States Likely Could Not Control Constitutional Convention

For anyone interested in learning more about the constitutional convention. This is important information because there is currently a conservative push for one to begin.


CBPP

In the coming months, a number of states are likely to consider resolutions that call for a convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced federal budget, and possibly to shrink federal authority in other, often unspecified, ways. Proponents of these resolutions claim that 28 of the 34 states required to call a constitutional convention already have passed such resolutions.

There is no way to control the scope of such because they would have the power to change any amendment that could be passed to try to govern any such event.

Although i do wonder if the supreme court could be used to protect certain parameters set forth by any such agreement entered into by the states.

IMO Yes the supreme court could do such but what say you. However it gets tricky because the scotus job is to interpret the language of that which a convention seeks to change so maybe not.

a reply to: howtonhawky

My understanding is those states would have to ratify the amendment(s). Although its been some years since I've contemplated the specifics.

PS: "Marijuana" has nearly enough states for such now too.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

yes in a democracy weed would now be legal but we are in a republic.

The constitutional convention is a very tricky event where they vote by i think two thirds states to go in and revamp the constitution.

Currently it is being pushed that the states could agree on a scope of change but once started by law no such scope would exist nor would the laws exist at that time.

It would open the door for some to remove any amendment even if they agreed not to do so.

The irony is that currently the left is lobbing to stop the convention and the right is pushing to have one started.

It is similar to having to put a patient under to do surgery by doctors that are not bound by any Hippocratic oath. hypocritical oath.

Once under they can do whatever they please with no legal ramification cause they could just remove any laws that govern their actions.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
The constitutional convention is a very tricky event where they vote by i think two thirds states to go in and revamp the constitution.

It requires 3/4's to become law.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Hippocratic oath.

a reply to: howtonhawky

I prefer my doctors to always not be under a hypocritical oath.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: howtonhawky

Hippocratic oath.

lolers

that one just flowed out on its own.

Just going to leave this here in case anyone actually cares about economics and isn't looking to cheerlead for their political team:
5 Reasons Why a Federal Balanced Budget Amendment Is a Bad Idea

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

makes more sense your way

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Just going to leave this here in case anyone actually cares about economics and isn't looking to cheerlead for their political team:
5 Reasons Why a Federal Balanced Budget Amendment Is a Bad Idea

thats rich

thanks for the link

a reply to: howtonhawky

Just saying. A balanced budget is a BAD idea. Plus it would probably tank our economy; which is doubly bad because a government needs to borrow money to get an economy out of a recession quicker. Something that would be impossible with a BBA. There is nothing wrong with winding down our debt levels and getting them to a more manageable level though (technically even now it isn't unmanageable even if it is getting closer all the time). And we DAMN well shouldn't have expanded the debt recently with that tax bill, but a BBA is BEYOND dumb and is immensely short sighted.

It should be noted that states that have implemented BBA's struggle more when in financial dire straights and have to lean more heavily on the federal government for aid.

a reply to: howtonhawky

yeah i can't wait for the new Constitution (sponsored by amazon). i wonder what awesome new amendments (sponsored by Ford) they will come up with. I bet all the politicians (sponsored by Halliburton) would never allowed their donors (sponsored by Monsanto) to cloud their sacred duty (sponsored by Bayer) to the American people...

My lucky day two joke post in a row

a reply to: smkymcnugget420

They will go after the first and second amendments right out of the gate.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Oh sorry. I thought you were looking to honestly discuss this topic since you didn't put it in the mud pit. I guess you just want to cheerlead for your political side instead. My bad. Carry on. Sorry for misinterpreting your intentions.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: howtonhawky

Oh sorry. I thought you were looking to honestly discuss this topic since you didn't put it in the mud pit. I guess you just want to cheerlead for your political side instead. My bad. Carry on. Sorry for misinterpreting your intentions.

do tell what side i am on.

you expect to be taken seriously by posting saying that "there is no need for a balanced budget".

are you sayin that was not a joke?

we do need to have a balanced budget

a reply to: howtonhawky

How about trying to read the article I posted with an open mind instead of dismissing it off hand as a joke? Brookings.edu doesn't write joke articles.

So yeah. Carry on with your political cheerleading. You don't know how to have an open mind if you can't even seriously consider opposing viewpoints and think that your opinion is a fact.

The only issues needed to be changed are the repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Perhaps you could come with a different angle.

My conscious will not allow me to open a link that is trying to push the idea that debt is positive.

It is a non starter