DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on January 09, 2016, 02:05:02 AM
-
. Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.
· Require Congress to balance its budget.
· Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.
· Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law.
· Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
· Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.
· Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.
· Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.
· Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/texas-governor-calls-for-constitutional-convention/ar-CCiIFz?li=BBnb7Kz
I think some of these are already in the bill of rights, the part we are not enforcing on the government.
-
A oppose each and every one of these. Two thirds of the states could be a rather small majority of the people.
None of these will ever pass, and I am grateful for that.
-
As am I, that my 2nd amendment rights won't be revoked, by ignorant leftists who think it was all about slaves and muskets
-
I think what the governor is bugged by is the commerce clause.
The Commerce clause is a lot of power for the federal government, and is only very loosely connected to constitutionality.
A constitutional convention would be a tremendous event , and I would be awfully nervous about the results. I do not consider our present crop of leaders quite trustworthy and educated enough to improve on the work of Madison and company.
-
The Fed appears to use the Commerce Clause every time they wish to justify ever-growing expansion of their reach & power
I do agree that likely none of the proposed amendments would pass the ratifying requirements. Then again, you'd think the left would salivate at the idea of proposing their own amendment to largely undo the 2nd amendment, at such a convention
-
The first constitution was about slaves, and muskets were about all they had. Slaves were specifically mentioned.
I think we have plenty pf smart people, certainly more than there were in the 1780's, But I doubt they would be the ones doing the work.
-
Slavery is not just mentioned in the constitution , limits on it were imposed by the constitution , because in the 1770's the new country was already divided severely on this question.
-
Most countries rewrite their constitutions periodically. The UK and Israel have no constitution. I think Mexico has had six, the latest from 1917.
Canada's Constitution I think dates from the formation of the Dominion in 1867.
We certainly change the idea that money is speech and that corporations are people, because neither is true and this fiction makes the entire process something that can be bought by plutocrats.
-
And buy their candidates, like Clinton
-
Most countries rewrite their constitutions periodically.
I didn't know that!
Which of these are good examples of why this is a good idea?
The founders very likely thought that amendment would be more frequent than it has turned out to be.
Changing the basic rules is like reprogramming your computer starting with the OS, it is unpredictable which of the lesser systems will fail due to the change in the basic rule.
In Japan they are still using the constitution imposed during the occupation , this was composed by Macarthur's staff. This is probably a lot longer service than McArthur expected. I believe the Japanese are reluctant to run the risk of reformatting this constitution , the new result being unpredictable and the present constitution being serviceable enough.
We are in a similar situation vs constitution , the language may be archaic and the concepts dated and several features we have outgrown, but who do we trust to write another? The Congress we have right now?
No.....
Not them.
-
There is a vast difference between 1790 and 1945. 155 years, to be precise.
-
Corporations pay donations to get their lobbyists' feet in the door. The lobbyists often write the legislation they want passed..
-
Didn't quite answer Plane's question now, did it. Let's try again
Which of these (countries) are good examples of why this (rewriting their constitution) is a good idea?
-
The Mexican Constitution of 1917 eliminated undue influence from the US and other countries in Mexico.
Foreigners had more rights under the Constitution of 1857 than Mexican citizens after Porfirio Diaz' judges got through with it.
-
So Mexico, in its current state. is your prime example of why we should change our Constitution? Seriously? Well....at least you answered the question, so that's .... at least something good
-
muskets were about all they had.
And they didn't have desktop computers and fancy color printers
but that doesn't mean freedom of the press somehow changes.
-
touche'
-
Printers and printing presses are not lethal.
-
Not the point now, is it. The point is that those that exercise their 1st amendment rights now use the most modern of tools.
-
Printers and printing presses are not lethal.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Were muskets not lethal when the 2nd Amendment was passed?
Or wait a minute do you think that is typo and they meant to
say "the right of the people to keep and bear Muskets"?
-
There is a vast difference between 1790 and 1945. 155 years, to be precise.
People are people , a few generations don't change the basics.
I think what makes the Japanese constitution unique is that it was written by competent well intentioned, well educated people ---who had no need for compromises!