GOP sponsored Constitutional convention?
-
-
-
Now, let's hear from somebody that may actually know a thing or two about the Constitution:
https://conventionofstates.nationbuilder.com/justice_antonin_article_v_convention
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
The planks of the Convention of States' movement — such as term limits for federal bureaucrats in addition to members of Congress — stand to attract acolytes of Trumpism savoring the means to MAGA-fy the Constitution, and therefore, the nation.
I see the article bears all the hallmarks of serious thinking.
-
Now, let's hear from somebody that may actually know a thing or two about the Constitution:
https://conventionofstates.nationbuilder.com/justice_antonin_article_v_convention
@Jolly said in GOP sponsored Constitutional convention?:
Now, let's hear from somebody that may actually know a thing or two about the Constitution:
https://conventionofstates.nationbuilder.com/justice_antonin_article_v_convention
MR. DALY: All right. Professor Scalia, Richard Rovere in the New Yorker, suggested that the convention method of amendment might reinstate segregation and even slavery, throw out much or all of the Bill of Rights, eliminate the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, reverse any Supreme Court decision the members didn't like, and perhaps for good measure, eliminate the Supreme Court, itself. [Laughter.] Now, what would you anticipate from an unlimited convention?
ANTONIN SCALIA, professor of law, University of Chicago: I suppose it might even pass a bill of attainder to hang Richard Rovere. [Laughter.] All those things are possible, I suppose, just as it is possible that the Congress tomorrow might pass a law abolishing social security as of the next day, or eliminating Christmas. Such things are possible, remotely possible. I have no fear that such extreme proposals would come out of a constitutional convention. Surely, whether that risk is sufficient to cause anyone to be opposed to a constitutional convention depends on how high we think the risk is and how necessary we think the convention is. If we thought the Congress were not necessary for any other purpose, the risk that it might abolish social security would probably be enough to tell its members to go home. So, it really comes down to whether we think a constitutional convention is necessary. I think it is necessary for some purposes, and I am willing to accept what seems to me a minimal risk of intemperate action. The founders inserted this alternative method of obtaining constitutional amendments because they knew the Congress would be unwilling to give attention to many issues the people are concerned with, particularly those involving restrictions on the federal government's own power. The founders foresaw that and they provided the convention as a remedy. If the only way to get that convention is to take this minimal risk, then it is a reasonable one.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what serious thinking looks like. An attempt at weighing pros and cons, risks and rewards, with an open-eyed acknowledgment of both.
Through Covid and various presidential elections, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that people are capable of this level of thought.
-
@Jolly said in GOP sponsored Constitutional convention?:
Now, let's hear from somebody that may actually know a thing or two about the Constitution:
https://conventionofstates.nationbuilder.com/justice_antonin_article_v_convention
MR. DALY: All right. Professor Scalia, Richard Rovere in the New Yorker, suggested that the convention method of amendment might reinstate segregation and even slavery, throw out much or all of the Bill of Rights, eliminate the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, reverse any Supreme Court decision the members didn't like, and perhaps for good measure, eliminate the Supreme Court, itself. [Laughter.] Now, what would you anticipate from an unlimited convention?
ANTONIN SCALIA, professor of law, University of Chicago: I suppose it might even pass a bill of attainder to hang Richard Rovere. [Laughter.] All those things are possible, I suppose, just as it is possible that the Congress tomorrow might pass a law abolishing social security as of the next day, or eliminating Christmas. Such things are possible, remotely possible. I have no fear that such extreme proposals would come out of a constitutional convention. Surely, whether that risk is sufficient to cause anyone to be opposed to a constitutional convention depends on how high we think the risk is and how necessary we think the convention is. If we thought the Congress were not necessary for any other purpose, the risk that it might abolish social security would probably be enough to tell its members to go home. So, it really comes down to whether we think a constitutional convention is necessary. I think it is necessary for some purposes, and I am willing to accept what seems to me a minimal risk of intemperate action. The founders inserted this alternative method of obtaining constitutional amendments because they knew the Congress would be unwilling to give attention to many issues the people are concerned with, particularly those involving restrictions on the federal government's own power. The founders foresaw that and they provided the convention as a remedy. If the only way to get that convention is to take this minimal risk, then it is a reasonable one.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what serious thinking looks like. An attempt at weighing pros and cons, risks and rewards, with an open-eyed acknowledgment of both.
Through Covid and various presidential elections, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that people are capable of this level of thought.
@Horace said in GOP sponsored Constitutional convention?:
@Jolly said in GOP sponsored Constitutional convention?:
Now, let's hear from somebody that may actually know a thing or two about the Constitution:
https://conventionofstates.nationbuilder.com/justice_antonin_article_v_convention
MR. DALY: All right. Professor Scalia, Richard Rovere in the New Yorker, suggested that the convention method of amendment might reinstate segregation and even slavery, throw out much or all of the Bill of Rights, eliminate the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, reverse any Supreme Court decision the members didn't like, and perhaps for good measure, eliminate the Supreme Court, itself. [Laughter.] Now, what would you anticipate from an unlimited convention?
ANTONIN SCALIA, professor of law, University of Chicago: I suppose it might even pass a bill of attainder to hang Richard Rovere. [Laughter.] All those things are possible, I suppose, just as it is possible that the Congress tomorrow might pass a law abolishing social security as of the next day, or eliminating Christmas. Such things are possible, remotely possible. I have no fear that such extreme proposals would come out of a constitutional convention. Surely, whether that risk is sufficient to cause anyone to be opposed to a constitutional convention depends on how high we think the risk is and how necessary we think the convention is. If we thought the Congress were not necessary for any other purpose, the risk that it might abolish social security would probably be enough to tell its members to go home. So, it really comes down to whether we think a constitutional convention is necessary. I think it is necessary for some purposes, and I am willing to accept what seems to me a minimal risk of intemperate action. The founders inserted this alternative method of obtaining constitutional amendments because they knew the Congress would be unwilling to give attention to many issues the people are concerned with, particularly those involving restrictions on the federal government's own power. The founders foresaw that and they provided the convention as a remedy. If the only way to get that convention is to take this minimal risk, then it is a reasonable one.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what serious thinking looks like. An attempt at weighing pros and cons, risks and rewards, with an open-eyed acknowledgment of both.
Through Covid and various presidential elections, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that people are capable of this level of thought.
If one goes an looks at what convention advocates are proposing, it suddenly doesn't seem quite as scary...Term limits, spending limits, etc. Most of it is concerned with limiting Federal government power.
Whether or not this has a minute chance of actually happening revolves around whether the possible issues can be closed to a just a few things, preferably three or less, or if this would be an open convention. I'm not sure exactly what the parameters would have to be.
-
@Horace said in GOP sponsored Constitutional convention?:
@Jolly said in GOP sponsored Constitutional convention?:
Now, let's hear from somebody that may actually know a thing or two about the Constitution:
https://conventionofstates.nationbuilder.com/justice_antonin_article_v_convention
MR. DALY: All right. Professor Scalia, Richard Rovere in the New Yorker, suggested that the convention method of amendment might reinstate segregation and even slavery, throw out much or all of the Bill of Rights, eliminate the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, reverse any Supreme Court decision the members didn't like, and perhaps for good measure, eliminate the Supreme Court, itself. [Laughter.] Now, what would you anticipate from an unlimited convention?
ANTONIN SCALIA, professor of law, University of Chicago: I suppose it might even pass a bill of attainder to hang Richard Rovere. [Laughter.] All those things are possible, I suppose, just as it is possible that the Congress tomorrow might pass a law abolishing social security as of the next day, or eliminating Christmas. Such things are possible, remotely possible. I have no fear that such extreme proposals would come out of a constitutional convention. Surely, whether that risk is sufficient to cause anyone to be opposed to a constitutional convention depends on how high we think the risk is and how necessary we think the convention is. If we thought the Congress were not necessary for any other purpose, the risk that it might abolish social security would probably be enough to tell its members to go home. So, it really comes down to whether we think a constitutional convention is necessary. I think it is necessary for some purposes, and I am willing to accept what seems to me a minimal risk of intemperate action. The founders inserted this alternative method of obtaining constitutional amendments because they knew the Congress would be unwilling to give attention to many issues the people are concerned with, particularly those involving restrictions on the federal government's own power. The founders foresaw that and they provided the convention as a remedy. If the only way to get that convention is to take this minimal risk, then it is a reasonable one.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what serious thinking looks like. An attempt at weighing pros and cons, risks and rewards, with an open-eyed acknowledgment of both.
Through Covid and various presidential elections, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that people are capable of this level of thought.
If one goes an looks at what convention advocates are proposing, it suddenly doesn't seem quite as scary...Term limits, spending limits, etc. Most of it is concerned with limiting Federal government power.
Whether or not this has a minute chance of actually happening revolves around whether the possible issues can be closed to a just a few things, preferably three or less, or if this would be an open convention. I'm not sure exactly what the parameters would have to be.
