Constitutional Convention

#1
T

therealUT

Rational Thought Allowed?
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
30,347
Likes
4,191
#1
I think everyone can agree that many of the problems we have with the Federal Government cannot or will not be fixed by the Federal Government. That said, is there any possibility of a Constitutional Convention occurring within the next decade?

Currently, there are 29 GOP Governors. Thirty states would be needed to form a convention, and the majority of DNC Governors are not up for reelection until 2015. I doubt any amendments proposed would gain enough traction to entice eight more states to ratify, however, I do think that such an action could create enough pressure on Congress and shed enough light on certain key issues for the electorate.

Here are some key issues I would like to see addressed:


  • Representation in the House needs to be modified. A cap of 1 Rep per 100,000 constituents should be mandated (included in this amendment would be a vast reduction of Congressional pay).
  • Senate appointments should come from the State Legislatures.
  • Line-Item Vetoes should be available to the POTUS
  • The Executive Branch should have the ability to spend less than Congress authorizes (the Executive had this power until 1974).
  • War Powers Resolution should be curtailed (fifteen days to act without Congressional authority) and/or eliminated.
  • The Federal Minimum Wage should be eliminated.
  • The 16th Amendment should be repealed.
  • Eliminate the popular vote for POTUS.
 
#2
#2
would be a disaster - I have zero faith in a group of politician's ability to craft such major and far reaching change.
 
#3
#3
volinbham said:
would be a disaster - I have zero faith in a group of politician's ability to craft such major and far reaching change.
Click to expand...

How else would these things ever change, though?

Certainly, no Representative would ever vote to reduce the size of their own constituency; no Senator would ever vote to fundamentally alter the manner in which they are elected to one in which they would not be allowed to pander as much to an ignorant constituency; neither would vote to drastically reduce their pay and benefits.

Same can be said for reducing their power; no Congressmen would vote to give up their power and approve Line-Item Veto legislation if they truly thought it had a good chance of passing.
 
#4
#4
Only way that kind of change happens is if the government is overthrown by the people and this was what was set up after it took place.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#5
#5
I would be concerned what sort of hogwash would come out of a Constitutional Convention... do you really think the politicians at the state level would try and get this type of reform through when the majority of them aspire to federal office?
 
#6
#6
MystifyingVol said:
I would be concerned what sort of hogwash would come out of a Constitutional Convention... do you really think the politicians at the state level would try and get this type of reform through when the majority of them aspire to federal office?
Click to expand...

Their aspirations are based on perception of power. These changes would return a majority of power to the states.

Also, IIRC, there are more examples of Senators leaving D.C. to run for Governor than of Governors leaving their state to take a position as Senator or as part of a Cabinet (the latter usually only happens when holding the Gubernatorial Seat is tenuous).

The Line-Item Veto amendment would also provide the POTUS a lot more power, and, I would imagine that Governors aspire to be POTUS more than they aspire to be a Congressman.
 
#13
#13
TennesseeOrange said:
You're talking about having over 3,000 members of the house?
Click to expand...

Forgetting the number for a second, think about the average size of a representative's constituency from state to state. A rep from California or Florida, for instance, represents many more people than the rep from Wyoming or North Dakota. Needless to say, the balance ends up being wonky.
 
#14
#14
milohimself said:
Forgetting the number for a second, think about the average size of a representative's constituency from state to state. A rep from California or Florida, for instance, represents many more people than the rep from Wyoming or North Dakota. Needless to say, the balance ends up being wonky.
Click to expand...

Thirty-Thousand.org - Population per House Representative by State (2000)

That's not necessarily true. I think adding some seats to the house would be a good idea. However, I don't think having 3,000 members of the House is the solution.
 
#17
#17
milohimself said:
Why? The value in question here is obviously political expediency. I think that's something we all want. How would you go about it?
Click to expand...

When Congress is pretty evenly divided like the Senate is now, the controlling party must compromise and add things to bills to get them to pass. If the President has line-item veto power the controlling party can offer the minority party the world when amending bills while the president goes in and line items each and every one, resulting in a bill that only has what the controlling party wants in it. It's a dangerous situation that I want no part of.
 
#18
#18
TennesseeOrange said:
You're talking about having over 3,000 members of the house?
Click to expand...

Corect. I'd rather have 3,000 reps with about 100,000 constituents each than have 435 with over 700,000 each. As it currently stands, not all Reps get a turn to speak on the House Floor, anyway. The vote is what matters.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#19
#19
lumberjack4 said:
When Congress is pretty evenly divided like the Senate is now, the controlling party must compromise and add things to bills to get them to pass. If the President has line-item veto power the controlling party can offer the minority party the world when amending bills while the president goes in and line items each and every one, resulting in a bill that only has what the controlling party wants in it. It's a dangerous situation that I want no part of.
Click to expand...

So, less pork and more votes on principles would be terrible?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#20
#20
emainvol said:
Out of curiousity, how would you have the President elected?
Click to expand...

Selection of electors chosen by the Senators, Representatives, and Governor of each state. This is how the Electoral College was originally set up.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#21
#21
therealUT said:
Selection of electors chosen by the Senators, Representatives, and Governor of each state. This is how the Electoral College was originally set up.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Gotcha. Still proportional?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#23
#23
In the time it takes to seek such a convention, the GOP governorships are going to go down. Possibly way down.

Florida is already lost and there's talk of recalls if they could in other states. They went too far off the deep end and everyone's pissed.

Plus, look at the circus we have right now. You've got a Democratic POTUS trying to herd cats with the GOP and the TP utterly unable to present a unified front, you've got health care overhaul pending with federal judges taking different sides, you've got a GOP plan to scrap health care for 95 % of the people over 65, you've got two wars, and an economy that can;t get 8 feet off the ground.

I doubt very seriously that the American people are terribly interested right now in having a bunch of politicians soapbox to them even more, still getting nothing done.
 
#24
#24
lawgator1 said:
you've got a GOP plan to scrap health care for 95 % of the people over 65
Click to expand...

I keep hoping the left stops telling this lie, but then, it wouldn't be the American left if they didn't have some way of scaring old people into thinking the GOP wants to kill them and eat their grandchildren.
 
#25
#25
MG1968 said:
I keep hoping the left stops telling this lie, but then, it wouldn't be the American left if they didn't have some way of scaring old people into thinking the GOP wants to kill them and eat their grandchildren.
Click to expand...


No, that's not fair.

The GOP wants you to die if you aren't a contributing member of the Heritage Foundation or its equivalent. Because, if you are a member, it means you can pay your own way until the day you keel over in your upper west end condo or your estate in Palm Beach.

But if you were a working Joe all your life who is now retired and depend on SS or Medicare to live, they figure its a matter of simple economics. They have pretty much milked you for everything they can as a worker bee and your retirement benefits now are just a drain on their own estates for which they will get no return so they just as soon you keel over on the Greyhound bus tomorrow, before you cost too much.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top