Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday December 11 2015, @05:50AM   Printer-friendly
from the pandora's-box dept.

The U.S. Constitution has 27 amendments; each was proposed by Congress and ratified by the states.

However, the Constitution sets forth another procedure, never before used, for amending the Constitution. At the request of two thirds of the states, a constitutional convention would be held, at which amendments could be proposed. Any proposals would become part of the Constitution if three fourths of the states ratified them, either at state conventions or in the state legislatures.

Currently, 27 of the needed 34 states have petitioned Congress for a constitutional convention, for the ostensible purpose of writing a balanced-budget amendment (BBA). However, the convention might propose other changes in addition or instead of a BBA—even a total rewrite of the Constitution—if 38 states agreed, the changes would become law.

In November, legislators from 30 states met in Salt Lake City to discuss the matter.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @04:52AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @04:52AM (#275307)

    Your ignorance of what Socialism is extreme.
    That's understandable. You're like 99.999 percent of folks in that regard.
    Offering your ignorant example of what it is and isn't is very common for your lot.

    the very foundation of capitalism

    You're not very bright when it comes to Capitalism either.
    The foundation of that is the exploitation of non-owner workers.

    .
    Besides being an MD, Jill Stein is also a mom with 2 grown, successful sons.
    Does that automatically make her presidential material?
    No, but it does add to the picture of who she is.
    She's a nurturing healer--not an exploiter like e.g. Trump or Romney.
    ...and when she debated Mitt in the Massachusetts gubernatorial race, the Boston Globe called her "the only adult in the room".

    egalitarianism [...] taking from those who achieved

    Without public roads and clean water systems and safe food and verified medicines, etc, etc, etc, your successful guy never would have gotten there.
    Go to (Libertarian) Somalia or (Libertarian) Honduras and see how much you can achieve.
    If you achieved, you did it in a system that supported your achievement.
    You owe the system back in line to your success.
    They used to call this "noblesse oblige".

    ...and where exactly are you going to find customers if nobody but you has any money?
    The downward spiral of Neoliberalism is only getting worse due to nitwits who "think" like you do.
    Again, your successful guy didn't make big bucks without exploiting The Working Class.

    ...and if your successful guy hadn't skimmed off all the cream at the start and there had been a more equitable distribution of the profits **from the start**, you wouldn't be yammering about taking back wealth.

    .
    I have previously mentioned Mondragon and the thousands and thousands of worker cooperatives in northern Italy.
    They are very happy with the egalitarian systems they have.
    Mondragon started with 6 worker-owners and now has over 100,000 worker-owners.
    Socialism is a bottom-up thing, so it needs to continue to be scaled up.
    ...and, no, Stalinist State Capitalism is NOT Socialism.

    -- gewg_

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @08:34PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @08:34PM (#275508)

    OK. I'll bite.

    Detailed, specific, unambiguous description of the precise form of socialism. Now, please. In standard English (Commonwealth or American) preferred, but other languages accepted.

    Until you can actually provide a coherent description of what the hell you're talking about other than saying that everyone else always gets everything wrong, you don't have a position, you have a bumpersticker.

    You don't even explain why capitalism is not based on the accumulation of value, i.e. capital. It's right there in the name, it's in pretty much every analytical approach to it, even Marx accepted that. So while you're explaining things, throw that one in.

    This way at least we can tell what you're advocating.