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.
That’s a fundamental difference between republicans and democrats and their propensity to be conservative and progressive. Conservatives would not want major changes to the constitution. They would be by nature conservative in their approach. Progressives on the other hand would fight to make crazy large changes. The constitution is safer in republican hands than democrat hands.
"Conservatives would not want major changes to the constitution"
Personally I agree. What I want is for the EXISTING Constitution to be followed the way our Founding Fathers meant it to be.
Interesting idea. However you need 34 states just to be able to have a convention, but 38 states are needed to approve such amendments. According the above link we are very far from having enough states to even have a convention. And my guess is if the GOP actually got 34 states to meet it, they would simply push abortion bans and election fraud reform as the main issues which would make the whole process DOA.
As of 2021, CSG's resolution has passed in 15 states.[12][13][14] Similarly, the group Wolf-PAC chose this method to promote its cause, which is to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Their resolution has passed in five states.[15]
I would suggest an amendment requiring a balanced budget... except for when the country is involved in a war explicitly declared by Congress as the Constitution requires.
Careful, though. If you start debating in a Const Conv over a Balanced Budget, the Democrats would immediately point out that it would not be fair to the people who have been "contributing" to Social Security all their working lives, and are now getting SS benefits. They would demand that Social Security be exempt from the balanced-budget requirement. This would have two results:
(a) Every spending bill in the future would have its title amended to "The Johnson-Smith Bill for Social Security and to also spend money on the following three thousand other programs...." or something like that, whether it actually involved SS or not. Which would simply mean that the requirement to balance the Fed budget would be DOA and never implemented.
(b) "Social Security" would finally be present in the Constitution for the first time in history, thus making it a program authorized to for the Fed govt to run... which it has never been to date.
Forget the Balanced Budget Amendment. It'll never happen in the way you want, and will have only deleterious consequences.
Now you're talking my language. I suggest this part have another, additional command: That lump sum payment is due the day before Election Day in November. In years where there are no Federal elections in early November, the lump sum payment is due on the first Monday in November. And if Election Day is moved to a different date, the Due Date for the tax payment is similarly moved, to remain the day before Election Day.
And, of course, "Election Day" must become an actual "Day", not a longer period, except for people who write to their state election Board and request a mail-in ballot, and supply a good reason as many states have required for years previously.
I'm sorry but although I understand the desire by some people on the right to see a Constitutional convention, I think having one while woke ideology is in a period of dominance in our society could be one of the stupidest and most destructive things we could ever do as a nation. They would bully their way in to it and destroy everything we hold sacrosanct and then even the Constitution would not be able to curb their most pernicious excesses.
The latest on this is that 15 states have passed a Convention of States resolution, & COSA says in 2021, 25 more are considering it. 34 are needed for the Convention of States to be called.
If 19 of the 25 considering it pass a resolution, than it will happen.
The VA and NJ Governor races, & all those State House elections have Convention of State implications.
If Biden, AOC, Sanders, Pelosi, Shumer, ect.. ram Trillions more in new spending down the throats of Moderate Dems, I can see this happening, especially in the light of how unpopular Biden has become so quickly.
As a poster in this thread commented earlier, this is NOT purely a Dem vs. Pub issue, its States vs. Federal Gov't overreach that is the issue.
There will be no convention.
Politicians don’t care about term limits, capping debt, or anything else from your op.
I do wish we have term limits for Congress and senate. Nancy and others has profited using their positions of power and stopped working for the American citizens a long time ago. They forget that they work for us, not the other way around.
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.
