Should a Con-con occur in the U.S.of A.?

United States
May 13, 2009 10:33am CST
Con-con is short for Constitutional Convention. As Washington wrote in his Farewell Address (I'll paraphrase): People if you value your freedom, do not trust a two-party system. It is susceptible to corruption by clever minds domestically and internationally. Your freedom will be compromised or destroyed. That said, be slow to choose violent revolution, rarely does it end with positive results. Value your Constitution because it has the provision to Amend when, not if, there are abuses in power. (End paraphrase.) There has been a little protest called Tea parties since the Bank bailouts before and after the election called Tea Parties. (I've not had time to follow.) Our 13 colonies' original revolution was over "taxation without representation." The small time taxes, like the paper tax, was an example of the day. Was there a tea tax? (Have not had time to tea tax point, either...) Be clear. We are way over $10 trillion in debt. Servicing debt makes us less free... The Reagan Republicans talk the talk of fiscal conservatism but what the Republican Presidents did, Starting with Reagan and including Sonny Bush, was deficit spending with the chief benefactors being the Military Industrial Complex. Obama seems to be continuing the "Age of Reagan..." The very high Medicare and Medicaid costs should be a warning of how expensive Universal Health Care could become if care is not taken. Since nobody is seriously protesting Medicare and Medicaid stupidity, I have no confidence in proposed legislation that is looming for Universal "Health Care," a Democrat "concern." Anyway, to call a Con-con requires 2/3 of the states and the math is 50 times 2 divided by three, meaning 34 States. According to scholars we already have 33. We need just one more State. (50*2/3 = 33.3 or 34.) When State 34 happens I guarantee a legal battle that will go to the Supreme Court. Since I also view our Courts corruption by clever minds, I predict that any State rescinding the State's Call for a Con-con will be "interpreted" by the Supremes leading to a negative verdict. So, if anyone has time to find out, it would be nice to have the list of the 33 States, and especially the States that rescinded. Then the remainder would be the battle ground States for a Con-con. I am explicit that the new call for a Con-con should stipulate that like the original Bill of Rights be the model for the Con-con and would package single issue proposals for Amendment to be ratified by the States. I imagine that election of the President and Vice President by popular vote will become the next ratified Amendment. Respectfully your, Steve Slaton
1 person likes this
3 responses
@xfahctor (14126)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
14 May 09
Wow, this is a 10,000 dollar issue isn't it. This can be a double edged sword. There is no construction or specifications as to what can and cannot be brought up in a Con con. Once in convention, the entire constitution can theoreticly be on the block. Though an agreament can be drafted between the states as to what is and isn't on the table, it may be a gentlmans agreament, but not nessesarily legaly binding. I would imagine it could go before the supreme court somehow to ensure that only the prepackaged proposals and agread frame work can be used, but I would be a little nearvous. I have discusses this a number of times with some people who are pretty knowlegable on the topic and all have warned staunchly against it. Still , if there would be a guaranty that the bill of rights and a number of other amendments would remain intact and no other amendments that would further restrict the rights of the states or increase the power of the federal government, than perhaps it is time. I personaly think the 16th amendment should be be repealed, this is a sure way to reign in the federal government and restore more rightfull power to the states.
@xfahctor (14126)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
14 May 09
Here is a list of states that have NOT yet called for a con con, I know several states that called for one also recinded their call, like New hampshire, but I don't know what weight that carries. California Montana Connecticut New Jersey Hawaii New York Illinois Ohio Kentucky Rhode Island Maine Vermont Massachusetts Washington Michigan West Virginia Minnesota Wisconsin
• United States
15 May 09
Thank you Xfahctor! Your list is 17. 17-33 = 50. So, since you seem to be a whiz at research, which of the 33 "rescinded" the Con-con call? Also,it is up to you if you wish to discuss your sources, but I would bet that these naysayer experts are benefactors of a white, male, racist, unconstitutional, class-based world order. I suggest that every person should carefully evaluate"Conservative" voices, especially if they thing of their own voice as conservative... Since the world is unjust, those who wish to perpetuate injustice, are really advocating the perpetuation of injustice. Most who fought the revolution were liberal wig-types because they wanted to be liberated from conservative tory-types. Yet history bears out the the Tories are dominate... Is the 16th the right to Federal Income taxing? Also, do not forget that the original Constitution had to be ratified by the States. I cannot imagine any Con-con outcome without the same provision of ratification by the States. Respectfully yours, Steve Slaton
@xfahctor (14126)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
15 May 09
Yes, the 16th amendment is in reguards to wage taxes. The states shot themselves in the foot by ratifying this amendment. By cutting this amendment, we essentialy take incredibly greater control and leash over them by eliminating this. there are a number of other's but this is a very good start. By even the TALK or HINT of this, a lot of people in washington would suddenly get pretty damn scared. this is their lifeblood. Money. When you child is out of control, whats one way to reign them in? The purse strings you the parent have over them. This is no different. the federal government is indeed a child of the states and it is indeed out of control. My state, New Hampshire retracted it's request, I don't know who else did, but it may not matter. There is no mention of calls for retraction, there is no mention of a time limit or a statute of limitations - a "sunset" time period on a vote for a convention. I actually started poking in to this a bit more today, got some more questions for some people much smarter than me about it to ask. There isn't much out there in documented process for a convention. I have learned there are two types, an all out constitutional converntion and whats called an "article 5" convention. Not sure of the difference yet, it's a bit confusing. There is one danger i spotted myself. While in full convention, any disputes involving it or the process or the particular issues discussed or not discussed, the matter would of course go to the supreme court......[b] BUT [/i] .....but... while the matter is in the courts, the convention STILL continues.... some clever usurpers could easily durring this time do a number of things that would null and void any court rulings, or even void the very court court itself. The whole process of amending the constitution was made difficult on purpose, so we would not be tempted to continuously amend it trivialy. I would imagine the process for actualy calling it in to convention entirely would have been made even more difficult. Again, I still have a number of questions to ask some people I trust and know to be very learned in constitutional matters. I'll be comming back to this discussion because I think it is not only a very important one, it is a nessesary one because it may well eventualy happen. If proven to be a usefull and safe "nuke option" for reigning in the federal government and getting our state's back, than I think we should do so, but VERY carefully and thoroughly.
• United States
13 May 09
I think that would be a great idea, and all politicians should have to attend. It seems they have forgotten what this country was really based on.
• United States
15 May 09
Melissa Ruth, As I just now re-read you comment. You said, ... "and all politicians should have to attend." Assuming that you mean that they would be witnesses from the peanut gallery, then I agree. To me, all elected politicians should be forbidden from being elected as voting representatives to Con-con. As to the number of representatives, several different approaches could be considered. I suppose there could be a case made to elect Con-con representatives from each U.S. House District. What I do not like about that is that D.C., the Native American "Nations" on reservations, and territories like Porte Rico, would not have a voice and I think they should. The conservative view would probably want each States governors to go and then select the representatives from within their existing legislatures. Of course if this absurd idea occurred, the Con-con would be worse than a waste of time... I'm for present or past politicians being stuck in the peanut gallery or they can watch from C-span. Steve
• United States
13 May 09
I totally support this. We need major changes, such as, having the congress create our money interest-free, instead of the federal reserve. There are many issues, but that is one of the most important. When Wilson signed the federal reserve act, he sold the country out. I've heard it stated that if we got back to the constitutional practice of having the congress create our money, we could save up to 75% in taxes. As well, this country is already turning socialist, we need to change this. We are turning into a nanny state
• United States
15 May 09
It IS cool to read your support. I cannot think of a better Venue where reason could be inserted into the "world order." Effectively the U.S.of.A. is an Empire that the revolutionary citizens were zealous to avoid. The Demand for the People's Bill of Rights was against what we have become. We have exceeded Hamilton's wildest dreams almost totally at the expense of freedom. So... Let's do it. Got any ideas about how we can accomplish this feat? What do you think? Respectfully yours, Steve Slaton