Event Support COS in Oregon Support COS in your State

[jlprk]

Sounds like a plan that could really happen. Why do Republicans get to have all the wild ideas? Can this convention be held under the authority of the 25th Amendment?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Sounds like a plan that could really happen. Why do Republicans get to have all the wild ideas? Can this convention be held under the authority of the 25th Amendment?

This is the powerful and secretive banjo lobby. The more poor white people that are born the more banjo pickers there will be.

 

[MARIS61]

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

Sales tax is a tax on the poorest workers. Can't be plainer than that.

A Navy base in Coos Bay would finish off Oregon's struggling fishing industry and necessitate the building of massive highways, the closing of public lands currently bringing in most of Coos County's tourism bucks, and ultimately pollute our most sensitive coastal wildlife areas.

 

[MarAzul]

A Navy base in Coos Bay would finish off Oregon's struggling fishing industry and necessitate the building of massive highways, the closing of public lands currently bringing in most of Coos County's tourism bucks, and ultimately pollute our most sensitive coastal wildlife areas.

Wow!

I see none of this doom!
The port would only be suitable for ship of modest draft, like Destroyers. No way would they spend to bucks to make port able to handle Carriers. Might need to spend a bit of money on the Railroad and the Docks.
A ship building yard there would be a grand boost to the local economy instead of concentrating it even further in already glutted
population centers.

But I would say, any improvement to a Highway to the area from the central valley would be a welcome improvement in any case.
Like the one from I-5 to Reedsport. I won't even drive that anymore after seeing a pickup truck get buried in a landslide there one dark and rainy night.

 

[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 problem is that the convention could change the ratification rules. So maybe it's 50% of the states instead.

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

The problem is that the convention could change the ratification rules. So maybe it's 50% of the states instead.

barfo

How could it change the rules? These are in Article V. Any amendment to that section would require ratification first.

I for one, am not interested in making the amendment process easier. One of the beauties of the Constitution is that it takes a super majority to change it. Very appropriate and exactly the reason to avoid a Judges that would do it by creating precedent with superior insight, accountable to no one.

 

[barfo]

How could it change the rules? These are in Article V. Any amendment to that section would require ratification first.

I for one, am not interested in making the amendment process easier. One of the beauties of the Constitution is that it takes a super majority to change it. Very appropriate and exactly the reason to avoid a Judges that would do it by creating precedent with superior insight, accountable to no one.

And yet you are in favor of a constitutional convention that supreme court jurists say might result in unconstrained changes to the constitution.

I can't make the legal argument for why that's so, but I am willing to accept that anyone on the supreme court knows enough about the constitution to be taken seriously on the issue.

barfo

 

[Hoopguru]

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

River, I agree 100%.
The tourist and Washingtonians can help offset my high property tax and maybe state income tax?
This State blew it by not having only a sales tax.
Now I feel unclean as I cant stand taxes period, but I do understand they are need to support certain gov functions.
Washington did it right by no state income tax instead a sales tax.

 

[MarAzul]

And yet you are in favor of a constitutional convention that supreme court jurists say might result in unconstrained changes to the constitution.

I can't make the legal argument for why that's so, but I am willing to accept that anyone on the supreme court knows enough about the constitution to be taken seriously on the issue.

barfo

Right! Well I guess that is that.

 

[jlprk]

Right! Well I guess that is that.

Stand up like a man! Is that your attitude when the pirates are boarding and the storm is flipping you upside-down?

 

[lawai'a]

https://www.jbs.org/jbs-news/news/item/19276-who-s-behind-a-constitutional-convention
lol, i had to reexamine my position on an article V convention in the guise of a convention of states after finding and reading the position of the john birch society today. it seems they believe it to be a horrible idea, but not for the same reason i oppose one. still it is common ground and if i can find it with the john birch society, there is still hope for republicans and democrats to find the same with one another.

 

[MarAzul]

https://www.jbs.org/jbs-news/news/item/19276-who-s-behind-a-constitutional-convention
lol, i had to reexamine my position on an article V convention in the guise of a convention of states after finding and reading the position of the john birch society today. it seems they believe it to be a horrible idea, but not for the same reason i oppose one. still it is common ground and if i can find it with the john birch society, there is still hope for republicans and democrats to find the same with one another.

It sure doesn't seem like they are opposing the same group to me. But I will not explain the terminology again. I would expect the JBs to take this position and I agree.

 

[barfo]

https://www.jbs.org/jbs-news/news/item/19276-who-s-behind-a-constitutional-convention
lol, i had to reexamine my position on an article V convention in the guise of a convention of states after finding and reading the position of the john birch society today. it seems they believe it to be a horrible idea, but not for the same reason i oppose one. still it is common ground and if i can find it with the john birch society, there is still hope for republicans and democrats to find the same with one another.

That is a rather interesting article... Marzy will be horrified to hear he's carrying water for the globalists.

barfo

 

[barfo]

It sure doesn't seem like they are opposing the same group to me. But I will not explain the terminology again. I would expect the JBs to take this position and I agree.

You don't agree! You started this thread with a call to have a convention! Or have you changed your mind (first time for everything)?

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

You don't agree! You started this thread with a call to have a convention! Or have you changed your mind (first time for everything)?

barfo

You are confused barf and it is not the first time.

 

[barfo]

You are confused barf and it is not the first time.

Seems to me it is you who is confused. But perhaps it is just that you failed to communicate?

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

Seems to me it is you who is confused. But perhaps it is just that you failed to communicate?

barfo

Well this is as clear as I can be.
I agree with the JB society and their reasons for opposing a Constitution Convention.
I support the Convention of the States to put forth some amendments to the Constitution for the ratification or not by the States.
I do hope this does not add to your confusion.

 

[barfo]

Well this is as clear as I can be.
I agree with the JB society and their reasons for opposing a Constitution Convention.
I support the Convention of the States to put forth some amendments to the Constitution for the ratification or not by the States.
I do hope this does not add to your confusion.

As has been pointed out numerous times here, Constitutional Convention = Convention of the States. There's not two mechanisms. There's just one.

So you are both for it and against it. Which is amusing.

barfo

 

[barfo]

You should read this, the entire thing. I know it's long, but it is written by right-wing nutballs so you should find it to your liking.

However, it DIRECTLY addresses the point about your two types of constitutional convention, and directly addresses your "Convention of States".

Spoiler

You're wrong

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

Which is amusing.

>>> You are confused, not amused.

There's not two mechanisms. There's just one.

>>> Correct, there is only one authorized in Article V

Constitutional Convention = Convention of the States

>>> This is obtuse but I will indulge one time. This very well could be true.
But a Convention of the States as authorized in Article V is Not Equal to Constitutional Convention as defined in the dictionary.

Carry on!

 

[MarAzul]

You should read this, the entire thing. I know it's long, but it is written by right-wing nutballs so you should find it to your liking.

However, it DIRECTLY addresses the point about your two types of constitutional convention, and directly addresses your "Convention of States".

Spoiler

You're wrong

barfo

Too long, I read to the first error. No need to go further as they were confused.

 

[barfo]

But a Convention of the States as authorized in Article V is Not Equal to Constitutional Convention as defined in the dictionary.

Why is that relevant? The dictionary definition doesn't have any role here.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Too long, I read to the first error. No need to go further as they were confused.

Ok, you've got your mind made up that people are looking in the dictionary and deciding they want whatever it says there under 'constitutional convention'. I don't see any evidence that anyone but you thinks that, but...

Carry on!

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

Why is that relevant? The dictionary definition doesn't have any role here.

barfo

I think you are correct. The founders did it, a one time deal. Unless of course we have the revolution to start over.
Then we have no rules going in.

 

[barfo]

Too long, I read to the first error. No need to go further as they were confused.

You do understand that that is the magazine of the John Birch society, and that is the source article which lays out the views that you said you agreed with.
And that article says that the Convention of States is a globalist plot and should not be allowed to happen.
I think they are confused, but so are you.

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

You do understand that that is the magazine of the John Birch society, and that is the source article which lays out the views that you said you agreed with.
And that article says that the Convention of States is a globalist plot and should not be allowed to happen.
I think they are confused, but so are you.

barfo

It is a different article barf. Perhaps those that make up them are not is sync, but I am not confused even though you probably are.
Carry on!

 

[lawai'a]

COSP’s proposed delegate-constraining laws will not work for several reasons. First, nothing in the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to control their states’ delegates any more than state legislatures can control their states’ Members of Congress. Once selected, delegates to an Article V convention become federal officials with authority derived from Article V, not from the states. In Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., the U.S. Supreme Court held that, when state officials derive their powers from the U.S. Constitution, federal law can constrain state officials’ actions.

Second, even if such state laws were valid and binding, no one is or can be empowered to enforce them. Article V limits Congress’s role to calling a convention once a sufficient number of states have made valid requests; it would have no authority to oust delegates even if it wanted to do so. As noted, the Supreme Court has made clear that such matters as political questions that federal courts may not decide. State courts have no authority to intervene in a federal constitutional convention.

Finally, even if such laws were valid and enforceable, the convention would almost certainly finish its work before the laws could be invoked. Particularly if delegates are aware of such state laws, they could readily arrange for all matters before the convention to be decided by a single up-or-down vote at the end of its proceedings. Negotiators on complex matters routinely operate on the basis that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. This leads to a single large package that is approved as a block at the very end. At that point, the convention would disband, and any recall of delegates would be meaningless.

Calling an Article V convention is reckless, especially at this divisive moment in our nation’s political history. Nothing these groups propose does anything even to mitigate the risks that a convention would bring. State legislatures should not delude themselves that the dangers of an Article V convention can somehow be contained.
http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign...tes-is-the-last-thing-america-needs-right-now

 

[barfo]

It is a different article barf. Perhaps those that make up them are not is sync, but I am not confused even though you probably are.
Carry on!

Good god man. The one lawai'a linked and you agreed with is literally a summary of the one I linked.

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

Good god man. The one lawai'a linked and you agreed with is literally a summary of the one I linked.

barfo

Neither have shit to do with the Convention of the States.

 

[MarAzul]

barf is on ignore now.