The Republican Utopia

[BigRedBuster]

 

[ZRod]

15 hours ago, jsneb83 said:

This wolf pack? 

 

Pretty sure it's this Wolf Pack

[BigRedBuster]

This is interesting since officials from there have come out and said his statements about their city weee not correct. Guess he’s going to double down on them. 

 

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

fwiw....here's a photo of the Duck Dynasty crew before they decided to get authentic for their reality TV show:

 

 

[VectorVictor]

19 hours ago, jsneb83 said:

This wolf pack? 

 

This Wolf Pack would be more effective than the Wolf-PAC mentioned before. 

 

A Constitutional Convention would be a CRAPTACULAR idea of the highest order, because all of the right wing crackpots and morons are going to show up and try to force their ideas and ideology on all of the United States. This is the wet dream bulls*** of zealots that want to rewrite the Constitution into a Theocracy and get the country back to it's supposed "Good Old Days" (which never truly existed). 

 

Plus, we already dealt with this similar a**hattery in the Articles of Confederation (which proposed a weak Federal Government), and for every good idea (e.g. reforming the political process via Constitutional Amendment) there are a metric s**tton of bad ones:

• For example--would you like a United States that does away with the Separation of Church and state and endorses Christianity and English as the only recognized religions/languages?
• Or how about an amendment that allows states to opt out of following Federal laws if 1/3 of the states object? (Or, you know, f**k the House of Representatives). 
• Or Amendments that require a balanced budget with no exceptions (may as well put a giant 'kick me' sign on us since we'll never be able to defend ourselves during war ever again)
• Prohibit Federal regulation of an activity that is deemed wholly legal in one state (the Mormons and Southerners would love this, as they could then prevent polygamy or underage marriage from being illegal at the Federal level)?
• Maybe you'd like to allow states to override Supreme Court decisions if a majority of the states agree (this is stupid on multiple levels, but it's essentially trying to nullify the House of Representatives and the balance of power between statehood and population that our forefathers carved out)?
• Or how about requiring Super Majority votes by the Supreme Court to override laws that Congress enacts (just...f*****g...stupid).

If a Constitutional Convention is triggered, I expect a full and complete meltdown of this country, and the United States as we know it will cease to exist. And no, I'm not being alarmist--it's been covered ad nauseam for years.

 

 

 

 

 

[RedDenver]

41 minutes ago, VectorVictor said:

 

This Wolf Pack would be more effective than the Wolf-PAC mentioned before. 

 

A Constitutional Convention would be a CRAPTACULAR idea of the highest order, because all of the right wing crackpots and morons are going to show up and try to force their ideas and ideology on all of the United States. This is the wet dream bulls*** of zealots that want to rewrite the Constitution into a Theocracy and get the country back to it's supposed "Good Old Days" (which never truly existed). 

 

Plus, we already dealt with this similar a**hattery in the Articles of Confederation (which proposed a weak Federal Government), and for every good idea (e.g. reforming the political process via Constitutional Amendment) there are a metric s**tton of bad ones:

• For example--would you like a United States that does away with the Separation of Church and state and endorses Christianity and English as the only recognized religions/languages?
• Or how about an amendment that allows states to opt out of following Federal laws if 1/3 of the states object? (Or, you know, f**k the House of Representatives). 
• Or Amendments that require a balanced budget with no exceptions (may as well put a giant 'kick me' sign on us since we'll never be able to defend ourselves during war ever again)
• Prohibit Federal regulation of an activity that is deemed wholly legal in one state (the Mormons and Southerners would love this, as they could then prevent polygamy or underage marriage from being illegal at the Federal level)?
• Maybe you'd like to allow states to override Supreme Court decisions if a majority of the states agree (this is stupid on multiple levels, but it's essentially trying to nullify the House of Representatives and the balance of power between statehood and population that our forefathers carved out)?
• Or how about requiring Super Majority votes by the Supreme Court to override laws that Congress enacts (just...f*****g...stupid).

If a Constitutional Convention is triggered, I expect a full and complete meltdown of this country, and the United States as we know it will cease to exist. And no, I'm not being alarmist--it's been covered ad nauseam for years.

That's a TERRIBLE misunderstanding of how the Constitutional Convention process works. The convention can only PROPOSE potential amendments. After the Convention is over and before any amendment is actually adopted, it must be ratified by at least 3/4ths of the states. So all of these the-sky-will-fall takes on a convention are indeed just alarmists and/or don't want to see a particular amendment pass.

 

But even besides all of that, there's some debate that a limited convention could be called by the states (so that other amendment ideas could not even be considered in the convention): "Some scholars believe that states have the power to limit the scope of an Article V convention. Larry Sabato is one scholar who advanced that view. Some feel that Congress's duty to call a convention when requested by the states means that it must call the convention that the states requested. If the states, therefore, request a convention limited to a certain subject matter, then the convention that is called would likely need to be limited in the way the states requested."

 

Also, the convention isn't some free-for-all where anybody can just show up. Each state would send delegates, and only those delegates would propose and debate any amendments.

[VectorVictor]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

That's a TERRIBLE misunderstanding of how the Constitutional Convention process works. The convention can only PROPOSE potential amendments. After the Convention is over and before any amendment is actually adopted, it must be ratified by at least 3/4ths of the states. So all of these the-sky-will-fall takes on a convention are indeed just alarmists and/or don't want to see a particular amendment pass.

 

But even besides all of that, there's some debate that a limited convention could be called by the states (so that other amendment ideas could not even be considered in the convention): "Some scholars believe that states have the power to limit the scope of an Article V convention. Larry Sabato is one scholar who advanced that view. Some feel that Congress's duty to call a convention when requested by the states means that it must call the convention that the states requested. If the states, therefore, request a convention limited to a certain subject matter, then the convention that is called would likely need to be limited in the way the states requested."

 

Also, the convention isn't some free-for-all where anybody can just show up. Each state would send delegates, and only those delegates would propose and debate any amendments.

 

No. The only misunderstanding is yours. 

 

First, an actual Constitutional Convention would be a free-for-all, and the people representing states wouldn't be elected--they'd be appointed by state governors, many of whom (hey Dime Store Lex Luthor!) are of questionable moral character (at best).  

 

Second, Congress can't limit scope, they can only turn the fire hose on and step back. Hamilton even said as such when talking about this very subject, with the implication being all Congress can do is approve it--Congress has zero authority over the Convention and its results from when Congress approves the Convention until the Convention is concluded by the delegates. And frankly, there may not be a Congress after the Convention is over.

 

That's because it's highly likely that the scope of a Constitutional Convention far exceeds what it was intended for, and there's zero way to "unring" this bell once it's been rung. It's not rational, reasonable, or practical to think the people appointed to a Constitutional Convention, especially by some of these suspect Governors, will let something like a communicated scope reign in their ambitions.

 

I mean, for f***'s sake, the reason we don't have the Articles of Confederation any more is because a convention was called, and even though a scope was defined, it was exceeded, thus birthing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There's somewhat of a historical precedent for this. 

 

Third, 3/4th of all states is 38. While you have 27 Republican governors currently, that could easily change (especially if they are able to get away with future attempts at voter intimidation, hacking, and voter harassment). That means we're 11 states away from Handmaid's Tale 2.0 with no way to call back that crazy train once it's set in motion. 

 

If you go the Constitutional Convention route--it's for a new government, not a slight tweak to the existing one. That's what these zealots want when they call for a Convention and why they're willing to use the Constitutional Convention to get it. It's disingenuous to represent it as anything but and dangerous to think that one can apply a 'scope' to their ambitions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TGHusker]

10 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

 What a unbelievable thing to say.  And I ask the same thing - This Dufus is actually the president of a Univ.  Kind of like some preacher kids who take over their dad's church - it is a family business even if they aren't qualified.  When faith institutions become a business and not a ministry, they are just hiding behind the faith they pretend to represent. 

[TGHusker]

1 hour ago, VectorVictor said:

 

No. The only misunderstanding is yours. 

 

First, an actual Constitutional Convention would be a free-for-all, and the people representing states wouldn't be elected--they'd be appointed by state governors, many of whom (hey Dime Store Lex Luthor!) are of questionable moral character (at best).  

 

Second, Congress can't limit scope, they can only turn the fire hose on and step back. Hamilton even said as such when talking about this very subject, with the implication being all Congress can do is approve it--Congress has zero authority over the Convention and its results from when Congress approves the Convention until the Convention is concluded by the delegates. And frankly, there may not be a Congress after the Convention is over.

 

That's because it's highly likely that the scope of a Constitutional Convention far exceeds what it was intended for, and there's zero way to "unring" this bell once it's been rung. It's not rational, reasonable, or practical to think the people appointed to a Constitutional Convention, especially by some of these suspect Governors, will let something like a communicated scope reign in their ambitions.

 

I mean, for f***'s sake, the reason we don't have the Articles of Confederation any more is because a convention was called, and even though a scope was defined, it was exceeded, thus birthing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There's somewhat of a historical precedent for this. 

 

Third, 3/4th of all states is 38. While you have 27 Republican governors currently, that could easily change (especially if they are able to get away with future attempts at voter intimidation, hacking, and voter harassment). That means we're 11 states away from Handmaid's Tale 2.0 with no way to call back that crazy train once it's set in motion. 

 

If you go the Constitutional Convention route--it's for a new government, not a slight tweak to the existing one. That's what these zealots want when they call for a Convention and why they're willing to use the Constitutional Convention to get it. It's disingenuous to represent it as anything but and dangerous to think that one can apply a 'scope' to their ambitions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are also others proposing a Constitutional Convention or Convention of States to promote the "Liberty Amendments".

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/push-for-convention-of-the-states-to-rein-in-government-gains-steam

 

[RedDenver]

3 hours ago, VectorVictor said:

 

No. The only misunderstanding is yours. 

I don't think you read any of my post because I already explained this.

 

Quote

First, an actual Constitutional Convention would be a free-for-all, and the people representing states wouldn't be elected--they'd be appointed by state governors, many of whom (hey Dime Store Lex Luthor!) are of questionable moral character (at best).  

I already said it's not a free for all because each state would send delegates - not just anybody can show up and propose or debate at the convention. If you don't trust the states to send reasonable delegates, or at least most of the states to send reasonable delegates, then we simply disagree. Note that wolf-pac has conservative and even GOP support, so it's not like this is something that has no support in the state governments.

 

Quote

 

Second, Congress can't limit scope, they can only turn the fire hose on and step back. Hamilton even said as such when talking about this very subject, with the implication being all Congress can do is approve it--Congress has zero authority over the Convention and its results from when Congress approves the Convention until the Convention is concluded by the delegates. And frankly, there may not be a Congress after the Convention is over.

The bolded part is flat-out wrong because the CONVENTION CANNOT CHANGE ANY LAW OR RATIFY ANY AMENDMENT. The only result that the convention can have is a proposal for an amendment. Read Article V of the Constitution if you need clarification.

 

Plus I already cited that the states can request a limited scope convention, which many scholars agree is possible. And what Hamilton said is that Congress is required to call the convention - they have no ability to agree or disagree with the calling of the convention - so they have no authority to accept or reject a limited convention. The entire point is that the states can amend the Constitution in the event the federal government becomes unresponsive to the people.

 

Quote

That's because it's highly likely that the scope of a Constitutional Convention far exceeds what it was intended for, and there's zero way to "unring" this bell once it's been rung.

There's never been an Article V convention called, so all of this is just hysteria.

 

Quote

It's not rational, reasonable, or practical to think the people appointed to a Constitutional Convention, especially by some of these suspect Governors, will let something like a communicated scope reign in their ambitions.

It is entirely rational to think that state delegates will be rational since the only way for the convention to be called in the first place is if 2/3rds of the states call for the convention. And states can have different ways to select their delegates - I don't know the laws of every state but I can't imagine they're setup such that the governors will all simply select the delegates.

 

Quote

 

I mean, for f***'s sake, the reason we don't have the Articles of Confederation any more is because a convention was called, and even though a scope was defined, it was exceeded, thus birthing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There's somewhat of a historical precedent for this. 

But that wasn't an Article V Constitutional Convention - because there was no Constitution. There's very specific limits for what an Article V Convention can and cannot do.

 

Quote

Third, 3/4th of all states is 38. While you have 27 Republican governors currently, that could easily change (especially if they are able to get away with future attempts at voter intimidation, hacking, and voter harassment). That means we're 11 states away from Handmaid's Tale 2.0 with no way to call back that crazy train once it's set in motion. 

 

If you go the Constitutional Convention route--it's for a new government, not a slight tweak to the existing one. That's what these zealots want when they call for a Convention and why they're willing to use the Constitutional Convention to get it. It's disingenuous to represent it as anything but and dangerous to think that one can apply a 'scope' to their ambitions.

This is just more hyperventilating and hysteria. The governors don't get to ratify any proposed amendments - the state legislatures do. And Article V has literally nothing to do with forming or abolishing the government - if that's going to happen, then there's no reason for the people doing it to follow any part of the Constitution.

 

I stand by my original statement: you completely misunderstand what Article V does and does not allow.

[StPaulHusker]

Starting to think some of this conversation needs it’s own thread

[knapplc]

 

Every time I hear something like this from this buffoon's mouth and roll my eyes, I wonder how anyone can support *this* from a political leader.

 

And then I remember how Trump said he loves the poorly educated and it makes sense again.

[StPaulHusker]

Trump also said once that if he were to run for president, he’d run as a conservative/republican because that base is easier to manipulate 

[TGHusker]

8 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Every time I hear something like this from this buffoon's mouth and roll my eyes, I wonder how anyone can support *this* from a political leader.

 

And then I remember how Trump said he loves the poorly educated and it makes sense again.

Knapp - I had to read that quote twice - the abolition of civil rights.   Again he misspoke and meant to say  the opposite - promotion of civil rights or abolition of injustice.    Who is his speech writer and even more - who is the proof reader/editor?  They need to be fired. And if it is Trump, himself, since he likes to be his own advisor, then the "Your Fired" slip needs to be given to him (for other reasons of course) 

[mrandyk]

10 hours ago, StPaulHusker said:

Trump also said once that if he were to run for president, he’d run as a conservative/republican because that base is easier to manipulate 

Not a real quote.