Event Support COS in Oregon Support COS in your State

[MarAzul]

Only 34 states needed. Oregon should help make it happen. Eight States have already pass the call for the convention.

COS is and effort underway calling for an Article V Convention of States to propose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limits on the size and scope of the federal government, and place term limits on federal officials.

There probably is no other way to eliminate the career corruption in the Federal government and our representatives.

Email or call your local representative to express your support.

Even if you do not live in Oregon, your state representatives need to hear of your support.

https://conventionofstates.com/

 

[MarAzul]

Dislodging Wyden and De Fossio with term limits would be a grand start.

I have no illusion that a Republican would be win as the replacement. However, a better one might give it a go.
If not, then I am sure you all would select a democrat that live here and tried to represent you. It would be required, force to give way to party duty bound system.

 

[riverman]

I'm all for term limits ..I like local govt to be working for the local people..as it is I really pay close attention to the politics in my neighborhood small town..that's where it starts for me...DeFazio has a good track record of regularly having community Q and A's in Eugene and seems to reach out to the communities in the State more than any rep I've seen so far. He also does a lot of radio conferencing here. I like to see representatives actually have contact with Oregonians. Wyden has been pretty vocal in DC and is usually at the front of issues there...but I don't like the current administration so he speaks for me and probably not for you.

 

[riverman]

I do not understand why Oregon keeps voting down a sales tax which should lower property tax but won't and giving the Navy a contract to build a base and use that deep port in Coos Bay...bring some money into the state and particularly that area...best deep port undeveloped on the coast from what I've read. I'd rather see sailor's paychecks spent out on the town in Oregon than in Korea

 

[MarAzul]

so he speaks for me and probably not for you.

Not that I ever heard about.

 

[MarAzul]

giving the Navy a contract to build a base and use that deep port in Coos Bay...bring some money into the state and particularly that area...best deep port undeveloped on the coast from what I've read.

Yes, Coos bay would be just right for a Destroyer flotilla. Disperse the fleet and still be in just the right place to join Carrier Battle groups being deployed from the West Coast. A damn good place to build them too. More than enough unused dock space already in place in Coos Bay, part of the State of Dereliction. Might need to repair the hell out of some of those docks though, but the parking places are there, the channels marked and maintained.

 

[barfo]

Luckily, there's approximately zero chance that 38 states will agree to any of this crap.

barfo

 

[barfo]

I do not understand why Oregon keeps voting down a sales tax which should lower property tax but won't and giving the Navy a contract to build a base and use that deep port in Coos Bay...bring some money into the state and particularly that area...best deep port undeveloped on the coast from what I've read. I'd rather see sailor's paychecks spent out on the town in Oregon than in Korea

Has Oregon turned down a naval base at Coos Bay? My understanding was that the Navy abandoned the base over our protests.

barfo

 

[riverman]

Has Oregon turned down a naval base at Coos Bay? My understanding was that the Navy abandoned the base over our protests.

barfo

I heard they voted against it...but hey...I might just be hearing the voices in my head..very well could've been protests....tweakers have rights too damnit!

 

[MarAzul]

https://conventionofstates.com/news...il&utm_term=0_45196125c1-36e0209deb-223016501

 

[barfo]

https://conventionofstates.com/news/the-most-blatant-and-cowardly-deep-state-attack-yet?utm_source=Convention of States Project&utm_campaign=36e0209deb-&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_45196125c1-36e0209deb-223016501

So this convention of states is going to make Trump hire better White House staff? It doesn't explain how that will come about.

barfo

 

[lawai'a]

As former Chief Justice Burger wrote, a “Constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all for special interest groups.”
“I certainly would not want a constitutional convention. Whoa! Who knows what would come out of it?”a

Former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scali

the biggest problem to the convention is that no one can control the agenda. everything goes on the table, including the bill of rights.
i agree with you about term limits, and personally i would like to limit the monies involved in our elections. but tackling free speech-donation issues would be very very difficult since
the high court equates a corporation to a person. brokered deals and riders would be the coin of the realm at any constitutional convention i fear.

 

[H.C.]

Koch brothers.

No thank you.

 

[MarAzul]

Constitutional Convention

No, it is a Convention of the States. As per article 5 of the Constitution.

 

[lawai'a]

No, it is a Convention of the States. As per article 5 of the Constitution.

yes, it is a convention of states article V constitutional convention.
amendments to the constitution,yes?

 

[MarAzul]

yes, it is a convention of states article V constitutional convention.
amendments to the constitution,yes?

Yes, a convention to purpose amendments. The approval process remains the same unlike the Constitutional Convention where we had no Constitution. So this would be the first time article 5 was evoked, at least I think so.

 

[lawai'a]

Yes, a convention to purpose amendments. The approval process remains the same unlike the Constitutional Convention where we had no Constitution. So this would be the first time article 5 was evoked, at least I think so.

i get the subtle difference, yet still, it is a constitutional convention and that is what the two supreme court justices were referring to. a convention of states article V constitutional convention.

 

[MarAzul]

i get the subtle difference, yet still, it is a constitutional convention and that is what the two supreme court justices were referring to. a convention of states article V constitutional convention.

I guess I do not agree this is what they are referring to. Since there has never been one. Referring to what has never been does not make sense for being compared as if held today. I think they are referring to the Constitutional Convention actually held in 1787 or so as being a problem if held today. Probably very true. But I do not see the same problem with a Convention of the State that can only propose amendments to the Constitution. The approval process would still be the same. What would be different would be on something like Term limits, not likely any Congressman would propose this but if the Convention of States did and his state supports it, then he sure as hell best vote for it.

 

[lawai'a]

I guess I do not agree this is what they are referring to. Since there has never been one. Referring to what has never been does not make sense for being compared as if held today. I think they are referring to the Constitutional Convention actually held in 1787 or so as being a problem if held today. Probably very true. But I do not see the same problem with a Convention of the State that can only propose amendments to the Constitution. The approval process would still be the same. What would be different would be on something like Term limits, not likely any Congressman would propose this but if the Convention of States did and his state supports it, then he sure as hell best vote for it.

Black's Law Dictionary, the definitive legal lexicon in American law, defines the term constitutional convention, then refers to an Article V convention as an example of one:

Constitutional convention. A duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising, or amending its constitution. Art. V of U.S. Const. provides that a Constitutional Convention may be called on application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the states. [Emphasis added]

This definition of a constitutional convention originates from the second edition of A Law Dictionary: Containing Definitions of the Terms and Phrases of American and English Jurisprudence, Ancient, and Modern published in 1910, by Henry Campbell Black (1860-1927), and remains unchanged in contemporary editions of Black's Law Dictionary.

 

[jlprk]

Convention of States to propose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limits on the size and scope of the federal government

1) Would this stop trillion-dollar tax cuts for the rich, which have occurred for decades early in every new Republican president's term, and are a main cause of big deficits?

2) After Reagan was elected (because he promised in every speech to balance the budget while criticizing Carters' small deficits), he immediately multiplied the federal deficit to 8 times that of Carter, easily an historic high. It has never recovered since. In reaction, the 1985 Gramm–Rudman–Hollings act set spending limits on Congress, which the Republican majority ignored at the slightest sign of good news in 1990, rendering the bill moot. A new constitutional amendment would be similarly ignored by those in power.

I do not understand why Oregon keeps voting down a sales tax which should lower property tax but won't

Pretty obvious. You need to become as smart as the average voter. Sales tax impacts mostly the lower class (a regressive tax). Property tax impacts the middle and upper classes (a progressive tax). You can't squeeze blood from a turnip.

 

[MarAzul]

Black's Law Dictionary, the definitive legal lexicon in American law, defines the term constitutional convention, then refers to an Article V convention as an example of one:

Constitutional convention. A duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising, or amending its constitution. Art. V of U.S. Const. provides that a Constitutional Convention may be called on application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the states. [Emphasis added]

This definition of a constitutional convention originates from the second edition of A Law Dictionary: Containing Definitions of the Terms and Phrases of American and English Jurisprudence, Ancient, and Modern published in 1910, by Henry Campbell Black (1860-1927), and remains unchanged in contemporary editions of Black's Law Dictionary.

I think you are close to agreeing, according to the data you provide.
Not being an expert in this, but I suspect the definition from the Law Dictionary is correct about the definition of a Constitutional Convention.

This is why the Convention is not called this. It is call a Convention of the States consistent with the language used in Article V
This convention is authorized in the Constitution as one of the two way to initiate an amendment to the Constitution.

A copy/past of Article V:

Article. V.

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

Note. it not the same as the Dictionary definition of a Constitutional Convention and is more restricted in scope. Therefore, that term has been specifically avoided.

 

[lawai'a]

I think you are close to agreeing, according to the data you provide.
Not being an expert in this, but I suspect the definition from the Law Dictionary is correct about the definition of a Constitutional Convention.

This is why the Convention is not called this. It is call a Convention of the States consistent with the language used in Article V
This convention is authorized in the Constitution as one of the two way to initiate an amendment to the Constitution.

A copy/past of Article V:

Article. V.

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

Note. it not the same as the Dictionary definition of a Constitutional Convention and is more restricted in scope. Therefore, that term has been specifically avoided.

Constitutional convention. A duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising, or amending its constitution.
this is by your own definition the convention of states sole function. how can it not be a constitutional convention when it is the very definition that you agree with from the law dictionary?

 

[MarAzul]

Constitutional convention. A duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising, or amending its constitution.
this is by your own definition the convention of states sole function. how can it not be a constitutional convention when it is the very definition that you agree with from the law dictionary?

Well, if you do not see the difference now, then so be it.
I do. The Convention of the States has but one function, purpose amendments, one or more. It can not approve the amendments.
Just as Article V authorizes.

 

[barfo]

MarAzul, your argument seems to be that the supreme court justices were talking about a constitutional convention OTHER than that authorized by article V.

But that would be an unconstitutional constitutional convention, so why would they even be talking about it?

It seems obvious that they were talking about article V.

Otherwise they would have said "we should not overthrow our current system of government".

barfo

 

[theprunetang]

Apparently real Americans want to follow the constitution to the letter, but now also want to change it in some way. There is a logical disconnect happening here.

 

[barfo]

MarAzul, your argument seems to be that the supreme court justices were talking about a constitutional convention OTHER than that authorized by article V.

But that would be an unconstitutional constitutional convention, so why would they even be talking about it?

It seems obvious that they were talking about article V.

Otherwise they would have said "we should not overthrow our current system of government".

barfo

Indeed, I have found Burger's quote - in a letter to Phyliss Schlafly, and it starts by saying "I am glad to respond to your inquiry about an Article V Constitutional Convention..."

barfo

 

[barfo]

Apparently real Americans want to follow the constitution to the letter, but now also want to change it in some way. There is a logical disconnect happening here.

The founders anticipated every possible future scenario, except one: they did not know that one day, people would say mean things about Donald Trump.

Thus we need to rewrite the constitution.

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

A duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising, or amending its constitution.

Yes, right or wrong, that is my view. The original convention to create the Constitutions would be very difficult to repeat and succeed again.

Article V does not authorize a Convention with all of the following activity;
"A duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising, or amending its constitution."

In fact it only authorizes Convention to purpose amending as an alternative to Congress doing so. This is also the only purpose of the effort to hold a Convention of States.

 

[barfo]

Yes, right or wrong, that is my view. The original convention to create the Constitutions would be very difficult to repeat and succeed again.

Obviously, since we have a constitution now. Making a new one would require repealing the old one, or a coup, or revolution, or what have you.

Article V does not authorize a Convention with all of the following activity;
"A duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising, or amending its constitution."

In fact it only authorizes Convention to purpose amending as an alternative to Congress doing so. This is also the only purpose of the effort to hold a Convention of States.

Again: Article V is what everyone is talking about. Doesn't matter whether you call it a Constitutional Convention or Convention of States. It's the only type available without a revolution of some sort.

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

A duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising, or amending its constitution.

Indeed, I have found Burger's quote - in a letter to Phyliss Schlafly, and it starts by saying "I am glad to respond to your inquiry about an Article V Constitutional Convention..."

barfo

Well I have no idea why the man wrote the letter. First of Article V does not authorize the Dictionary definition of a Constitutional Convention. Only a Convention to propose amendments. I see no reason to fear an uncontrollable free for all. Each amendment must be ratified by 3/4 of the States.

The only part of the letter that seem accurate would be the last sentence;

"What ever may need repair on our Constitution can be dealt with by specific amendments."

Yes, this is precisely the intended purpose of the Convention of the States, purpose those amendments that Congress will never purpose.