I won't be around much in the future

[charles052]

I hear ya there, oshunluvr. I think even the Income Tax (or any form of income for gov't) would take a while to hammer out.

Oh, dear Lord I do hope they never try to rewrite the constitution. Chances are with these bunch of weasels in our government today, it'll be 30,000 pages long and have more pork in it than a Petit Jean Meats Distribution center.

[richb]

No worries, Woodsmoke! I've worked at Wally World before and it's not nearly as bad a many claim...


.... Sometimes it's worse.

Just kidding.

I know you'll be back. This is a great forum. And I, like you, am somewhat conservative. I don't know about you, but I do love jokes about Democrats/liberals. Here's on of my favs that I think you'll get a kick out of:

A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, 'Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am.'

The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, 'You're in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet
above a ground elevation of 2346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 4909 minutes west longitude.'

She rolled her eyes and said, 'You must be a Republican.'

'I am,' replied the man. 'How did you know?'

'Well,' answered the balloonist, 'everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what
to do with your information, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me.'

The man smiled and responded, 'You must be a Democrat.'

'I am,' replied the balloonist. 'How did you know?'

'Well,' said the man, 'you don't know where you are or where you're going. You've risen to where
you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but, somehow, now it's my fault.'

Not cool Charles.

[SteveRiley]

There are a number of issues surrounding Article V Conventions that would need to be addressed.

* Can a state issue a general nonspecific call, or must the call address a certain issue and propose/agree to a particular amendment?

* Once convened, can a state offer additional amendments, change its amendment, or convert to a general call?

Furthermore, the decisions reached at the Convention must be ratified by 3/4 of all states -- that's 38. As Larry Lessig mentions, this is a moderating requirement that will prevent idiocy or extremes from becoming law.

By design, an Article V Convention is a mechanism for the states to alter the national government with no ability for the existing national government to interfere. Sadly, I believe the ineptitude and languor in DC has forced America to this point.

[richb]

I do not think it will ever happen Steve. The bar was set very high. And there is no general will to do so.

[Snowhog]

By design, an Article V Convention is a mechanism for the states to alter the national government with no ability for the existing national government to interfere. Sadly, I believe the ineptitude and languor in DC has forced America to this point.

In this alone, the crafters of our Constitution showed their prescience; their genius. In fact, if one reads history, it was Article V that (many) believe was the lynch pin that permitted the U.S. Constitution to be ratified. It is what allows for a bloodless revolution and eventual replacement of the Government when such Government becomes oppressive of the People. The 'right and duty' to act in such an overthrow is enshrined in our Declaration of Independence:

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

The Constitution of the United States

* * * * * * * * * *
Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

[oshunluvr]

As far as election rules and term limits. I think a major re-do of campaign finance would fix more than any other single change. I think all money donated or spent on any election should be sent into a pool and all sides get to draw on it equally. Then, when a billionaire wants to run for a governorship for his own reasons (or the Koch brother want to buy more seats to protect their fortunes), half the money he spends would go to his opponent. Then he'd have to win on the issues rather than the amount of votes he could buy with misleading ads and deflection for the real issues. He'd be up against the best and brightest that otherwise would be unable to run because they aren't rich or don't have the influence to court special interests. It would change the face of politics over night.

Interesting factoid I read this week (posted as a retort to some above comments): The vast majority of states that vote Republican also benefit way more financially from government programs (get more in Fed. dollars than their citizens pay to the IRS) than states that typically vote Democrat. There are a couple exceptions - only one of great note - Texas. Overall, based on the 2012 Electoral college: 86% of Reb. states got more income than out go vs. 55% of Dem. states. Only 3 Rep. states paid in more than they got out vs. 13 Dem. states who did. One could surmise that for all the Republicans caterwauling about government spending - they sure don't mind taking more than their fair share.

Sort of like the Republican in charles052s joke. The women never blamed him for her situation, she simply stated the truth that he hadn't helped. When I read that joke, I assumed all his guilt over his overtly dishonest behavior (stealing, lying, etc.) has made him defensive.

[bsniadajewski]

Oh, dear Lord I do hope they never try to rewrite the constitution. Chances are with these bunch of weasels in our government today, it'll be 30,000 pages long and have more pork in it than a Petit Jean Meats Distribution center.

++++1