Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Ivytalk wrote:Big deal. You need 33 more states to call for an Article V convention. Will never happen.

AshevilleApp wrote:Texas is a strange place.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Big deal. You need 33 more states to call for an Article V convention. Will never happen.

I think you're right. At least it's not going to happen in our lifetimes for sure. But I think it's a shame because the Federal Government really does need to be slapped down. We have way too much power concentrated in the Federal Government right now. There's a real need to shift power more to the States.

Baldy wrote: And you're advocating to put a cunt in the White House who wants to concentrate even more power to the federal government.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Baldy wrote: And you're advocating to put a cunt in the White House who wants to concentrate even more power to the federal government.

Yes because in this case the only other realistic alternative is worse. Don't blame me. Blame the idiots that supported Trump during the Republican primaries. If the Republicans had picked ANY of the other many potential nominees they had I'd be all for them.

But not that guy. That's just a bridge too far.

Ivytalk wrote:Big deal. You need 33 more states to call for an Article V convention. Will never happen.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Big deal. You need 33 more states to call for an Article V convention. Will never happen.

Why would you poo poo this idea?

Wasn't it part of the intent of the framers?

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Big deal. You need 33 more states to call for an Article V convention. Will never happen.

Why would you poo poo this idea?

Wasn't it part of the intent of the framers?

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
Why would you poo poo this idea?

Wasn't it part of the intent of the framers?

Yeah, back when we had 13 or 14 states.

We've had this discussion before. An Article V convention would be an uncontrollable grievance festival.

Constitutional amendments should be hard to pass. They should only pass in cases where you have a supermajority of the country strongly in favor, but that’s exactly the situation we find ourselves in here, with 80 percent of the country in agreement that money is not speech and corporations are not people. So to abandon the idea that a supermajority of 80 percent cannot amend our own constitution, I think, is to abandon the idea of self-government itself. While self-government may be difficult at times, it’s a lot preferable to the alternatives of oligarchy or monarchy or autocracy.

And sure — we’re going to overturn Citizens United with words. Those words will either be in a court ruling or they’ll be in a constitutional amendment. Those words will not be perfect. I have a chapter in the book called “Magic Words.” So they won’t be perfect, they won’t be magic. Each generation of Americans is going to have to interpret those words and implement those words just as we do with our current first amendment and fourteenth amendment and entire constitution, which is not perfect. And yet, we must take that document and take those words and put them into implementation to govern ourselves and this is how we do it. So to require perfection of any set of words, whether it be a court ruling or a constitutional amendment, is really just an excuse for inaction, which at this juncture is unacceptable.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: Yeah, back when we had 13 or 14 states.

We've had this discussion before. An Article V convention would be an uncontrollable grievance festival.

So you admit that the constitution was intended to be changed but since WE'VE changed as a country, one of the ORIGINAL vehicles for change written into it is now invalid?

Man, I love you lawyers!!!

Yes, we have discussed it before and you did not convince back then either. Amendments at a an Article V convention still require 3/4's to pass.

He're an interesting interview on how overturning CU actually helps restore self governance (you know...that old liberal idea that conks are supposed to appreciate)

Constitutional amendments should be hard to pass. They should only pass in cases where you have a supermajority of the country strongly in favor, but that’s exactly the situation we find ourselves in here, with 80 percent of the country in agreement that money is not speech and corporations are not people. So to abandon the idea that a supermajority of 80 percent cannot amend our own constitution, I think, is to abandon the idea of self-government itself. While self-government may be difficult at times, it’s a lot preferable to the alternatives of oligarchy or monarchy or autocracy.

And sure — we’re going to overturn Citizens United with words. Those words will either be in a court ruling or they’ll be in a constitutional amendment. Those words will not be perfect. I have a chapter in the book called “Magic Words.” So they won’t be perfect, they won’t be magic. Each generation of Americans is going to have to interpret those words and implement those words just as we do with our current first amendment and fourteenth amendment and entire constitution, which is not perfect. And yet, we must take that document and take those words and put them into implementation to govern ourselves and this is how we do it. So to require perfection of any set of words, whether it be a court ruling or a constitutional amendment, is really just an excuse for inaction, which at this juncture is unacceptable.

http://billmoyers.com/story/will-americ ... ns-united/

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
So you admit that the constitution was intended to be changed but since WE'VE changed as a country, one of the ORIGINAL vehicles for change written into it is now invalid?

Man, I love you lawyers!!!

Yes, we have discussed it before and you did not convince back then either. Amendments at a an Article V convention still require 3/4's to pass.

He're an interesting interview on how overturning CU actually helps restore self governance (you know...that old liberal idea that conks are supposed to appreciate)



http://billmoyers.com/story/will-americ ... ns-united/

Man, you twist words worse than any lawyer I know! Your initial premise is false: I never said either that the Constitution was "intended to be changed," or that an Article V convention is invalid. All I've said is that nobody knows how it would turn out, because the Constitution contains no ground rules. Your hatred for Citizens United blinds you to the fallacy of your logic. Try again.

Postby Ivytalk

We've had this discussion before. An Article V convention would be an uncontrollable grievance festival.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: Man, you twist words worse than any lawyer I know! Your initial premise is false: I never said either that the Constitution was "intended to be changed," or that an Article V convention is invalid. All I've said is that nobody knows how it would turn out, because the Constitution contains no ground rules. Your hatred for Citizens United blinds you to the fallacy of your logic. Try again.

Well when you learn from the likes of you and JoltinJoe, is it any surprise?

Postby Ivytalk

We've had this discussion before. An Article V convention would be an uncontrollable grievance festival.

An uncontrollable grievance festival sounds fun! It's probably what this country needs. You're poo pooing simply for the sake of conservatism and the status quo which is why I appreciate you so much!