Jump to content
415hawaiiboy

Constitutional Convention battle in Idaho & Wyoming

Recommended Posts

On 2/27/2017 at 4:17 PM, 415hawaiiboy said:

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.     

 

Pretty much ZERO talk of this in Montana.  I follow the legislature pretty regularly and I have seen nothing even mentioned this year,  Just a few right wingers spouting off with no real bills that have any chance of even getting to a floor vote

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Billings said:

Pretty much ZERO talk of this in Montana.  I follow the legislature pretty regularly and I have seen nothing even mentioned this year,  Just a few right wingers spouting off with no real bills that have any chance of even getting to a floor vote

It seems to me, the Con-Con strategy is:

  • Island Hopping: Engage in an state by state strategy to one-by-one pick off the most likely to flip states in roughly the following order: Idaho (29), Kentucky (30), Wyoming (31), Montana (32), Arizona (33), Wisconsin (34), South Carolina (might move up, but haven't heard much out of here), Maine, Washington. 
  • Overwhelming Force: Suppress national/regional media attention to maximize organizational advantages against dispersed opposition groups; result is mainly opinion articles in local newspapers; zero coverage on national news.  A horde of trained volunteers to try to sway public opinion.  Wolf-PAC (extreme Left) and ALEC (extreme Right) seem to have a common interest.  Could this be why you never hear about this Con-Con in the national media?
  • Intense Lobbying: especially in Republican-led legislatures and governorships; get some of these part-time politicians on the payroll (legally).  Texas article this morning says that Con-Con contributions from super wealthy special interest groups increased 4X in the past 5 years.  

The Idaho defeat caught me as an outsider off guard, since Utah easily passed their new Con-Con bills (voting along party lines).  The Idaho House overwhelmingly passed the Con-Con bill, but the bill narrowly passed the Senate Committee 5-4 after over 200 people protested and 25 citizen speakers spoke against the Con-Con.  Local newspaper articles had the majority of opinion letters against Con-Con.  Less than a week later, in the Idaho Senate the bill was defeated soundly.  This same pattern of defense against Con-Con is likely to be repeated.

  • Counterattack: States that were traditionally red states but are now purple/blue such as Maryland, New Mexico, and North Carolina have bills to rescind their state's decades old Con-Con applications.  Maryland and New Mexico have the highest probability of rescinding.  The fight is not over, and this is a multi-year battle to keep the Con-Con application below 30.  The Idaho defeat was significant.

Con-Con advocates do not have an answer to the following points:

  • High Degree of Certainty: There are no official rules, no official case law; how can we be sure that this Convention will not runaway; nobody knows who will attend the convention and its most likely going to be the most extreme Left or Right advocates, and they are going their not merely to vote (like in an Electoral College) but to advocate and negotiate.
  • Deceptive Assurance: The 3/4 states ratification can be state legislatures OR conventions ["state ratifying conventions"].  3/4 states under the convention route might not be as high a bar as initially thought because many states have their own state ratifying laws; most of which from the time of the 1933 21st Amendment to repeal Prohibition (first and last time this "convention" route was used to ratify).  To figure out how the 3/4 states calculation works, one must review these 80 year old laws.  Some states allow the governor to hand pick delegates; some states are by direct election from the population; and some are picked by the state leg.  3/4 states doesn't feel as reassuring unless the details are examined.    

When your chief strategy is to blindside the American public to get to your 34 states magic number, that does not instill confidence in the transparency of the future Convention process.

You MWC folks make great points about how the Constitution is a masterpiece and this country is too diverse.  I fear something like the Iraq debacle, where the Shiites usurped all the power from the Sunnis, when the Kurds/Shiites/Sunnis were all supposed to share power (Republicans/Democrats in the US).  We are seeing the end result of this imbalance in Iraq.  I remember there was an Iraqi constitutional convention of sorts and overnight the country changed, Shiites won big, everyone else lost big.  That is a big fear I have of this.  The cementing of one party rule, would lead to the eventual breakup of the United States.  Brexit was not treated seriously (EU breakup); same with Trump's candidacy (anti-Globalist, but for how long, 4 - 8 years, particularly Executive Orders).  Don't want to +++++ around with the Constitution which could be irrecoverable.

Go Warriors!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

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.

No limit? No ledge?  Any proposed amendments in an Article V Convention would have to be ratified by 3/4 otherwise they do not take affect.  A full fledged Constitutional Convention is wholly different from an Article 5 convention.  And yes right now the way it is operating is the call for an Article 5 convention needs to be on a certain proposed amendment.  Look up the bills passed by the state legislatures calling for Article 5 conventions.

EDIT - I am not a lawyer it may be that the reason the bills calling for a convention have been about specific amendments is to prevent a full fledged Constitutional Convention and hence limits the scope of the convention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jimbo_Poke said:

No limit? No ledge?  Any proposed amendments in an Article V Convention would have to be ratified by 3/4 otherwise they do not take affect.  A full fledged Constitutional Convention is wholly different from an Article 5 convention.  And yes right now the way it is operating is the call for an Article 5 convention needs to be on a certain proposed amendment.  Look up the bills passed by the state legislatures calling for Article 5 conventions.

EDIT - I am not a lawyer it may be that the reason the bills calling for a convention have been about specific amendments is to prevent a full fledged Constitutional Convention and hence limits the scope of the convention.

The last time the state governments gave representatives wide latitude to amend the central government those representatives ran roughshod and brought back a constitution for a new central government, going around their backs to get it ratified at conventions. I think that's why they're passing bills with specific amendments.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Billings said:

Montana has a democratic governor and a democratic senator btw.  far from a far right state

And other than the national conventions, not a whole lot separates Democrats and Republicans here in Wyoming. And they're all too stingy to even consider a Constitutional Convention.

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...