Jump to content
415hawaiiboy

Constitutional Convention battle in Idaho & Wyoming

Recommended Posts

MWC'ers, I don't live in Idaho or Wyoming obviously, but these are two of nine states targeted by proponents of the Constitutional Convention to be able to amend/rewrite the US Constitution under Article V.  Normally, Congress proposes amendments and then the states ratify with 3/4 of the states needing to approve.  That's how all 27 amendments have been ratified.   There is a push to use the never before used part of Article V which allows states to propose amendments.  Proponents say the states need to "reign in the power of the Federal Government" and force a balanced budget amendment.  Opponents say that the only real example of a Constitutional Convention was the very first on in 1786, which resulted in a totally new Constitution.  Opponents fear a "runaway" convention which special interests carving up the Constitution.  A perceived illegitimate Constitution could lead to succession or even civil war. The bill to have Idaho become the 29th state to apply for a Convention (there needs to be 34 out of 50) will be voted on soon in the full Idaho state senate.  Also, in Wyoming.

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2017/feb/24/senate-panel-votes-5-4-favor-art-v-constitutional-convention-after-listening-25-people-testify-against-it/

http://kgab.com/wyoming-2017-legislative-deadlines-approaching/

Outside of the battleground states, there has been very little coverage of this Convention push.  Meaning, potentially 90%+ of Americans have no clue what is going on in state legislatures such as Idaho, Kentucky, Arizona, Wisconsin, Montana, etc.  While people argue about Executive Orders which can change with an election, changing the Constitution is pretty permanent.  This is where focus should be, whether we want this.

Wondering if this topic is a big one in your states and how you feel about it?

I think a Con-Con is too risky because there is no case law, legal precedent, has run away before, and there are people who will push this beyond the scope of a balanced budget amendment (which economically is probably a bad idea anyway).  Thank you.     

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A constitutional convention would destroy what little is left of this country.

The coastal states would form an authoritarian government with your only freedoms being the right to kill your baby and go to any restroom you desired.   Free Speech, free religion, right to face your accuser, right to avoid unreasonable search and seizure would all be gone.  Even though most of those rights are already limited to the extreme.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bluesrules, that's interesting.  Being from the "West Division" in MWC, we fear the combining of Church and State, loss of First Amendment Rights (Trumps war on the press), loss of Supreme Court power to check "right wing" Congress, state's rights and uneven civil rights laws where "you're kind are not welcomed in these parts".  Fear of the other side is real.  

Still, we are together as one Nation (and one conference). A balance or great compromise.  However, if the Constitution gets hijacked (even opening it up would lead to doubts of its legitimacy), states will be exiting the Union.  Hope you Idahoans and Wyoming folks fight this Con-Con.

But do a lot of people in your states care?  I see very little news about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, 415hawaiiboy said:

Bluesrules, that's interesting.  Being from the "West Division" in MWC, we fear the combining of Church and State, loss of First Amendment Rights (Trumps war on the press), loss of Supreme Court power to check "right wing" Congress, state's rights and uneven civil rights laws where "you're kind are not welcomed in these parts".  Fear of the other side is real.  

Still, we are together as one Nation (and one conference). A balance or great compromise.  However, if the Constitution gets hijacked (even opening it up would lead to doubts of its legitimacy), states will be exiting the Union.  Hope you Idahoans and Wyoming folks fight this Con-Con.

But do a lot of people in your states care?  I see very little news about this.

A lot of people in Idaho and Nevada that I know, want a constitutional convention as they think they will be able to reinstitute the past constitution.

They are clueless in this regard as the large states would have way more power in a convention and city people across this country would unite to turn us into a fascist socialist paradise.

There would be women allowed in a constitutional convention today, a complete guarantee we would finish it with no individual rights.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My colleague is a big player in the Article V stuff, and thinks it can be accomplished with no "runaway."  

I disagree.  I think it would be a disaster, like most things our government tries to do. 

  • Like 6

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears; it was their final, most essential command.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading about the original constitution, it was a herculean effort by people who were granted extraordinary powers from their states and who had effectively no media scrutiny. Everything in the document was a compromise, down to where commas were and what the original wording was. Several delegations almost walked out several times. 

That was with 13 delegations. Now, we would have 50. 

I think it could be done, and I think that the core of the original constitution would remain. However, I do think that there would be idiots on both sides that would be so ignorant of the original process they would think that a no compromise, my way or the highway, back to 1789 constitution/forward to a marxist document would work. Those idiots, if not chained by a total lack of media presence and other delegates telling them to F off, could derail the whole thing.

In regards to it happening now, frankly, we should have been having constitutional conventions every generation or so. If that were the case, it would be not as big of a deal - kind of like a super presidential election, certain parts would be effectively set in stone, and we'd have learned what parts did and didn't work. Of course that could have opened the door for southern states to put language in that would have made the civil rights act unconstitutional and cities to neuter the 2nd amendment (and both sides to neuter all the other ones). However it could have done a lot to prevent "activist judges" perception, because if you change a document every 20 years, you don't have to be quite as flexible in your reading of it for situations that never could have occurred to the original writers. Furthermore... we have a pretty good "back up" constitution. If the convention fell apart, we're doing all right.

The main thing is we have almost 250 years of "tension"- that is, no structural changes in the document. To release that and agree on a new compromise document would be difficult. 

  • Like 2

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, happycamper said:

Reading about the original constitution, it was a herculean effort by people who were granted extraordinary powers from their states and who had effectively no media scrutiny. Everything in the document was a compromise, down to where commas were and what the original wording was. Several delegations almost walked out several times. 

That was with 13 delegations. Now, we would have 50. 

I think it could be done, and I think that the core of the original constitution would remain. However, I do think that there would be idiots on both sides that would be so ignorant of the original process they would think that a no compromise, my way or the highway, back to 1789 constitution/forward to a marxist document would work. Those idiots, if not chained by a total lack of media presence and other delegates telling them to F off, could derail the whole thing.

In regards to it happening now, frankly, we should have been having constitutional conventions every generation or so. If that were the case, it would be not as big of a deal - kind of like a super presidential election, certain parts would be effectively set in stone, and we'd have learned what parts did and didn't work. Of course that could have opened the door for southern states to put language in that would have made the civil rights act unconstitutional and cities to neuter the 2nd amendment (and both sides to neuter all the other ones). However it could have done a lot to prevent "activist judges" perception, because if you change a document every 20 years, you don't have to be quite as flexible in your reading of it for situations that never could have occurred to the original writers. Furthermore... we have a pretty good "back up" constitution. If the convention fell apart, we're doing all right.

The main thing is we have almost 250 years of "tension"- that is, no structural changes in the document. To release that and agree on a new compromise document would be difficult. 

Lots of horny folks with built up tension would make for a SPECTACULAR Convention.  

Seriously though, interesting perspective about the once a generation super election.  I think the Supreme Court kind of has that with the appointed for life justices.  Glacial movements but accepted more or less.  In one generation, much has changed in society, I think for the better under the current system.  There has only been one repeal amendment I  believe and that was the 21st Amendment to abolish Prohibition.   There is a mechanism just not used often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, happycamper said:

Reading about the original constitution, it was a herculean effort by people who were granted extraordinary powers from their states and who had effectively no media scrutiny. Everything in the document was a compromise, down to where commas were and what the original wording was. Several delegations almost walked out several times. 

That was with 13 delegations. Now, we would have 50. 

I think it could be done, and I think that the core of the original constitution would remain. However, I do think that there would be idiots on both sides that would be so ignorant of the original process they would think that a no compromise, my way or the highway, back to 1789 constitution/forward to a marxist document would work. Those idiots, if not chained by a total lack of media presence and other delegates telling them to F off, could derail the whole thing.

In regards to it happening now, frankly, we should have been having constitutional conventions every generation or so. If that were the case, it would be not as big of a deal - kind of like a super presidential election, certain parts would be effectively set in stone, and we'd have learned what parts did and didn't work. Of course that could have opened the door for southern states to put language in that would have made the civil rights act unconstitutional and cities to neuter the 2nd amendment (and both sides to neuter all the other ones). However it could have done a lot to prevent "activist judges" perception, because if you change a document every 20 years, you don't have to be quite as flexible in your reading of it for situations that never could have occurred to the original writers. Furthermore... we have a pretty good "back up" constitution. If the convention fell apart, we're doing all right.

The main thing is we have almost 250 years of "tension"- that is, no structural changes in the document. To release that and agree on a new compromise document would be difficult. 

As difficult as it was to form the original constitution it would be impossible today.

Everyone was basically involved in an agrarian society back then.  i think the biggest city was 20Kish.   All the economies were basically similar.

Security issues were similar.  Everyone had the same access to weapons and everyone was pretty well aware that law enforcement wasn't going to arrive until after the security situation was settled.

Government was small, local and expected to do only the bare minimum and this was generally accepted.   In fact they would error on the side of less government not more as they did under the articles of confederation.

Only one sex was represented at the original convention.  Hugely simplifying the issues.

Only one race was represented at the original convention.  Hugely simplifying the issues.

No media as you mentioned so no grandstanding for the media.   Few professional politicians to begin with so only the rich were really represented as the poor could not afford to be involved.

 

So basically you had rich white men who all were dependant on an agrarian economy with similar religions and upbringing.

Still could barely do it.

 

It would be impossible today.

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2017 at 8:58 PM, bluerules009 said:

As difficult as it was to form the original constitution it would be impossible today.

Everyone was basically involved in an agrarian society back then.  i think the biggest city was 20Kish.   All the economies were basically similar.

Security issues were similar.  Everyone had the same access to weapons and everyone was pretty well aware that law enforcement wasn't going to arrive until after the security situation was settled.

Government was small, local and expected to do only the bare minimum and this was generally accepted.   In fact they would error on the side of less government not more as they did under the articles of confederation.

Only one sex was represented at the original convention.  Hugely simplifying the issues.

Only one race was represented at the original convention.  Hugely simplifying the issues.

No media as you mentioned so no grandstanding for the media.   Few professional politicians to begin with so only the rich were really represented as the poor could not afford to be involved.

 

So basically you had rich white men who all were dependant on an agrarian economy with similar religions and upbringing.

Still could barely do it.

 

It would be impossible today.

 

 

 

The only thing I would say is that at this point it is fairly clear that the simple phrase "to the states and to the people" is too weak. I imagine a new constitutional convention would 21st amendment-ize a lot of rights we argue about.

  • Like 1

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, happycamper said:

The only thing I would say is that at this point it is fairly clear that the simple phrase "to the states and to the people" is too weak. I imagine a new constitutional convention would 21st amendment-ize a lot of rights we argue about.

I would predict we would end up with the prime minister style governments of Canada and England.

Not only would there be no individual rights.

States rights and the current power of smaller states to hold their own in government would also be gone.

National campaigns and the national government would cater to California, Florida, New York and Texas.   The rural area's would be undercity peoples rules even more so then now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

I would predict we would end up with the prime minister style governments of Canada and England.

Not only would there be no individual rights.

States rights and the current power of smaller states to hold their own in government would also be gone.

National campaigns and the national government would cater to California, Florida, New York and Texas.   The rural area's would be undercity peoples rules even more so then now.

I could see a prime minister style government happening. Given that Paul Ryan would be prime minister... okay. I don't agree that the state's rights would be curtailed absolutely, I imagine they would be more clearly regulated - in other words the powers they do have would be much more ironclad and expanded but the powers that aren't specifically granted wouldn't be as debatable.

Of course I'm generally more optimistic than you 

  • Like 1

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, happycamper said:

I could see a prime minister style government happening. Given that Paul Ryan would be prime minister... okay. I don't agree that the state's rights would be curtailed absolutely, I imagine they would be more clearly regulated - in other words the powers they do have would be much more ironclad and expanded but the powers that aren't specifically granted wouldn't be as debatable.

Of course I'm generally more optimistic than you 

You are way more optimistic then me.

I suspect nothing could get 50 states to ratify or even 26.

I would expect the coastal states to force a government through the use of military and then we would see what would happen from there.  I am not optimistic at all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa, whoa, whoa lets take a step back from the ledge.  I am not aware of any attempt to start a whole new constitution, and Article V is about amending the Consitution not starting a whole nother one.  State legislatures can start the process of specific amendments.  The specified amendments have to be very similar, in fact almost exact copies of each other, in order to be considered toward the 2/3 count.  I think it would be beneficial to look at Article V

 

Quote

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

So in order to propose amendments 2/3 of the state legislatures (34 states) must submit a call for a convention on specific proposed amendments.  How similar the proposed amendments need to be is a legal question not answered yet, but the general idea is the proposed amendments need to be the same.  Then either 3/4 of the state legislatures (38) or 3/4 of state conventions convened must ratify it.

The idea of amendments for say term limits in congress and a balanced budget amendment are wholly different than starting a whole nother constitution.  You cannot have 2/3 of the state legislatures say submit an amendment for a balanced budget and then get an amendment ratified for term limits for congress let alone a new constitution.  This is why the other amendments originated out of congress.  It is much easier to get two bodies (house and senate) to hammer out and propose amendments than at a minimum 67 bodies (Nebraska has a unicameral legislature) to agree on common proposed amendment.

As for interest, this was widely discussed at our county caucus last year.  The key ones supported were term limits and balanced budget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

You are way more optimistic then me.

I suspect nothing could get 50 states to ratify or even 26.

I would expect the coastal states to force a government through the use of military and then we would see what would happen from there.  I am not optimistic at all.

Well, the convention would involve state legislatures, which are dominantly republican right now so I figure that the balance of power in the convention would be such that the coastal states would have to square themselves with that :) 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, 415hawaiiboy said:

Honestly, there hasn't even been any talk of this in the local news. Even doing a google search (in case I missed it), only brings up this;

http://www.wyohistory.org/encyclopedia/wyoming-statehood

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The end result of a modern constitutional convention

220full.jpg

 

ahhhhh. electrolytes

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

-Richard Feynman

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."

-P.J. O’Rourke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jimbo_Poke said:

Whoa, whoa, whoa lets take a step back from the ledge.  I am not aware of any attempt to start a whole new constitution, and Article V is about amending the Consitution not starting a whole nother one.  State legislatures can start the process of specific amendments.  The specified amendments have to be very similar, in fact almost exact copies of each other, in order to be considered toward the 2/3 count.  I think it would be beneficial to look at Article V

 

So in order to propose amendments 2/3 of the state legislatures (34 states) must submit a call for a convention on specific proposed amendments.  How similar the proposed amendments need to be is a legal question not answered yet, but the general idea is the proposed amendments need to be the same.  Then either 3/4 of the state legislatures (38) or 3/4 of state conventions convened must ratify it.

The idea of amendments for say term limits in congress and a balanced budget amendment are wholly different than starting a whole nother constitution.  You cannot have 2/3 of the state legislatures say submit an amendment for a balanced budget and then get an amendment ratified for term limits for congress let alone a new constitution.  This is why the other amendments originated out of congress.  It is much easier to get two bodies (house and senate) to hammer out and propose amendments than at a minimum 67 bodies (Nebraska has a unicameral legislature) to agree on common proposed amendment.

As for interest, this was widely discussed at our county caucus last year.  The key ones supported were term limits and balanced budget.

When you call for a constitutional convention you can't limit the topics.  You basically throw the whole government in the air and start from scratch.   So right away 15 states are going to want an amendment to restrict or outlaw abortion and 15 states are going to want the unlimited right to have one.   15 states are going to want to toss the whole concept of a senate and electoral college while 25 states are going to insist on the status quo.

There is no limit and there is no ledge, you are free falling from the start.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...