only opportunity to reverse the destructive path our nation is following.

If a Constitutional Convention was to be called, what Amendments would you support?

Sadly, I was drawn here by title alone. I thought for sure the Constitutionalists and the Libertarians had learned that the Constitution CAN and will change.

Then in the first sentence I saw "Obama".

The very people who use to say the Constitution cannot change want it to change, but only under their guidelines.

Sadly, you equate amending the Constitution, as specified within that document, with the invention of new provisions to suit your political and social agendas. No wonder you support the latter approach.

 

[dcraelin]

Forget about impeachment: If Obama issues an executive order in violation of existing immigration law, the public outcry may be sufficient to cause 2/3 of the States to call for a Constitutional Convention to limit his authority and propose other Amendments to reform the workings of the Federal Government. The next two years may be the only opportunity to reverse the destructive path our nation is following.
If a Constitutional Convention was to be called, what Amendments would you support?

Rome's Senate was officially advisory only.
Ben Franklin wanted a one-house legislature.
Therefore consider eliminating the Senate altogether, or heavily modifying it. Ireland came close to doing this just recently.

The original Constitution implied a representative to population ratio of 1 to 50,000 and an amendment clarifying that narrowly missed passage. For years the representatives were increased with increased population.
Therefore Increase house membership and fill slots by proportional representation either by state or nationally.

Ben Franklin also wanted an executive council not a president. Rome's high offices where supposed to be shared between two people.
Therefore eliminate the presidency, in favor of an executive council.

Increase the size of the Supreme court. Have a mandatory retirement age. Have the last part of the process for filling seats be by randomly picking names out of a hat, which is similar to the way things were set up under the Articles of Confederation.

Have a national initiative and referendum option such as the Swiss have.

 

[g5000]

Most of the reforms people are asking for don't require a Constitutional amendment.