Could it be time a constitutional convention?

[scarymary]

Here is an interesting article I found over at WSJ. It suggest that a constitutional convention may be in order, and lays out amendments that might be added to our present constitution.


Article V provides that, "on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states," Congress "shall call a convention for proposing amendments." Before becoming law, any amendments produced by such a convention would then need to be ratified by three-quarters of the states.

An amendments convention is feared because its scope cannot be limited in advance. The convention convened by Congress to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation produced instead the entirely different Constitution under which we now live. Yet it is precisely the fear of a runaway convention that states can exploit to bring Congress to heel.

Here's how: State legislatures can petition Congress for a convention to propose a specific amendment. Congress can then avert a convention by proposing this amendment to the states, before the number of petitions reaches two-thirds. It was the looming threat of state petitions calling for a convention to provide for the direct election of U.S. senators that induced a reluctant Congress to propose the 17th Amendment, which did just that.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044199838345461.html

[Topiary Lady]

There's a lot of chatter about this. Could be pretty facinating. We are living in an amazing time where we are seeing things and will see things that most people probably would have never thought could happen.

What do you suppose the lib's would do if this were brought to the table?

[scarymary]

I don't know. It's really hard to say. They would most likely try to divert the petition somehow. But I would say that we have a long way to go before we reach this point, but it would be interesting to say the least.

[Topiary Lady]

They would most likely try to divert the petition somehow.

Yes! That's been their game so far, eh? They do one of two things - it's either divert or ignore. They have no respect what so ever for anyone who is not in lock-step with their agenda.

[scarymary]

On a slightly different note, I saw an article that stated that Gavin Newsome is intending to run for governor of California. How does that set with you TL?

[Topiary Lady]

I really have no idea what is going on in this state. It's hard to even wrap my mind around any idea of Newsome becoming governor.

If it weren't for my work and my husbands job, we'd be out of this state in a heartbeat. I want to go and live among the patriots who actually embrace all that America is meant to be. It'll happen at some point.

[jbeukema]

Do you want to send the current 'representatives' to a convention with the power to change the constitution?

[Aurelius]

So what amendments do you think should get passed?

[jbeukema]

How about we modify the 1st amendment to read:

Neither Congress nor any member state shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

and add an amendment that reads:

Neither Congress, nor any member state shall pass any law that deprives the people, or any class thereof, of equal rights, recognition, and protection under the law

as well as one reading

Neither the president of the united states, nor any official acting from the authority of the executive branch of the federal government shall pass any order, proclamation, or command, other than those powers already delegated to said individual by the body of this document, to act to establish any new legislation or modify the text of any existing law, as it falls wholly to congress to establish or modify such law and to the Legislative branch to review any law which is deemed suspect.

(basically, EOs would not be legally binding, to prevent abuse)


or something to such effect...?

[FarRightWing]

I've been hearing Neal Boortz talking about this and to be sure it would be an interesting event. I truly think that for this to happen we would need a bottom up effort and by bottom I mean getting rid of every elected person who holds office right now and putting in people that really have the countries best interest at heart. The only problem is everybody thinks their elected officials are doing a bang up job and that it's the other guy thats not up to snuff.
If there's every going to be a time to do this it is now before the fascist,socialist government we now have takes hold.
Pass the fair Tax and give back the states their rights to choose who to represent them not the ignorant masses.

[jbeukema]

I think we should limit congressfolk to 12 years in office (2 terms in senate, 6 terms in the house, or a 1/3 combo). A third term in congress =18 years- almost 2 generations a person can 'deal' with and become entrenched

We put term limits on the pres, it's time to limit congress, too

[scarymary]

One simple proposal would be to repeal the 16th Amendment enacted in 1913 that authorized a federal income tax. This single change would strike at the heart of unlimited federal power and end the costly and intrusive tax code. Congress could then replace the income tax with a "uniform" national sales or "excise" tax (as stated in Article I, section 8) that would be paid by everyone residing in the country as they consumed, and would automatically render savings and capital appreciation free of tax. There is precedent for repealing an amendment. In 1933, the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment that had empowered Congress to prohibit the sale of alcohol.

And Princess Nancy is invoking the VAT again. Here is some recent news on that.


Fiscal Policy: Sometimes the worst ideas are the most tempting. So it is with the value-added tax, or VAT — a potential money gusher for strapped governments but a massive new levy on all Americans.

At least twice a decade, it seems, desperate politicians latch on to the idea of a VAT as the best way to raise lots of money for their spending schemes. No wonder. Unlike our current system, a VAT would impose a uniform levy at each level of production, from raw materials to finished goods, so the revenue potential is huge.

Which is why it keeps coming up in our free-spending Capital.

Earlier this year, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, fresh from crafting a $700 billion bailout for the banks, a $787 billion "stimulus" package and untold billions more in other spending, suggested that a good way to pay for it all might be a VAT.

In recent days, as Congress feels the public's ire over its gross fiscal irresponsibility, the VAT is getting even more attention.

White House economic adviser and former Fed chairman Paul Volcker suggested it's one way the budget deficit could be closed, and another former Fed chief, Alan Greenspan, went a step further by calling it "the least worst solution" to our budget problems.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, asked point blank by TV interviewer Charlie Rose if she's considering a VAT, answered: "I would say, put everything on the table and subject it to the scrutiny that it deserves." She went on to extol the virtues of the VAT.

So, we've been warned. The VAT is a bad idea, however, and should be rejected out of hand. It wouldn't solve the core problem of fiscally incontinent politicians; it would only give them more money to waste, and lead to even bigger government.

This massive levy would fall on all Americans, including those earning less than $250,000, the group President Obama promised would not pay a dime in higher taxes.

Tax analyst Curtis Dubay of the Heritage Foundation notes that, because of the way it's structured, a VAT tax even at low levels would be a disaster.

Using data for 2008, a VAT of just 1% would raise an added $63 billion. Make it "just" 5%, and it's a $315 billion annual tax hike on all Americans — or roughly $2,670 on every household, including the poor and middle-class.

To sell the idea to gullible taxpayers, politicians play down these problems, focusing instead on tax "efficiency" and the idea that the VAT is a low rate applied against a broad base of taxpayers.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=508243

The people should rally to have government repeal the 16th amendment if they want a VAT. If government should get this VAT, it will end up horribly for us as a nation.

[Dr. Madd]

a convention of this type must needs be started by a popuar petition declaring no-confidence in our current regime.

[FKLBRLS]

Those of you who want a constitutional convention: BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR! We might think that a constitutional convention would be great for restoring this country to freedom. However, in practice a new constitution would be bastardized and tailored to give us LESS freedom. The "right to bear arms" would almost certainly be excluded, and the "Bill of Rights" would read "Every American has a right to money, a home" etc. In short, it would be a guarantee of collective "rights" and the concept of individual freedoms would be left intentionally vague.

If you abolish the Constitution, you create a firestorm of tyranny. How about we have a constitutional convention that abolishes the legislature and gives the President unlimited power? The Constitution gives us LIMITED government. If it were abolished or replaced, our entire governmental structure is up to unrestrained alteration, which could radically alter the country in an unpleasant way.

[Dr. Madd]

It depends on who drafts the constitution. If libertarians and conservatives do this, it will be ok. If Leftists do this, there will be trouble.

[scarymary]

FK, I don't think anyone is talking about replacing the constitution with a new one....just making amendments to it, such as the one listed above which would repeal the 16th amendment.

[FKLBRLS]

A Constitutional Convention could do both though. Or it could start as a small convention to make amendments, and then somebody would suggest "Let's just make a new one." There's a huge potential for abuse.