Constitutional convention over this?!

[Manedwolf]

Doesn't matter what the particular feelings on the issue is, so I advise to not get the thread locked..but THIS is from the Evans-Novak report. Read Part 2 carefully.

Marriage Amendment: The failure of the Federal Marriage Amendment in the Senate was a bitter disappointment to its supporters, particularly because it received only one more vote than last time.

1. Despite having picked up four conservative votes in the last Senate election, supporters of the federal marriage amendment gained a disappointing single vote last week over their 2004 tally. They had 48 last time, and just 49 this time. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), a supporter, was not present to vote, and Senators Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) -- both of whom were up for re-election in 2004 when they voted "yes" -- voted "no" this time.

2. Meeting after the big failure at the offices of the social-conservative Family Research Council, the top leaders of the marriage movement -- Catholic, Protestant and Mormon leaders among others -- discussed the possibility of an unprecedented Constitutional Convention. Two-thirds (34) of the state legislatures would have to call for such a convention -- which could be done only with great difficulty. Even then, no one knows what such a convention would look like or what sort of amendments could result from it. Article 5 of the Constitution is quite vague on the subject.

Not only are there a LOT more important issues going on right now than this, but look at who is blatantly sticking their fingers into politics in the second bit. They want to push for a Constitutional Convention, despite the unlikelihood of that? Are they actively TRYING to fracture and destroy the Republic?

I think it's time to yank some religious organizations' tax-exempt status, NOW. You can be a religion or a blatant lobbyist group, but not both, and that's BY LAW.

I call it a clear-cut case of rule of law, if they want to do that.

 

[joab]

I also don't think it matters what position you assume on the gay marriage issue.
Is it really a matter for constitutional amendment?

The constitution is a list of what we permit the government to do not of who an individual or two can cuddle with.

 

[Zundfolge]

I love it, I'm GLAD (no pun intended) they are trying so hard to get this passed as a constitutional amendment.


No, I don't agree with amending the constitution over this and nor do I think they will get it passed.

But if the legislature is wasting their time wrestling with this issue they aren't doing other things to us.


So in the end its a win-win

 

[boofus]

Makes sense. The more time those nitwits in Congress spend bloviating over worthless legislation like flag burning bans and gay marraige bans the less time they can spend scheming on how to take away people's property.

 

[Brian Williams]

Moved to L&P lets see what we can discuss about 2nd amendment issues that might come out of a Constitutional convention and keep it off of Homosexual marriage

 

[Thefabulousfink]

I'm a little fuzzy on the details of a Constitutional Convention, (PolySci was a few years ago) is it called to address a specific issue, or can any old constitutional ammendment be put on the ballot?

 

[the pistolero]

I think it's time to yank some religious organizations' tax-exempt status, NOW

I think it's past time some of them had that status revoked. We know how many of them are advocates for yet more gun restrictions.

The more time those nitwits in Congress spend bloviating over worthless legislation like flag burning bans and gay marraige bans the less time they can spend scheming on how to take away people's property.

It's been said that "no man's liberty or property is safe as long as the (Texas) Legislature is in session." I think the same could be said for Congress, as well.

 

[Mikee Loxxer]

I hate the idea of amending the constitution over this as I feel that it will cheapen it. I feel that this is being used by the Republicans to distract us from much more important issues like Social Security insolvency and Energy (things they are too cowardly to risk their precious political careers trying to fix).

Trying to stop culture is pointless as people will do what people will do and if it does no harm to others it should not be something politicians deal with. That being said, what does this have to do wtih the Second Amendment?

 

[Henry Bowman]

FabFink: My understanding is that once convened, the whole think is open season.

 

[308win]

I believe Henry is correct, anything could be fair game under whatever rules the convnetion adopted.

 

[Desertdog]

Please do not even think about having a Constitutional Convention.

Amend the Constitution 1 Amendment at a time.

If there should ever be a Constitutiona Convention, it will open each and every Amendment to be re-written.

Do you the Shumer crowd rewriting the BOR to suit themselves?

 

[rms/pa]

henry,308win and desertdog have it spot on.

once a constitutional convention is called there are NO limits on what can happen. the only hold back is the new constitution has to be ratified.

everything would be up for grabs and if some of the shenanigans that accompanied the income tax amendment are an example life could get very interesting.

rms/pa

 

[Mannlicher]

This just gets WAY too deep into the prerogatives of the individual States. Marriage has always been subject to State Law. There is zero reason for the Feds to be involved at all. Zero. This issue should be resolved by the various States, not the Feds.
I shudder to think what a balls up will result if Constitutional Conventions. The Constitution SHOULD be very difficult to ammend. All you have to do is look at the Florida Constitution to see what an unworkable patchwork a document becomes when willy nilly ammendments clutter up the landscape. Things are bad enough without this mess going any further.

 

[wheelgunslinger]

yeah, but if the people backing this amendment cant push it through congress, then they sure can't get a Con-con rolling, much less finished.
These religious groups better back off the government. The backlash could be severe.

 

[mbt2001]

Well, I don't think that we should amend the constitution over this issue, however I am puzzled about what this really means.

Obviously we are fighting a culture war and trying to identify ourselves as a country and as a society. Frankly, I think that the only way to resolve the issues is for the Governors of all 50 states to get together and the agree that each state is going to pass a cultural constitution and that those can never be revoked or changed and that state law must be viewed in accordance with it.

That will mean that certain states can stay conservative and others can stay liberal and we can all laugh at one another. If some issues are of a true importance, then move... Isn't a big deal. I am just tired of libs coming here and changing things and conservatives going there and changing things... We have a right to have God taught in school if a majority of the voters say we do... end of story. Obviously it wouldn't be that way in every state and therefore no one is being FORCED, because we can decide where to live...

Not perfect, but I canna think of another way.

 

[beerslurpy]

A constitutional convention wont fix anything because most of the problems today result from perfectly good text being twisted by the supreme court or ignored by all 3 branches.

Any government that can twist "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" into "only disasembled long guns and no handguns whatsoever, with no bearing whatsoever" is really beyond the reach of written laws.

 

[xd9fan]

yup the Marriage Amendment and flag burning. Thats all the GOP controled Govt can think of for Amendments..........and they wonder why they are in trouble........

 

[roscoe]

Methinks a little clarification of the 2nd and 4th amendments are in order in any convention.

 

[LAK]

A convention would be a disaster. A Pandora's box.

Anyone who thinks such a thing would be of any possible benefit to us concerning the the 2nd or 4th amendments (or any other issue for that matter) under the current political climate and sentiment that is deeply entrenched in our present gov would do well to see what happened to the Swiss recently. Read - and understand - the former Swiss Constitution - and then the current new Constitution that was adopted just a few years ago.

------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[RealGun]

We have a right to have God taught in school if a majority of the voters say we do... end of story.

Except that public schools depend upon federal funding, and that funding would be withdrawn (for good reason). That is only true because of the power achieved by the income tax amendment. This is the reason that church schools are privately funded and, along with a desire to maintain racial integration, is why voucher programs as a hat trick workaround are strongly opposed.

I believe the income tax is the number one reason why we live in a very different country than the Founders. Flat tax and the like do not address the problem. Income tax should be collected by the States and trickle up to, not down from, the federal government. Reallocation could still occur by per capita assessment, but only sparsely populated or relatively poor States would be particularly dependent as they are now.

Federal defense, interstate infrastructure, and legitimate administrative responsibilities (of common interest to the States) would need to be covered primarily by commerce taxes.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

I agree, the constitution is nearly perfect as-is. The trick these days is to get people to read it correctly, instead of extrapolating it to mean 100 different things. Also, the constitution should never be a tool used to deny freedom or limit the citizenry. It is a limit on government. If they want to limit something, they should do that by law -which can be chaned, altered, challenged in the courts etc...


OMG! It never crossed my mind ever, the concept of a modern day constitutional convention. It would be the biggest disaster in American history. Even the most sane, pro-liberty, pro-WhatAmericaShouldBe folks are no where near as correct as the founding fathers were. Imagine the insane things they'd amend as "rights" ...


Here's an excerpt of the 1936 Soviet constitution:

ARTICLE 118. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to work, that is, are guaranteed the right to employment and payment for their work in accordance With its quantity and quality.

The right to work is ensured by the socialist organization of the national economy, the steady growth of the productive forces of Soviet society, the elimination of the possibility of economic crises, and the abolition of unemployment.

ARTICLE 119. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to rest and leisure. The right to rest and leisure is ensured by the reduction of the working day to seven hours for the overwhelming majority of the workers, the institution of annual vacations with full pay for workers and employees and the provision of a wide network of sanatoria, rest homes and clubs for the accommodation of the working people.

ARTICLE 120. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to maintenance in old age and also in case of sickness or loss of capacity to work. This right is ensured by the extensive development of social insurance of workers and employees at state expense, free medical service for the working people and the provision of a wide network of health resorts for the use of the working people.

ARTICLE 121. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to education. This right is ensured by universal, compulsory elementary education; by education, including higher education, being free of charge; by the system of state stipends for the overwhelming majority of students in the universities and colleges; by instruction in schools being conducted in the native language, and by the organization in the factories, state farms, machine and tractor stations and collective farms of free vocational, technical and agronomic training for the working people.

ARTICLE 132. Universal military service is law. Military service in the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army is an honorable duty of the citizens of the U.S.S.R.

Expect some of these goodies to be codified into our system (I cut out the one's we've already adapted), once they are "Rights"...the government MUST guarantee them. Funny though, I have a right to keep and bear arms...does that mean the government MUST guarantee that I can exercise that Right? What if I cannot for financial reasons? Does this mean there is a constitutional directive here that we arm all American citizens who cannot afford arms? You know, Swiss style! Think of it like a Second Amendment welfare.

***

I don't think it would happen though. The Feds have things set up just the way they like them. A CC would disrupt the current establishment, something they've perfected into a finely tuned machine since 1865. This machine has worked well to completely block and true dissention and any alternative party or movement from challenging their stranglehold on power and on our money and lives.


I wouldn't mind a perfectly clarified Second Amendment though. No more militia preamble to stir up confusion for our less-than-literate portion of the population. Not that it prevents the Second Amendment from meaning what it does. Bah, I change my mind. It should stay put, we just need to deal with the people who intentionally misinterpret it. The people are the problem, not the words. If you hacked off the first part so it read "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", the gun-haters will still deny it means what it means. Which brings us to the ultimate truth about our society - words mean nothing. Action is everything. If you're not willing to protect what's rightfully yours - you don't deserve to have it in the first place.


It is interesting though, that some state constitutions do not say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"....

 

[wheelgunslinger]

Well, I don't think that we should amend the constitution over this issue, however I am puzzled about what this really means.

Obviously we are fighting a culture war and trying to identify ourselves as a country and as a society. Frankly, I think that the only way to resolve the issues is for the Governors of all 50 states to get together and the agree that each state is going to pass a cultural constitution and that those can never be revoked or changed and that state law must be viewed in accordance with it.

You started out really well with the culture war part. Unfortunately, writing a culture constitution is in direct conflict with the conceptual definition of culture as defined by any anthropologist worth his saltshaker.
Culture is a constantly evolving thing and is never ever static. Therefore, writing a cultural constitution that would keep the shiny people in Vegas and the happy people in Boulder just wouldn't work very well. And, what would we do with the people that are, as Michael Stipe sang, both Shiny and Happy- or neither?
I will agree though, that as a nation we are trying to find ourselves culturally.

 

[kludge]

Real gun said:

I believe the income tax is the number one reason why we live in a very different country than the Founders. Flat tax and the like do not address the problem. Income tax should be collected by the States and trickle up to, not down from, the federal government. Reallocation could still occur by per capita assessment, but only sparsely populated or relatively poor States would be particularly dependent as they are now.

This is exactly why the founders did not have direct election of senators! The senators were to be elected by the state representatives to represent the STATE (and the legislature) on issues of moneys and taxation, and their alliegance would be to the STATE government. Income tax was declared unconstitutional in the late 1800's -- it is a direct tax -- and direct taxes are (were) not allowed.

 

[SteveS]

While many religious groups are opposed to gay marriage, you are being short-sighted if you think that is the only opposition. I think the whole constituitional push is a result of one group (the states) saying no, another group (gay marriage) finding federal judges that are willing to say that gay marriage is a fundamental right. Then another group says, "nope, I guess we will have to amend the Constitution."

I don't agree with amending the Constitution for this, but I can see how it came to this point.

 

[Waitone]

Constitutional convention is an incredibly stupid idea. Want a visual? Imagine the political equivelent of the Star Wars bar scene.

Our problems related directly to those areas where we have abandoned the original concept.
--Direct election of senators was a big mistake
--Income tax was a bigger mistake
--and The failure of congress to remove right of appellate jurisdiction from the supreme court for specified legislation was a galactic scale mistake (Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2).