What do you think of the states editing the US Constitution???

Banning the Freedom of (hate) Speech, anulling the Right to Bear Arms (effective self defense)... are these not leftist positions counter to The (current) Constitution?

If Im wrong and its largely the right that wants a concon... those are two Amendments I worry about being damagingly altered as a result.

 

What happens is that the currency becomes worthless and people will start using other currencies. If you travel to developing countries, you'll see currency exchanges on almost every block. Either that, or another currency will quickly develop as a standard, such as Cambodia where people use USD to buy stuff. The local garbage is used as change. So if you buy something that costs 4 dollars with a 5 dollar bill, you'll get 4k worth of the local stuff, which can be exchanged almost everywhere for a dollar. Makes a wallet lighter since there's no longer a need for coins.

The bad results like having a lot of money in the bank is already not much of a problem since only idiots keep more than what they need for paying bills these days in USD.

 

Name the leftists who are calling for an A5 convention.

That's nothing like what we're talking about here. The 1787 ConCon was a one-off, because it wasn't held under the auspices of the governing charter in effect at the time; but an A5 convention will be.

 

Openning the constitution for change opens the whole thing. Everyone with an agenda and some influence IS going to get their grubby fingers in it.

 

I dont trust our current politicians to do the right thing at a Art V convention. In theory I am for it but in practice I think it would be sabotaged and we would lose more then we would gain.

 

The libertarian or constitutional conservative hopes at an Art V convention would be dashed.

 

Funny how close that comes to describing the status quo.

In a representative republic, trusting politicians to some degree is unavoidable. A5 presents the opportunity to choose between trusting politicians at the state level and those at the federal level. Which would you consider more acessible?

You think 38 states would ratify the repeal of 2A?

 

Not "DC", but most American voters.

Example; How many decades have we heard about term limits for Senators and Representatives? It's not Congress stopping this but voters; they're all for limiting the rights of other states but NOT themselves. Hence, the measure rarely passes in states. How can legislation pass if most state voters are against it?

 

Evidence? A link?

Frankly, I think it'll never pass because most voters can't agree on the major issues. Look at the stats on Presidential elections for a clue.

Additionally, Article V is most likely a "single issue" paragraph, one that hasn't been tested in court so, even if it's called by the required number of states, it's doubtful they can all agree on the agenda. Even if they do, it will be contested all the way to SCOTUS. That'll take years, if not decades. F***in' lawyers, eh?

 

Who says it would be local state politicians? A state could send it senators or Congressman or anyone. Of course it is different in Kansas we are small enough that I have met my Congressmen and one of our Senators. But still we dont know who would be sent.

As to the ratification, considering how the states have allowed their rights to be continually subverted until they have lost most of their power, why not? It would really come down to money at that point. Hell who says we would even have states as we know it after this? Any thing could be put forward. At least with how things are now we know what we have and where the lines are drawn. Pandora's box looks great until you open it.

 

Meaning what?

On what grounds?

The point being, the authority of the delegates comes from the state, meaning either its officials or the people; and state officials can be pressured to send the right people.

Just what do you imagine an A5 Convention is, if not the most powerful assertion of states' rights allowable under the Constitution?

 

Art V Convention will not be allowed to be held it will be argued, because the Amendment process has succeeded it. Even a conservative SCOTUS will uphold that thinking.

 

I can't make any sense outa this.

 

What mistakes are you referring to, specifically?

 

There are a number of problems related illegal immigration.

They are of various sizes and costs and have different solutions.

Today we seem to be focused on ONE approach. And, there is no justification statement that shows how that is a cost effective approach or even what problem it will solve or how serious that particular problem might be (compared to the other immigration issues). It doesn't show any recognition of the fact that the undocumented population is static - NOT growing.

And, it's soaking up the congressional bandwidth. Given that we take this one approach it means it will be highly unlikely that congress will revisit immigration. Congress rarely spends its time readdressing problems it has already acted upon.

NO corporation would make decisions in a way that is this profoundly STUPID and IRRESPONSIBLE.

 

Individual states have no authority to alter or edit the constitution. All they can do is try and get a new constitutional convention formed. This requires that 2/3 of states legislatures vote to do so. If this happens, a new convention is held, and they can do anything from a page 1 rewrite of the whole document, to passing amendments, which would then go to back to the states to be ratified.

 

Good luck.

 

It's not a democracy.

 

I cannot find a single instance of proposed legislation in any state that would "edit" the U S Constitution.

Please provide links to such initiatives if they exist.

The last serious attempt to "edit" the U S Constitution - by a number of states - was in 1861 when they tried to reject it in its entirety.

 

Of course you don't.

 

Indeed I don't, because I can't; so it's reasonable to assume you don't know what the hell you're talking about until you demonstrate otherwise by clarifying.

 

I believe that part of the constitution places state and local laws of all kind as subordinate to the national constitution- it takes precedent in any conflicting issue, While a state may pass something of this nature, that is a challenge that is legally futile in the first place. it is mostly symbolic for that reason. It also invites federal intervention.

 

An Article V convention is part of the amendment process.

 

Article V is explicitly for proposing amendments, and not for rewriting the constitution.

 

An Article V convention is not state or local law. It is constitutional law and has precedence over local, state, and federal law..