Skip to main content

View Diary: Who elected him King? (54 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I shudder to think (7+ / 0-)

    of what could happen if we actually tried to open up a Constitutional convention.  Despite some roadbumps, the Supreme Court's major opinions over the last 50 years or so have been pretty good.  If we want to clear up the Constitution on the issue of the Second Amendment or Citizens United, we'd have to be prepared for others wanting to clear it up on Roe, Griswold, Miranda, Brown, Engel, etc.  Don't open Pandora's Box unless you're sure you'll only get butterflies.

    •  We Can't Govern Because We're Totally Overwhelmed, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      twigg, Tailfish, Villanova Rhodes

      therefore

      [waves hands]

      and we create a government that works.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 08:06:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Have you noticed that the left has a majority (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kevskos

      (and growing) now? Just saying.

      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 08:22:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, I don't think they do (3+ / 0-)

        as the concept of a "majority" would apply in a Constitutional convention.  

        The amendment in a convention needs to be approved by 3/4 of the states.  Unlike presidential elections, the population of a state doesn't matter.  It's one state one vote.  So Wyoming has the same voting power as California.  I'm not sure that in this context, the left would come out ahead.  There are a lot of little (by population) red states out there.

        •  Hello! Think about what you just said! We (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kevskos

          haven't even had our Convention. How can you possibly have any idea what criteria would be set for Ratification?

          (And I certainly hope that you're not referring to something that someone did more than two hundred years ago.)

          There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

          by oldpotsmuggler on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 08:46:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The criteria for a convention (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Quicklund, DEMonrat ankle biter, elmo

            are described in Article V of the Constitution.  It says that an amendment needs to be approved by 75% of the states (through their legislatures).  

            •  Come on. We're much brighter than that!n/t (0+ / 0-)

              There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

              by oldpotsmuggler on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 09:30:35 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sorry, but it's not being "brighter" (0+ / 0-)

                to think that the existing legal requirements for amending the Constitution can be ignored. Sure, you can change those requirements through an amendment to the Constitution, but that amendment must be approved under the existing legal framework.

                •  Among Constitutional scolars, there are certainly (0+ / 0-)

                  those who accept the fact that any generation holding a Con-Con is clearly equal to the first one. The constraint is that the population can be trusted to not give assent to that which would not be better than the original. Failure to ratify would render the end product a nullity.

                  There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                  by oldpotsmuggler on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 07:56:57 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site