Texas Governor Calling For Convention Of The States To Rein In Washington

[Sapper Woody]

I didn't say that. And you know I didn't say that. You are being deliberately disingenuous.

Squire gets it.

And so does Revmitchell.

Why can't you?

I get it, too, TC! Do I get honorable mentions?

On a serious note, I can see your concern. It's a very real possibility that it would open the proverbial can of worms.

On the other hand, if that's the only way to get some things done ... drastic times?

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

 

[TCassidy]

I get it, too, TC! Do I get honorable mentions?

One Honorable Mention, coming up!

On a serious note, I can see your concern. It's a very real possibility that it would open the proverbial can of worms.

Yes. That is why a full constitutional convention bothers me.

On the other hand, if that's the only way to get some things done ... drastic times?

True. If that were the only way, I would say go for it. But there is another way which is less dangerous as the state legislatures would sideline any nonsense coming out of Washington (we would hope). If that fails we might have to resort to a convention.

 

[Revmitchell]

........Scalia is saying, essentially, that the risks inherent in a Convention of States are so minimal -- and the potential benefits so great -- that holding a Convention is one of the best things our country could do.

http://www.conventionofstates.com/mark_levin_antonin_scalia_convention_of_states/?recruiter_id=31606

 

[rsr]

What is the likelihood, given the polarization (politically and geographically) of this nation that 34 states would agree to create such a convention, given the possibility for mischief (as mentioned above) that would entail?

Can a convention, once called, be limited to only the specific purpose specified by the states? So far, 28 states have called for a convention to impose a balanced budget. Since a convention has never been called before, it is impossible to say what authority it would have once established. And by what vote would the amendments be recommended to the states? Article V is silent, but it requires that two-thirds of both the House and Senate vote to submit amendments to the states. So would the convention submit amendments to the states by a simple majority or by two-thirds majority?

And even if that were hashed out, what are the chances that 38 state legislatures or conventions would ratify the amendments?

I think it's an interesting "what if?" to contemplate, but it seems fraught with too many difficulties, ambiguities and even contradictions to be a serious project. But it sure works people up.

 

[Aaron]

A Constitutional Convention is the worst idea ever!

Yeah, let's just leave it all to Congress. That's a much better idea.

 

[TCassidy]

Yeah, let's just leave it all to Congress. That's a much better idea.

You obviously didn't read my response with any amount of understanding.

 

[InTheLight]

You obviously didn't read my response with any amount of understanding.

You keep telling people on BB that they lack reading comprehension, or they're fools, that you're smart, they're dumb. You constantly say "show me where I said that", etc. Have you ever considered that maybe the fault is not with the reader? Maybe your writing isn't clear and concise?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I believe Tom and I are in agreement. It's not the basic idea of a state called convention we oppose. Our opposition is based on what we believe to be a well founded fear of a convention gone wild. IOW, the fruit of such a convention not reflecting the conservative ideas posited above, but it would reflect the ideas of liberals of our nation.

You keep telling people on BB that they lack reading comprehension, or they're fools, that you're smart, they're dumb. You constantly say "show me where I said that", etc. Have you ever considered that maybe the fault is not with the reader? Maybe your writing isn't clear and concise?

 

[rsr]

I understand the reluctance to authorize a convention that might turn into a runaway nightmare. I used to think that way.

But again, given the polarization of our nation and the demographics, I doubt that anything much would happen except to further inflame the extremes, creating lurid headlines and sound bites and raising money for the political action organizations that thrive in such an environment.

I wonder: The original Constitutional Convention was conducted in complete secrecy. (We are indebted largely to Madison to explain the inner workings of the convention.) There is no way such a thing could be pulled off today. There would be a constant stream of tweets and Facebook posts if it tried to keep the proceedings secret, and a fully open convention would probably keep anything from happening at all, except constant repetition of talking points with an eye toward political advantage in the next election.

 

[InTheLight]

I believe Tom and I are in agreement. It's not the basic idea of a state called convention we oppose. Our opposition is based on what we believe to be a well founded fear of a convention gone wild. IOW, the fruit of such a convention not reflecting the conservative ideas posited above, but it would reflect the ideas of liberals of our nation.

It takes three-quarters of the states to approve an amendment. I'm guessing up to two-thirds of the states are red states, either have Republican controlled legislatures and/or Republican governors. I don't see how liberals could get an amendment passed in today's political climate at the state's level. Forty years ago when more states were under Democratic control they couldn't get the ERA passed. How could they get something done nowadays?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[TCassidy]

You keep telling people on BB that they lack reading comprehension, or they're fools, that you're smart, they're dumb.

Well, if you insist: "show me where I said that."

 

[InTheLight]

Well, if you insist: "show me where I said that."

Nice try, but I'm not playing. The search function for BB can do that work for you.

 

[TCassidy]

Nice try, but I'm not playing. The search function for BB can do that work for you.

Can't back up your false accusation? I thought not.

 

[Revmitchell]

I believe Tom and I are in agreement. It's not the basic idea of a state called convention we oppose. Our opposition is based on what we believe to be a well founded fear of a convention gone wild. IOW, the fruit of such a convention not reflecting the conservative ideas posited above, but it would reflect the ideas of liberals of our nation.

Scalia said it is very unlikely that could happen.

 

[HankD]

The Republican Party has ceased to exist IMO.

Their only hope is a double scenario,
First, Hillary is fully revealed and personally rejected for her clandestine and criminal activity during her 1st term.
Second, A true conservative emerges from the GOP heap and turns the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to the fathers.

HankD

 

[Squire Robertsson]

While I greatly respect the late Mr. Scalia, I need to ask why he believes it is very unlikely. And what if he is proved wrong?

Scalia said it is very unlikely that could happen.

 

[TCassidy]

The search function for BB can do that work for you.

Search: comprehension, fool, fools - search all forums - Results. No Results Found.

 

[Revmitchell]

While I greatly respect the late Mr. Scalia, I need to ask why he believes it is very unlikely. And what if he is proved wrong?

Go back and read the link I provided

 

[TCassidy]

A supposed statement made 37 years ago quoted by a man who is so biased he can't seem to get his tinfoil hat on straight most of the time.

Not to mention shilling his book.

 

[Revmitchell]

Search: comprehension, fool, fools - search all forums - Results. No Results Found.

http://www.baptistboard.com/threads...y-general’s-office.101616/page-2#post-2258791

http://www.baptistboard.com/threads...ks-hillarys-emails.100706/page-3#post-2245424