Tea party, explain how this is going to work (interstate, Congress, Reagan)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For the past year or two or three, there has been this going argument from only conservatives to call for a convention of the states. Now in order to achieve this, you need 34 states to agree to this, and you would need 38 states to support any amendments. The only way for conservatives to achieve this is for liberals to support this idea. Since 2010, the tea party has actively tried to shut down obama's agenda, but all of sudden you think liberal states are going to actively support the tea party in trying to further reduce obama or any democrat who is the white house, their ability to enact their agenda. What sense does that make? Conservatives, can you please map out how you plan to successfully achieve an article V agenda?
Depends. What are the proposed amendments you speak of?
mark levin has these liberty amendments that he suggested, but its basically a conservative wish list. I'm failing to see why liberals would support conservative legislation.
For the past year or two or three, there has been this going argument from only conservatives to call for a convention of the states. Now in order to achieve this, you need 34 states to agree to this, and you would need 38 states to support any amendments. The only way for conservatives to achieve this is for liberals to support this idea.
That is not necessarily true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nighttrain55
Conservatives, can you please map out how you plan to successfully achieve an article V agenda?
I have no idea what that is, and I have no idea who Mark Levin is.
The "Liberty Amendments" have a familiar odor...like burnt hair on a rotted corpse, but I think I shot those down as being freaking stupid.
You might want to look up the definition of "moderate" so you can add that to your vocabulary.
STUPID ~ An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Members of Congress
STUPID ~ An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices and Super-Majority Legislative Override
STUPID ~ Two Amendments to Limit Federal Spending and Taxation
STUPID ~ An Amendment to Limit the Federal Bureaucracy REALLY STUPID ~ An Amendment to Grant the States Authority to Directly Amend the Constitution.
POINTLESS ~ An Amendment to Protect Private Property (curbing abuses under the Takings Clause).
Due process is provided, and each case is unique. With Eminent Domain, much of the angst appears to stem from what will be done with the land, not whether land owners are being justly compensated.
POINTLESS ~ An Amendment to Grant States Authority to Check Congress
States have that authority already....it's called the 8th, 9th and 10th Amendments. If your State isn't doing its Constitutional duty, then elect people who will.
SCARY ~ An Amendment to Promote Free Enterprise (redefining the Commerce Clause)
I could never support that, unless I wrote the Amendment myself.
What you need to do is force the Courts to follow their own rulings.
"In a statutory construction case, the beginning point must be the language of the statute, and when a statute speaks with clarity to an issue judicial inquiry into the statute's meaning in all but the most extraordinary circumstance is finished." Riva v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 61 F.3d 1003, 1007 (1st Cir. 1995) (quoting Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co., 505 U.S. 469, 475, 120 L. Ed. 2d 379, 112 S. Ct. 2589 (1992). In other words, the court need not consult legislative history and other aids to statutory construction when the words of the statute neither create an ambiguity nor lead to an unreasonable interpretation. Riva, 61 F.3d at 1007. In searching a statute's text to determine congressional intent, we attribute to words that are not defined in the statute itself their ordinary usage, while keeping in mind that meaning can only be ascribed to statutory language if that language is taken in context."
And while the 1st Circuit Court does an excellent job, I refer you to the outstanding 6th Circuit....
"In determining the meaning of legislation, we must first look to the plain language of the statute itself. McBarron v. S & T Indus., Inc., 771 F.2d 94, 97 (6th Cir. 1985). "If we find that the statutory language is unambiguous, then that language is regarded as conclusive unless there is a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary." Bradley v. Austin, 841 F.2d 1288, 1293 (6th Cir. 1988). Courts need only to examine the legislative history of a statute when its terms are ambiguous, see id., or where enforcement of the plain terms of the statute would "'produce a result demonstrably at odds with the intention of [the statute's] drafters.'" United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 242, 103 L. Ed. 2d 290, 109 S. Ct. 1026 (1989) (quoting Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564, 571, 73 L. Ed. 2d 973, 102 S. Ct. 3245 (1982))."
Okay, so the purpose and intent of the Commerce Clause permits Congress to intervene, if, and only if, a dispute arises between two or more States that cannot be resolved through the federal courts, or which resolution would not be satisfactory.
Example: In the City of Pittsburgh in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, a chemical company discharges Carbon Tetrachloride (C-Cl4) into the Ohio River, and the State of Ohio, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the State of Indiana and the State of Illinois file suit in federal court seeking recompense for damages and other remedies.
That is unsatisfactory, because while the federal court can address past acts, it has no power to address future acts.
Here is where Congress would invoke the Interstate Commerce Clause, enacting legislation regarding effluent discharges into rivers.
That is how the Interstate Commerce Clause was intended to work. It was Morris who chaired the committee that drafted those sections of the Constitution.
SCARY ~ An Amendment to Protect the Vote (requiring photo ID)
That is freaking scary.
The Constitution does not grant the right to vote. That right is granted solely by the States under the 8th, 9th and 10th Amendments. It is up to each State to decide whether or not it will require ID for voting, and if so, what type of ID.
What's even scarier is the idiot Levin doesn't even understand that there is no such thing as "federal elections."
HOPEFUL ~ An Amendment to Restore the Senate (repeal of the 17th Amendment)
I would endorse that, but not until campaign finance reform had been enacted....by Constitutional Amendment restricting campaign donations to only those persons legally eligible to vote for the individual running for office or the ballot issue in question.
Anyway, I wouldn't count on his Liberty Amendments going anywhere.
Constitutionally...
For the past year or two or three, there has been this going argument from only conservatives to call for a convention of the states. Now in order to achieve this, you need 34 states to agree to this, and you would need 38 states to support any amendments. The only way for conservatives to achieve this is for liberals to support this idea. Since 2010, the tea party has actively tried to shut down obama's agenda, but all of sudden you think liberal states are going to actively support the tea party in trying to further reduce obama or any democrat who is the white house, their ability to enact their agenda. What sense does that make? Conservatives, can you please map out how you plan to successfully achieve an article V agenda?
Its simple, a partisan amendment to the constitution isn't going to work. Its just an idea of theirs to rally their base. There are very very few things which are bi-partisan. And those things which are bi-partisan never require an amendment anyway(thanks Supreme Court).
What I actually want is not the calling of a convention for a single amendment, that is a waste of time. I want a convention to completely rewrite our constitution from scratch. In the same way they rewrote the Articles of Confederation back in 1787.
A new constitution is non-partisan, and would energize people everywhere in the country. The amendments I have seen proposed are all partisan garbage, and have zero chance of succeeding.
mark levin has these liberty amendments that he suggested, but its basically a conservative wish list. I'm failing to see why liberals would support conservative legislation.
I think it's great (congress does a double-take!!), considering the (30+) states have already organized and had a meeting about it - is pretty exciting!! (Compared to what Congress is (not) doing.... zzzzzzzz)
“They said that they were looking for congressional term limits and limits on federal taxation and spending.” (Can't go too wrong with those ideas! )
mark levin has these liberty amendments that he suggested, but its basically a conservative wish list. I'm failing to see why liberals would support conservative legislation.
Every year polls show the same thing: there are close to two conservatives for every one liberal in America.
The real question is, why do liberals have so much power in Washington that their support MATTERS?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) 
