Utah Reps call for Constitutional Convention

[The Thriller]

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.

https://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/polit...nvention-constitutional-constitution.html.csp

Two Utah lawmakers are calling for a national convention to amend the U.S. Constitution, a move they say is needed to restore balance between the powers of state and federal governments.

The legislators are working with counterparts around the country and, while the odds are against them, if they succeed it would be the first such convention since the Founding Fathers met to write the document more than two centuries ago.

The separate but similar efforts are being put forward by Rep. Brad Daw, R-Orem, and outgoing House Speaker David Clark, R-Santa Clara.

Daw wants convention delegates to draft an amendment that would require the states to ratify any increase to the U.S. debt ceiling — which now stands at $14.3 trillion, but would likely have to again be raised early next year.

He said he hopes such a change would force restraint upon the federal government, much like Utah’s balanced-budget requirement has limited the Legislature.

“By having a constitutional debt limit, it helps us rein in some desire to spend a lot of money and go into debt beyond what we can. I really believe that kind of check is needed at the federal level,” Daw said.

Balanced-budget amendments have been proposed in Congress for decades, but never have gained the two-thirds support required before states had a chance to ratify it. Daw said his problem with those amendments is that they leave loopholes for Congress to avoid truly balancing spending and tax collections, but a debt ceiling would provide a tougher restriction.

Earl Fry, a political science professor at Brigham Young University, said that while such a proposal plays well to a conservative audience, the debt may have to get even worse before people are ready to take that sort of step. And there would have to be some flexibility in case of emergencies.

“[Daw is] into uncharted territory,” said Fry. “I would like to see something like that, but you always have to have the provisos that if we get into war, if we get into a major economic recession, all bets would have to be off temporarily.”

 

[VINYLONE]

Political posturing. Nothing more.

 

[Gameface]

Yeah, just a way to say look what I tried to do. Not a real chance this will happen. Not sure a constitutional amendment is the right way to go about it, either.

 

[The Thriller]

Do any of you think this is a good thing? If it were to happen, of course...

 

[VINYLONE]

Do any of you think this is a good thing? If it were to happen, of course...

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

 

[Gameface]

Do any of you think this is a good thing? If it were to happen, of course...

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.

 

[sirkickyass]

Big disadvantages to a con. con.

Part of the reason it hasn't happened for 200+ years is that no one wants to set a precendent in which the Amendment process occurs via such a purportedly populist mechanism that actually happens behind closed doors. It has long been believed that if one is ever called then they start being called frequently.

The other reason is the possibility that constitutional conventions will exceed their mandate and attempt to rewrite the Constitution in its entirety. That's not an invalid fear. That's exactly how we ended up with our current Constitution when there was a convention held to "amend" the Articles of Confederation.

 

[babe]

Do any of you think this is a good thing? If it were to happen, of course...

Eagle Forum leader Phyllis Schafly opposes the ConCon movement that's been getting some support from conservatives and other malcontents because it would surely be co-opted by progressives and end up beng a marxist constitution. . . .

and regardless of whether you're prepared to recognize that tidbit, how can you deny that we lack the "moral fiber" and "intelligence" today to produce a better Constitution than the one we have.

And we don't have the national cohesiveness to do the job anyway. The newly kingless colonists had to agree on something that could hold them together just to survive a probable Brit invasion or other European military "proposal". As they said while drafting the Declaration of Independence and again while drafting the Constitution. "If we don't hang together, we'll sure hang one by one."

balancings the budget, and paying off the debt, or declaring it fraudulent while turning the Fed out of their offices and imprisoning the banksters and eonomic bubble operators, would be a good thing. Why should Americans pay for all the expense of buying the votes of gov teatsters to get their men in office, or pay for the wars we fight to protect corporate interests abroad. We've been hoodwinked. I say we don't pay for it. Throw the fraudsters in the pokey.

 

[babe]

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

riding the wave of some other publicity gimmick. And cheering for "their" guy.

 

[One Brow]

The proposed amendment itself is a recipe for disaster. Getting even a majority of states to agree to a debt ceiling increase would create huge delays in funding. The last two or three states needed could ransom huge amounts of pork to get their approval.

I agree that a constitutional convention will not be workable. Very few amendments will stand a chance of being passed by 38 states.

 

[PearlWatson]

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.

Is the national debt a temporary problem? The congress having the ability to spend any amount of money they want is a disaster waiting to happen. That disaster keeps getting pushed forward to the next generation, but can that go on forever?

Thomas Jefferson suggested such an ammendment:

But with respect to future debt; would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt, than they may pay within their own age, or within the term of 19 years.
Thomas Jefferson, September 6, 1789

 

[The Thriller]

Is the national debt a temporary problem? The congress having the ability to spend any amount of money they want is a disaster waiting to happen. That disaster keeps getting pushed forward to the next generation, but can that go on forever?

Thomas Jefferson suggested such an ammendment:

So how much debt can we pay within 19 years? Do you know? Did Jefferson know?

Does anyone know?

In order to set a limit, we need to know... Or at least have an idea, how much debt is "a lot" in 20 years.

Just to compare, the total cost of the revolutionary war to our country is less than what many athletes of today earn annually.

In fact, the total payroll of the Jazz 20 years ago is probably significantly less than what AK47 is earning this year alone.

 

[PearlWatson]

Eagle Forum leader Phyllis Schafly opposes the ConCon movement that's been getting some support from conservatives and other malcontents because it would surely be co-opted by progressives and end up beng a marxist constitution. . . .

and regardless of whether you're prepared to recognize that tidbit, how can you deny that we lack the "moral fiber" and "intelligence" today to produce a better Constitution than the one we have.

And we don't have the national cohesiveness to do the job anyway. The newly kingless colonists had to agree on something that could hold them together just to survive a probable Brit invasion or other European military "proposal". As they said while drafting the Declaration of Independence and again while drafting the Constitution. "If we don't hang together, we'll sure hang one by one."

balancings the budget, and paying off the debt, or declaring it fraudulent while turning the Fed out of their offices and imprisoning the banksters and eonomic bubble operators, would be a good thing. Why should Americans pay for all the expense of buying the votes of gov teatsters to get their men in office, or pay for the wars we fight to protect corporate interests abroad. We've been hoodwinked. I say we don't pay for it. Throw the fraudsters in the pokey.

I agree it could backfire. You would need a respected person with the ability to articulate and persuade the apathetic masses of the need, but the media wouldn't allow that to happen. They'd label them crazy and dismiss them. Our country requires disaster before action, they can't actually plan prevention of foreseeable problems.

 

[PearlWatson]

So how much debt can we pay within 19 years? Do you know? Did Jefferson know?

Does anyone know?

In order to set a limit, we need to know... Or at least have an idea, how much debt is "a lot" in 20 years.

Just to compare, the total cost of the revolutionary war to our country is less than what many athletes of today earn annually.

In fact, the total payroll of the Jazz 20 years ago is probably significantly less than what AK47 is earning this year alone.

Some percentage of GDP? A percentage is a constant despite the change in monetary value.

 

[sirkickyass]

Some percentage of GDP? A percentage is a constant despite the change in monetary value.

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

Thanks for playing.

 

[sirkickyass]

Eagle Forum leader Phyllis Schafly opposes the ConCon movement

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 it would surely be co-opted by progressives and end up beng a marxist constitution. . . .

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.

how can you deny that we lack the "moral fiber" and "intelligence" today to produce a better Constitution than the one we have.

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.

balancings the budget, and paying off the debt, or declaring it fraudulent while turning the Fed out of their offices and imprisoning the banksters and eonomic bubble operators, would be a good thing. Why should Americans pay for all the expense of buying the votes of gov teatsters to get their men in office, or pay for the wars we fight to protect corporate interests abroad. We've been hoodwinked. I say we don't pay for it. Throw the fraudsters in the pokey.

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.

 

[Qman]

While I would like a way to restrain all government spending (federal, state and local). This particular idea has way too many issues.

First of all any arbitrary limit will cause unintended problems at some point in the future.

Not to mention the problems associated with the constitutional conventions.

 

[KatieMCR]

Everyone is ignoring the second proposal from this article.

Meanwhile, Clark is pushing for a constitutional amendment that would allow states to repeal laws passed by Congress or rules enacted by the federal government. It would take the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to enact such a repeal.

“This is a tool that I think is important and will give some balance back to the equation,” said Clark. “I just think it’s absolutely critical, especially when we’ve seen what I think is an erosion of states’ rights. I think the time has come for this to move forward.”

Clark hashed out the idea in May with the speaker of Virginia’s House of Representatives and other legislative leaders from at least 10 states have joined the effort. U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, is proposing an identical amendment in Congress.

“It smacks very closely of what was known in the pre-Civil War days as nullification, which was a scheme a number of Southern states proposed as a way to protect their interests, particularly with respect to slavery,” said Robert Keiter, a constitutional law professor at the University of Utah. “It was a theory of constitutional law that never really got any traction.”

Keiter said one could argue states already can repeal federal laws by electing people to Congress who would change the law.

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.

 

[Fesenk's Hoe]

They aren't content with minorities having equal rights.

Holy generalized reach Batman!

 

[Gameface]

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.

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.