Utah Reps call for Constitutional Convention

[babe]

You mean the same Phyllis Schafly that opposed the equal rights amendment because it would "surely" lead to the abolition of separated sex restrooms?

Well obviously we should take her seriously.




Because if there's one thing we've seen over the last two years it's that progressives are fantastically effective at pushing through their agenda and marxism is alive and well as a popular political ideology in the United States.



Well I can see why you would celebrate the "moral fiber" of the founding fathers given that a sizable number of them were slave owners and their "intelligence" given that none of them were women or people of color.

But seriously, any serious assertion that people were somehow smarter or better in the 1780s than in the 2010s is outrageous romanticism that flies in the face of virtually every other development over the same period of time.




Obviously an educated, reasoned, and well-thought out opinion with a clear understanding of all the various issues at play.

I take you just as seriously as you permit me to.

Phyllis Schafly is still articulate and the Eagle Forum still runs an effective organization, and has picked up a lot of momentum in recent years. I cite her opinion as one that will cause many conservatives to hold off on going whole hog on the ConCon idea.

Our founding fathers included almost half who wanted slavery to be abolished in extending liberty to all people, but the price would have been two small countries both much more vulnerable to conquest. It was a practical compromise. For a while.

George Washington suffered from a view of the natives that did not favor believing they could be included in the new government in a way that would have worked. He tried to bribe one well-educated native leader, Joseph Brant, who had led a number of tribes to assist the British during our Revolutionary War, thinking maybe the Brits had "bought" him.

We passed through a narrow window of possibility in world of unworkable compromises, by the skin of our teeth. Today we could do better at including minorities in our system but we are infected with narcissism, pessimism, skepticism, and such in the place values once taught as universals by Christ before the belief system was co-opted to build statism: service, hope, and faith.

It's not about me. It's about the ideas. Sometimes stark contrasts to prevailing notions can be a good thing.

 

[The Thriller]

Everyone is ignoring the second proposal from this article.



I read this the other day, and thought it was absolute insanity. It reeks of conservatives who want to abolish federal gun laws, and civil rights laws. They aren't content with minorities having equal rights. Yet another absurd proposal from our wonderful Utah lawmakers.

Given the fight that Utah is giving against Obamacare, I believe this action is more targeting Obamacare than anything else. I know Utah wants desperately to opt out of Obamacare as they feel that it violates their rights as state.

I could also see this action being used to fight environmental controls. Anyone else remember earlier this year or last... When a whole bunch of land was sold down south for oil/coal exploitation and the EPA stepped in to nullify the land purchases?

I know Utah reps (especially the ones mentioned) want to fight the Fed Gov over:

#1 Obamcare
#2 Federal Gov eating up Utah's land
#3 EPA

Things like guns and equal rights are on the back burner IMO. These 3 issues, IMO are the 3 top ones that Utah's reps want to fight the fed gov over.

 

[franklin]

Thoughts? I would like to know what everyone thinks about this.

One thing that jumps out at me is in the final two paragraphs that I quoted.... If "all bets" are off in times of tough economic times or war, then why the hell even have this amendment? It seems at least to me, that this type of amendment is mostly challenged exactly when federal spending up, like during tough economic times and war. So if all bets are off in times of emergency, then why even have it in the first place? It's easy to cut federal spending when the economy is good and you aren't at war.

I wasn't going to respond but your following posts show you're quite sincere. Your question here is the exact sentiment discussed in the committee at the Constitutional Convention charged with figuring out credit and money. I apologize for not remembering the exact day or details, but my recollection is that the vote was 12-1 in favor of emitting bills of credit even though they were unanimously (or nearly so) reluctant to allow federal credit. The reason the vote swung in favor of allowing credit was it would be necessary in case of emergency. If you search a little you can find the notes. The only big name I remember being on the committee was Madison.

 

[The Thriller]

Although the states differ in motives for wanting to have more power, I think most of them that are supporting motions such as putting a cap limit on debt and on having power to repeal federal acts, are doing this as a way to give the finger to Obamacare.

 

[franklin]

Political posturing. Nothing more.

LOL. You don't understand what you don't see. I can tell you this crowd is sincere. No political posturing here. Move here and you'll see.

Where were these guys when Bush was raising the deficit in unprecedented terms?

They were screaming. My experience is they get louder, more active, and numbers swell a bit when a democrat wins the White House. Your comments are MSNBCish.

 

[One Brow]

Honestly you think that conservatives don't want minorities to have equal rights? I've never heard a conservative complain that black people and other minorities have the same rights they do (assuming the particular consrvative I'm talking to is white). What I have heard are complaints that things called civil rights and equal rights actually provide special rights to certain people who fit into a narrow category while not giving those same right to everyone.

Conservatives are less likely to aggressively promote legislation requiring equal treatment, and often oppose such legislation. That's about as close as a mainstream politician can get. It's debatable whether allowing unequal treatment equates functionally to wanting that unequal treatment to occur. However, it's close enough that, for the past 2 decades or so, whenever you hear about a poitician with connection to the KKK, Stormfront, or similar groups, it's a Republican.

 

[KatieMCR]

Given the fight that Utah is giving against Obamacare, I believe this action is more targeting Obamacare than anything else. I know Utah wants desperately to opt out of Obamacare as they feel that it violates their rights as state.

I could also see this action being used to fight environmental controls. Anyone else remember earlier this year or last... When a whole bunch of land was sold down south for oil/coal exploitation and the EPA stepped in to nullify the land purchases?

I know Utah reps (especially the ones mentioned) want to fight the Fed Gov over:

#1 Obamcare
#2 Federal Gov eating up Utah's land
#3 EPA

Things like guns and equal rights are on the back burner IMO. These 3 issues, IMO are the 3 top ones that Utah's reps want to fight the fed gov over.

You really think Utah lawmakers don't want to fight the feds over guns?

Utah joins legal fight against federal gun laws

Published: Thursday, April 8, 2010 12:00 a.m. MDT
By Josh Smith, Deseret News

SALT LAKE CITY — Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff is joining the fight against federal gun laws by filing a brief supporting a disputed Montana law that exempts firearms made and sold in the same state from federal regulation.

A law passed by the Utah Legislature this year mirrors the Montana law and asserts the federal government lacks authority to regulate guns that do not cross state lines.

"This is the latest effort by states to challenge what they see as the expansion of the federal government," Shurtleff told the Deseret News.

The bill was modeled after a law adopted in Montana last year, the so-called Firearms Freedom Act, which is currently being litigated in federal district court in Missoula, Mont. The action was brought against the federal government by a group of private plaintiffs assert that current interpretation of constitutional law, as it relates to the Interstate Commerce Clause, is incorrect. The federal government has filed a motion to dismiss the matter, which is awaiting a hearing. Tennessee is the only other state that has adopted a similar law.

So far, Wyoming and South Dakota have joined Utah in signing the brief and Shurtleff said he is hoping more states with similar laws sign on by Friday's deadline.

The states are arguing that as long as a firearm does not cross state lines, it does not fall under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert signed the law on Feb. 26, saying it would send the message that "we will stand up for a proper balance between the state and federal government."

The Montana law sparked a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms warning that federal law still supersedes the act.

Shurtleff said his office would not be further involved after the brief is filed but said if Montana's law is struck down, Utah would likely have to fight its own legal battle.

Until the current case is resolved, Shurtleff said Utah's law can still go into effect and can be challenged in court. In case of a challenge, however, he said he would request that the case be put on hold until the Montana fight is over.

Critics said the law would simply spark an expensive legal battle that Utah can ill-afford right now, but Shurtleff and Herbert are convinced that by filing the brief the state can avoid costly direct involvement, at least for now.

Shurtleff said while he considers the legal fight "reasonable" and "not frivolous," its outcome is far from certain.

"It's certainly an uphill battle," he said. "Anytime you ask a federal judge to limit federal power it's going to be a challenge."

Link

State bird, state flower ... now a state firearm?

BY LEE DAVIDSON
The Salt Lake Tribune

Published Dec 7, 2010 03:01PM
Updated Dec 7, 2010 05:49PM
Virtually all states have a state bird, a state flower and a state motto. But Utah soon could be among the first to have an official state firearm — the Browning model 1911 .45-caliber handgun, designed by Utah gunmaker John Moses Browning.

Rep. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman — a former police officer, a life member of the National Rifle Association and an instructor for concealed weapons classes — wants to take a shot at creating that designation when the Legislature convenes next month. At least one anti-gun-violence group bemoans the move but sees no real harm.

“It would be very appropriate going into 2011 because it is the 100-year anniversary of the Browning model 1911,” Wimmer said. “It has a rich history. It was in every war from World War I to World War II, Korea, Vietnam and all the recent wars. It is still used by some military units and many police agencies.”

Wimmer said he believes some other states also have state firearms but could not name any specifically. Comprehensive websites about state symbols do not list any.

And when a Pennsylvania lawmaker proposed designating a state firearm there this year (to honor the Pennsylvania long rifle), news stories said that would create the first official state firearm in the country. That effort appears to have failed while creating some controversy with anti-violence groups, so Utah now could be the first.

“As to how the outside world views Utah, it again shows how Utah worships guns at all turns of the road,” said Gary Sackett, spokesman for the Utah Center for the Prevention of Gun Violence.

“But it is probably true that this particular firearm has an historical place, so I don’t think the bill goes to the core of what concerns us about firearm safety,” he said. “It is troubling that it places firearms on such a pedestal, but otherwise it is probably harmless.”

Wimmer says he owns a version of the gun himself, “and Browning was far ahead of his time with this model. Its style, functionality and endurability made it the most efficient and effective handgun for the last 100 years.”

It is a single-action, semiautomatic, magazine-fed and recoil-operated handgun. It became the standard-issue side arm for U.S. armed forces from 1911 to 1985 and is still carried by some U.S. forces. It had few changes since it was originally issued.

“Browning played a role in developing almost every military small arms weapons that we have,” Wimmer said, from various machine guns to automatic rifles and semiautomatic shotguns.

So Wimmer said it would be nice to honor Browning and his 1911 model handgun “and honor how it helped to protect our nation.”

Browning was born in Ogden in 1855 and died in 1926. He is credited with 128 gun patents and made his first firearm at age 13 in his father’s gun shop.

“This is not something that we are going to spend a lot of time doing, and it won’t take time away from more pressing issues,” Wimmer said of his proposal. “I think it is something that we can get done very, very quickly early in the session. I don’t think it will be controversial.”

Link

 

[Gameface]

Conservatives are less likely to aggressively promote legislation requiring equal treatment, and often oppose such legislation. That's about as close as a mainstream politician can get. It's debatable whether allowing unequal treatment equates functionally to wanting that unequal treatment to occur. However, it's close enough that, for the past 2 decades or so, whenever you hear about a poitician with connection to the KKK, Stormfront, or similar groups, it's a Republican.

Have I met more racist Republicans than I have Democrats? Yes. But I have never heard anyone make an argument that they want a different set of rights for minorities other than blatant fringe racism.

laws requiring equal treatment are often very arbitrary. There is a BIG difference between having the same rights as everyone else and having legally enforced equal treatment.

 

[PearlWatson]

Which of course is totally back-asswards because you would need to borrow money at times when GDP is declining.

Thanks for playing.

I guess you would "need" to borrow during those times if you are unwilling to curb spending.

You could also pay off the debt quicker during times of plenty instead of look for ways to spend the extra tax flow, but every x amount of years the debt should go back to zero.

There needs to be some accountability to how our taxes are spent.

The ever changing (seemingly arbitrary) tax rates and the Fed's power to control interest rates certainly do add to the difficulties in finding a good way to accomplish this goal.

 

[PearlWatson]

Conservatives are less likely to aggressively promote legislation requiring equal treatment, and often oppose such legislation. That's about as close as a mainstream politician can get. It's debatable whether allowing unequal treatment equates functionally to wanting that unequal treatment to occur. However, it's close enough that, for the past 2 decades or so, whenever you hear about a poitician with connection to the KKK, Stormfront, or similar groups, it's a Republican.

LOL! I'm sure you've heard of Robert Byrd.

 

[VINYLONE]

They were screaming. My experience is they get louder, more active, and numbers swell a bit when a democrat wins the White House. Your comments are MSNBCish.

They were? How did they vote? I mean, did they put they're money where they're mouth is? No doubt the current economic situation has gotten even worse with Obama at the helm...but let's not kid ourselves and think that he did anything different than Bush. he just continued the same old garbage in regards to the economy.

 

[The Thriller]

You really think Utah lawmakers don't want to fight the feds over guns?

I never said that.

All I said was that I think these social issues such as equal rights and gun rights aren't the primary motivating factors for these types of reforms.

Like I said in one of my first posts, I think these types of issues (such as guns) will be put on the back burner.

For Utah, it falls in this order:

#1 Repeal of Obamacare
#2 Getting the Fed Gov to turn over some/all of the 70 percent of Utah land that it owns
#3 Getting the EPA the hell out of Utah's capitalists hair. That way, they can drill baby drill. Even if it's at near or around the state's parks. Again, it was near the end of Bush's term when the fed gov was auctioning off land for big oil to drill. At the last second the EPA stepped in and told them that the auctions were invalid since they posed environmental threats to the state parks. Similar cases are found in eastern Utah with the oil shale. Similar cases were also found in southern Utah during Clinton's administration. Anyone else remember when Clinton dedicated a national park on top of a huge coal reserve? that pissed off a lot of exploiters... err capitalists... err people that provide jobs.... Which also pissed off their bought off politicians... err representatives... errr voice of the people.

In other states that would endorse such reforms like these, I think the primary motivating factor is the repeal of Obamacare.

For Arizona, for example, it might run something like:

#1 Obamacare
#2 Letting them arrest and deport whomever they choose
#3 Having more control of fed land

After these types of issues are solved, THEN we might see some issues such as guns rights being touched.

But that's just my opinion.... I truly don't think guns are what's pushing this. The repeal of Obamacare is.

 

[Gameface]

Just to chime in, I'm not a member of the Utah Republican party, but I am an avid supporter of individual rights, which includes the right to self defense which implies the freedom to use firearms. In other words, I like guns. I'm not the least bit concerned that there is any effort underway to further limit my ability to buy, sell, trade and own guns. So for me that issue is certainly on the back burner. The Supreme Court has given me confidence that my freedom to own firearms is safe for the time being.

 

[franklin]

They were? How did they vote? I mean, did they put they're money where they're mouth is? No doubt the current economic situation has gotten even worse with Obama at the helm...but let's not kid ourselves and think that he did anything different than Bush. he just continued the same old garbage in regards to the economy.

I don't have access to the Diebolds. I'm sure a lot of them sold themselves short and voted McSame while bitching the whole way to the voting booth. I saw a lot of Ron Paul signs around too.

If you listened then you would have heard the same anti-spending complaining over Bush's prescription drug program, NCLB, etc. Saying they weren't complaining then but are now is as inaccurate as saying leftists were complaining then but aren't now. I live here and interact with enough people to hear what you don't. You don't have to take my word for it, but a little searching the Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune archives will give you what you need. Utahns like to push back on the federal government a lot harder than, say, the coastal states.

As a side note, my opinion is that the economy is much better now than it was when Obama was elected. However, this shouldn't affect voting preference like we're both aware it does.

 

[VINYLONE]

As a side note, my opinion is that the economy is much better now than it was when Obama was elected. However, this shouldn't affect voting preference like we're both aware it does.

Based on what?

 

[Fesenk's Hoe]

Based on what?

His opinion, duh.

 

[LogGrad98]

I think it is a bad idea to amend the constitution to solve temporary problems. They want to set the debt limit at ~ 14trillion why? Because that's where we're at now? 14trillion might be a fry cook's weekly paycheck at some point in this nation's future. How funny would it have been if the founding fathers set our national debt limit to a constitutionally mandated $1,000,000. I can tell you that it would only lead to further amending of the constitution which doesn't make sense to me at all.

Agree.

Another side to this is the need to spend it all. If they set a "limit" it will likely become like government entitlements now: if you don't use it you lose it. I could easily picture a time in the future when the debate is to how to GET our debt to the "constitutionally mandated $14 trillion".

 

[LogGrad98]

Honestly you think that conservatives don't want minorities to have equal rights? I've never heard a conservative complain that black people and other minorities have the same rights they do (assuming the particular consrvative I'm talking to is white). What I have heard are complaints that things called civil rights and equal rights actually provide special rights to certain people who fit into a narrow category while not giving those same right to everyone.

To open a can of worms, here is a thought. Up until my birthday this year, under title 7, I was in the ONLY unprotected class in the country. White males under the age of 40. Since my birthday I am now protected in the age category. Parenthetically I am protected under the terms of "race" in that I cannot be discriminated against due to being white.

I am simply stating a fact, and I am not qualifying it as good, bad, or indifferent. It is just the way the law is laid out.

 

[Fesenk's Hoe]

To open a can of worms, here is a thought. Up until my birthday this year, under title 7, I was in the ONLY unprotected class in the country. White males under the age of 40. Since my birthday I am now protected in the age category. Parenthetically I am protected under the terms of "race" in that I cannot be discriminated against due to being white.

I am simply stating a fact, and I am not qualifying it as good, bad, or indifferent. It is just the way the law is laid out.

What about sex, religion, national origin...

 

[sirkickyass]

I guess you would "need" to borrow during those times if you are unwilling to curb spending.

Taking measures that reduce aggregate demand in the face of liquidity trap, such as curbing spending, is EXACTLY the wrong move and virtually guaranteed to worsen a recession.

You could also pay off the debt quicker during times of plenty instead of look for ways to spend the extra tax flow, but every x amount of years the debt should go back to zero.

Which suggests exactly the opposite mechanism you proposed earlier: that the debt ceiling should lower as the GDP increases. Obviously you've really thought this one out.

Of course a sliding scale like that would probably be kind of complex and we'd want some flexibility built in to deal with different types of unforeseen problems in the future. Maybe that Constitutional Amendment idea isn't the brightest for dealing with this kind of problem.

There needs to be some accountability to how our taxes are spent.

A nice piece of rhetoric and one that could have been copy-pasted from any number of debates. However, it's only tangentially relevant here.

The ever changing (seemingly arbitrary) tax rates and the Fed's power to control interest rates certainly do add to the difficulties in finding a good way to accomplish this goal.

so I'm guessing your formal economics training is pretty minimal.