Interesting discussion here about many of the red flags most throw up about the Convention of States process. Good listen, and I truly believe this is the only path we have left to rein in the Federal government and return governance to the states.

I wish that Trump had been actively supporting this for the last 1 1/2 years. He could be taking credit for making this happen while also making sure that he sent all the Dems/Libs and Swamp Critters that Impeached him twice to the Unemployment Line.

Revenge is a soup that is best served cold.

If there were a convention of the states here are the items I would like to see addressed:

1. Congressional Term Limits
2. Congressional, Judicial, and Presidential Age Limits
3. Judicial Term Limits, Appointment Process (Harry Reed and Mitch McConnell would be powerless to do anything other than vote yes or no on a Presidential appointment, 2 Senate vetoes and the President can select the third justice without Senate confirmation), and Court Size (20-30 SCOTUS justices chosen at random for each case, equal number of termed our justices every year)

This is something us liberals could also support.

The key question in my mind is this ..

Do you trust the process?

It cuts both ways.

You are opening Pandora's box with this.

Convention of the states sounds good in theory, but do you trust the process?

For example. Look at the Roe deal.

Pro-abortion people were the ones that went to the well. Pro-abortion people are the ones that brought the case and put it in front of the court.

And they got popped. They overplayed their hand. They would have been better off doing nothing but they tried to force the issue.

Is a convention of the states a good idea?

I don't know.

Watch the segment. That is specifically addressed.

It definitely is a good idea. The whole arrangement is doomed in its present form if there is no correction to the over-reach of federal power. The ideologies are not compatible -- only laws that restore something of the strength of the states being individual laboratories and cultures can preserve it. This is especially true with the growth of DC tending to simply parrot international agendas. That really needs to be nipped in the bud.

I had a Poli Sci teacher who told us (many decades ago), that if we had one of those, they could potentially vote to dissolve the Constitution and the Union. Its not limited by the issue they are gathering for. But given we haven't had one, who knows.

The convention does not pass the amendments. It goes through the ratification process of state voting on the proposed amendments that come out of it.

Exactly. By definition nothing overly radical is going to get through the amendment process. All it is designed to do is bypass entrenched self-interest in D.C. interfering. You still have to seek amendments sides can agree on--- and some posters successfully listed some above.

AgBQ-00 said:

---

The convention does not pass the amendments. It goes through the ratification process of state voting on the proposed amendments that come out of it.

---

Thanks for the clarification.

It takes 2/3 of the states (34) to call for a convention of states, and 3/4 of the states (38) would have to approve whatever the convention proposed.

Not going to happen.

Hold up, do y'all not support the 17th amendment? (Direct election of Senators) Santorum seems to be claiming that letting State Legislators vote for the senators somehow gives more power to the people and is a better check on power than a direct election?

Quote:

---

This is something us liberals could also support.

---

This is the main reason I'm opposed to it. Libs do not deal in good faith. We already have a good framework (Constitution). I understand that it has been usurped to a degree, but it is still what protects our rights from power grabs by the left.

Also, any new amendments that came from it could be corrupted by the left as easily as the current ones have been.

Yes the 17th should be repealed. It would force focus back to the local/state level and give states more say in the direction of the fedgov. The closer we get to direct democracy the worse off we are. The founders' system is the best ever created and we are seeing the bitter fruit of getting away from it.

AgBQ-00 said:

---

Yes the 17th should be repealed. It would force focus back to the local/state level and give states more say in the direction of the fedgov. The closer we get to direct democracy the worse off we are. The founders' system is the best ever created and we are seeing the bitter fruit of getting away from it.

---

This is true. Also, it it is worth noting that some of the more problematic amendments are those simply imposed by fiat after the Civil War. The normal amendment process doesn't lend itself to that as much --- even if one thinks one side or the other would be dealing in bad faith, you just strive to make sure the amendments are clear, and not especially lengthy. Follow a KISS strategy.

And again, any amendment that passes is going to have to have more than some large minority of support, it is going to have to have broad appeal.

S540841 said:

---

Hold up, do y'all not support the 17th amendment? (Direct election of Senators) Santorum seems to be claiming that letting State Legislators vote for the senators somehow gives more power to the people and is a better check on power than a direct election?

---

The 17th is a horrible Amendment, trumped only by the 16th and 18th. The Senate was supposed to be the state's vehicle for controlling the federal government. The current format has no check on the federal government and you see the result, a centralized behemoth that's completely out of control. The House is where the people derive their power, not the Senate. The 17th has resulted in a legislative body that's accountable to nobody.

(That was to Malibu)
You need to figure out a way to reduce the assets and income of the policy setting class. That is one of the greatest evils of the present. And incidentally, the point of the Convention of States is for the laws for the Congresspeople not to be subject to having to be approved by them. Right now, the `plebes' relationship you refer to is a product of that. Especially because the media class is part of it and doesn't expose it more.

Here are the 15 most liberal states, in no order:

1) Massachusetts
2) Maine
3) Vermont
4) Washington
5) New Hampshire
6) NY
7) California
8) Hawaii
9) Maryland
10) Oregon
11) Connecticut
12) Illinois
13) Rhode Island
14) Delaware
15) New Jersey

To get any amendment passed, you need to get two of those to agree. That's going to be tough to do.

The only thing likely to pass are things that take power away from the feds and give that power to the states.

dont' know if I'd call needing 15 to make 34 "extremely close"

S540841 said:

---

Hold up, do y'all not support the 17th amendment? (Direct election of Senators) Santorum seems to be claiming that letting State Legislators vote for the senators somehow gives more power to the people and is a better check on power than a direct election?

---

Putting the election of senators back into the hands of the legislatures does two things:

1) Reduces power of urban areas to the advantage of rural areas
2) Increases the power of state legislatures, significantly

One of the major impacts would be to get some of the money out of DC and into lobbies for state legislatures. It would make legislators in small states much more powerful, specifically.

I am all for revoking the 17th.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

The key question in my mind is this ..

Do you trust the process?

It cuts both ways.

You are opening Pandora's box with this.

Convention of the states sounds good in theory, but do you trust the process?

For example. Look at the Roe deal.

Pro-abortion people were the ones that went to the well. Pro-abortion people are the ones that brought the case and put it in front of the court.

And they got popped. They overplayed their hand. They would have been better off doing nothing but they tried to force the issue.

Is a convention of the states a good idea?

I don't know.

---

It's impossible for a truly "liberal" idea to be ratified as an amendment. There are like 11 "blue" state legislatures and you need 38 for ratification. We aren't going to see the 2A be repealed, there's simply nowhere near enough Democrat state legislatures to get that through.

So yes it's a good idea, in fact it's the one of a few remaining ideas left before we start shooting at each other.

Soap Box.
Ballot Box. <------- You are here. This is where a Convention of the States fits into the process.
Ammo Box.

I've been thinking about the issue since the vaccine mandates popped off.

I was 100% for the idea of a COS because I thought it was the right thing to do.

Now I've shifted back into admitting that I don't know if it's the right move or not.

It's one of those things where if you delay making a decision, the decision will be made for you.

The part I'm struggling with is that over the last two years everything has become more chaotic and off the rails.

The vast majority of people have lost touch with reality.

What I'm saying is that I can't imagine what a convention of the states would look like. My gut feeling is that it would turn into the biggest ****show we've ever seen. Nothing would get done and we'd end up worse off for it.

It's hard to imagine the process playing out. I can't even visualize a positive outcome.

Thats my gut feeling on it, but we are in a bad situation either way.

It doesn't really matter at this point.

Without it, the only stops after it are states using nullification and forms of Texit.

Malibu2 said:

---

If there were a convention of the states here are the items I would like to see addressed:

1. Congressional Term Limits - Yes
2. Congressional, Judicial, and Presidential Age Limits - Yes
3. Judicial Term Limits, Appointment Process (Harry Reed and Mitch McConnell would be powerless to do anything other than vote yes or no on a Presidential appointment, 2 Senate vetoes and the President can select the third justice without Senate confirmation), and Court Size (20-30 SCOTUS justices chosen at random for each case, equal number of termed our justices every year) - No. Cap at 9. 18 year term. Too many / rotating judges creates too much uncertainty.

---

Others, from least fringe to crazy fringe:

4) Repeal 17th
5) Give most of DC back to Maryland
6) States have the power to deport illegal aliens
7) End birthright citizenship
8) Repeal and replace the 16th. Let the Federal Government raise taxes from the states, not individuals. Not sure how to set it up, but it would go: individual ---tax---> State ---tax---> Feds

BusterAg said:

---

Here are the 15 most liberal states, in no order:

1) Massachusetts
2) Maine
3) Vermont
4) Washington
5) New Hampshire
6) NY
7) California
8) Hawaii
9) Maryland
10) Oregon
11) Connecticut
12) Illinois
13) Rhode Island
14) Delaware
15) New Jersey

To get any amendment passed, you need to get two of those to agree. That's going to be tough to do.

The only thing likely to pass are things that take power away from the feds and give that power to the states.

---

Not sure why you have New Hampshire in that list. They are a red dot in a sea of blue for most elections. Minnesota is more liberal by a lot.

Your number 8 i think needs to be to get rid of all income tax and property tax and go to strictly sales tax capped at a certain percentage total. So the state couldn't do 12% and the fed add another 12% or some such. It should be like a 10-15% total and the states get a cut and the fedgov gets what's left.

Malibu2 said:

---

If there were a convention of the states here are the items I would like to see addressed:

1. Congressional Term Limits
2. Congressional, Judicial, and Presidential Age Limits
3. Judicial Term Limits, Appointment Process (Harry Reed and Mitch McConnell would be powerless to do anything other than vote yes or no on a Presidential appointment, 2 Senate vetoes and the President can select the third justice without Senate confirmation), and Court Size (20-30 SCOTUS justices chosen at random for each case, equal number of termed our justices every year)

---

1. Agreed
2. Stupid
3. Absolutely absurd

Removing senate confirmation for any judicial appointment is the most idiotic proposal I've ever heard. The Executive branch would completely control SCOTUS basically rendering the checks and balances system completely ineffectual.

4. Balanced Budget amendment

I think I read an opinion piece that this could happen in 2024. Would be pretty interesting election year coverage and angst. Dc and congress critters of all flavors will be horrified to be threatened by it if so.

It would make brexit coverage and propaganda look tame by comparison.

I really hope it happens. ASAP.

This was a spit balling idea and on further thought the president could just nominate bozo the clown twice and then proceed with their actual hyper partisan pick so I concede the point that this is a practically terrible idea.

I do think the idea that the Senate must vote over down without gimmicks is necessary.

Being a real estate guy I don't like balanced-budget amendment, but I do like fiscal sanity. For instance, spending $1 billion financed over 30 years to build a port that will generate way more than that in customs revenue creates national debt that is easily serviced by an expanded national economy. That to me is exactly what we want to do. In addition, some wars are existential in nature and I don't want an amendment that makes us fight with two hands tied behind our back because we cant borrow tons of money to make sure that we can preserve the American way of life. So, how do you form an amendment that allows for some kind of debt spending that grows in the national pie and allows us to have the ability to borrow in a national emergency?

May not be popular here, but reverse Citizen's United and figure out a way to prevent wealthy people like George Soros from buying elections. The big money and dark money going into these races has gotten way out of control.

Repeal the 19th.

PaulC_80 said:

---

I wish that Trump had been actively supporting this for the last 1 1/2 years. He could be taking credit for making this happen while also making sure that he sent all the Dems/Libs and Swamp Critters that Impeached him twice to the Unemployment Line.

Revenge is a soup that is best served cold.

---

I actually want Trump to come out AGAINST it. Trump Country already has already passed their resolutions - it's time to convince the final purple and blue states. Use reverse psychology on em!

Malibu2 said:

---

Being a real estate guy I don't like balanced-budget amendment, but I do like fiscal sanity. For instance, spending $1 billion financed over 30 years to build a port that will generate way more than that in customs revenue creates national debt that is easily serviced by an expanded national economy. That to me is exactly what we want to do. In addition, some wars are existential in nature and I don't want an amendment that makes us fight with two hands tied behind our back because we cant borrow tons of money to make sure that we can preserve the American way of life. So, how do you form an amendment that allows for some kind of debt spending that grows in the national pie and allows us to have the ability to borrow in a national emergency?

---

I'd consider limiting the percent deficit over a rolling three year period. So the deficit can only be like 2% of prior year GDP per year and a max of 4% in any three year period. Right now the deficit is like 10%-15% of GDP.