A Constitutional Convention

Discussions of topics unrelated to education or degrees but still of interest to our members.

A Constitutional Convention

Postby Eric » Wed Nov 14, 2012 12:17 am

A Constitutional Convention

By Mr. Curmudgeon:

The ad nauseam charge leveled at Republicans during the 2012 presidential campaign is that they pose an obstruction to Obama’s utopian vision. If that were true, the debt ceiling would not have been raised and the Republican leadership in the House would not be planning an exit strategy to the budget restraint policies fought for by its 2010 Tea Party contingent.

The post Obama re-election immediate strategy for the Tea Party is obvious: expand its power in the House – that holds the nation’s purse strings – and use it to jettison the current Republican leadership, replacing them with souls committed to obstruction, obstruction, obstruction.

America may have already passed the point of no return on fiscal matters, but we can at least slow America’s decline – buying time for a future generation of indentured state surfs to rebuild our once shining city on a hill.

But that requires a radical shift in Tea Party strategy that plays to its great strengths at the state level: a call for a Constitutional Convention.

The Constitution’s Article V states, “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution …” However, the document also says that when “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 …”

In the more than 200-year history of our nation, the states have never availed themselves of the power to amend the document. The organized left has a lock on the Electoral College due to large populations in the bluest of blue states. But the Electoral map broadcast into every home last election eve showed a nation awash in red. That means the real power resides within the nation’s heartland – the red states.

If you want to take your country back, the Founders provided a constitutionally sanctioned emergency measure. And no political organization is better suited to begin the process of halting America’s march toward totalitarianism than the grassroots army called the Tea Party.

Waiting for the Supreme Court, the Congress or the White House to save America is a lost cause. Amending the Constitution to restrain Washington’s power is our only hope. Taking back our country begins with taking back our Constitution.
Eric
Eric

"The best social program is a good job,"
President Ronald Reagan
Eric
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1484
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 5:07 am
Location: UK / USA

Re: A Constitutional Convention

Postby Rich Douglas » Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:21 am

Who takes back the country from whom? It is currently being administrated by our elected representatives. Did you have someone else in mind?
Rich Douglas
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2155
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:07 pm

Re: A Constitutional Convention

Postby Rich Douglas » Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:30 am

Eric wrote:The organized left has a lock on the Electoral College due to large populations in the bluest of blue states. But the Electoral map broadcast into every home last election eve showed a nation awash in red. That means the real power resides within the nation’s heartland – the red states.



By the way, this is incorrect. Because Electoral College votes are distributed according to how many Representatives (proportional) and Senators (two) each state has, the more sparsely populated states are actually over-represented.

Obama took the popular vote. Democrats received more votes for Representatives than did Republican House candidates. Democrats for the most part romped in Senate races. The Electoral College is the only thing that keeps it close.

Don't worry; the Republicans have a history of being the near-permanent minority, occasionally winning the Presidency. (Usually winning the popular vote, except in 2000 with Bush.) It will continue and it will be fine.

Finally, you didn't write that, please source it. Plagiarism, if that's what your post is, is another lie. Here it is: http://www.teapartytribune.com/2012/11/ ... onvention/
Rich Douglas
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2155
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:07 pm

Re: A Constitutional Convention

Postby nosborne48 » Wed Nov 14, 2012 12:24 pm

Calls for a constitutional convention have appeared sporadically for years. Never happen. The last time anything like it happened was the end of Prohibition IIRC. The reason the U.S. is politically stable is that at some gut level the vast majority accept the constitution the way it is. It's like secession. Texans talk about their supposed "right" to secede in their 1845 constitution (or whatever) but they somehow ignore the results of the Civil War. All hot air. No one really thinks either thing will happen.
Una cosa mala nunca muere.
nosborne48
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:42 am

Re: A Constitutional Convention

Postby Jimmy » Fri Nov 16, 2012 10:42 pm

The Electoral College is the only thing that keeps it close.


How so? The popular vote has been close in a number of elections, including the last one: 50-48.
Jimmy
___________________
Rev. James W. Clifton
Pastor, St. John's Evangelical Lutheran Church

The Hunger Site
Jimmy
Senior Member
 
Posts: 5996
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:11 pm

Re: A Constitutional Convention

Postby Rich Douglas » Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:22 pm

Jimmy wrote:The Electoral College is the only thing that keeps it close.


How so? The popular vote has been close in a number of elections, including the last one: 50-48.


Both ways. The last President to win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote was a Republican.

In this one, the Electoral College was approximately 60/40, with the popular vote more like 51/48. In the foreseeable future, the Democrats will enjoy a much more flexible path to 270. Looking back over the last 6 elections, the Republicans often eked through, while when Democrats won, they won big. That's only going to get more so.

It used to be the other way around, which is why we kept seeing Republicans getting voted in to the White House even though Democrats enjoyed solid majorities in both houses of Congress. In fact, look back again. Whenever the Republicans have had majorities, they were slimmer than Democrats' majorities.

Republicans often won big for the White House, but no more. Republicans never win big in Congress. Demographic changes in the U.S. heavily favor Democrats. Welcome to the (foreseeably) permanent minority, GOP.
Rich Douglas
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2155
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:07 pm

Re: A Constitutional Convention

Postby Oregon » Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:53 pm

Rich Douglas wrote:In this one, the Electoral College was approximately 60/40, with the popular vote more like 51/48. In the foreseeable future, the Democrats will enjoy a much more flexible path to 270. Looking back over the last 6 elections, the Republicans often eked through, while when Democrats won, they won big. That's only going to get more so.

It used to be the other way around, which is why we kept seeing Republicans getting voted in to the White House even though Democrats enjoyed solid majorities in both houses of Congress. In fact, look back again. Whenever the Republicans have had majorities, they were slimmer than Democrats' majorities.

Republicans often won big for the White House, but no more. Republicans never win big in Congress. Demographic changes in the U.S. heavily favor Democrats. Welcome to the (foreseeably) permanent minority, GOP.


Douglas speaking out his ass 4 years ago.

Republicans have the presidency, the Senate, the House, and 31 state legislatures. Don't worry about them. What is amazing is that they did it with what used to be the Democrat mainstay, blue collar workers. When the Democrats starting selling bullshit and abandoned the needs of the working class, they sank themselves. The Republicans promised better jobs, not better welfare.
Oregon
Senior Member
 
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 2:08 am

Re: A Constitutional Convention

Postby hierophant » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:26 pm

Rich Douglas wrote:In this one, the Electoral College was approximately 60/40, with the popular vote more like 51/48. In the foreseeable future, the Democrats will enjoy a much more flexible path to 270.


I think that exactly the opposite is true.

The demographic difficulty that the Democrats face is that their voters are geographically concentrated in a relatively small number of places like New York City, DC, LA and San Francisco. Each of these places is basically a one-party jurisdiction where the vast majority of voters are Democrats. The District of Columbia went something like 90% for Hillary. But all the Democrats needed to win in DC was one vote over 50%. In other words, 40% of the DC vote was essentially wasted.

Meanwhile, the Republicans scored smaller majorities over huge swathes of "flyover country" in-between the northeast Atlantic coast and the southwest Pacific coast. The Republicans won more states and congressional districts, albeit by smaller majorities. (The Republicans control both houses of Congress as well as the governorships and both houses of the state legislature in 2/3d's of the states.)

Demographic changes in the U.S. heavily favor Democrats. Welcome to the (foreseeably) permanent minority, GOP.


"Demographic changes" seems to be a reference to the growing Hispanic population. The black population isn't growing. It's just assumed that Hispanics will continue to be reliable Democratic voters. So we saw all kinds of pundits (both Democratic and Republican) opining after 2012 that the Republicans will have to support amnesty for illegals and ignore illegal crossings of the southern border in order to win Hispanic votes. I remember Carl Rove announcing that on Fox.

The fatal flaw in these arguments was the assumption that while all the Democrats' favored constituencies are being encouraged to practice identity-politics and to bloc-vote their own group's self-interest, the white-Anglo middle class (still the plurality if not the majority of American voters) would never behave that way. (If white Americans do exactly the same thing and develop consciousness of their own ethnic interest, that would be "racist"!) The Democrats just assumed that the white lower-middle class would continue voting for Democrats as they reliably have in previous elections.

I think that Trump's victory kind of disproved all of those kind of expectations. It's why Trump smashed the Democrats' vaunted "blue wall" and picked up Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
hierophant
New Member
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 11:18 pm

Re: A Constitutional Convention

Postby Oregon » Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:52 pm

If you look at a colored electoral map of the US counties it is maybe 80% or more Republican red. Trump barely campaigned in blue states, spending his money and effort in swing states. Hillary's cabal made a strategic blunders assuming that the rust belt was hers. It wasn't.
Oregon
Senior Member
 
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 2:08 am


Return to Off-topic Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 1 guest