SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
- Forbes article from 2014 (mirror)
- John Birch Society (has a map)
- utahpolicy.com
- Deseret News
- Yellowhammer News
- The Universe—Brigham Young University
- San Francisco Chronicle
- KSTU-TV
- The Columbian
- Washington Post blog about historical attempts at constitutional conventions
- The Spokesman-Review
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @03:54AM
No. It doesn't mean anything of the sort. You can be totally anti-capitalist but it has no bearing on whether or not you are in favour of freedom of speech, religion, or due process of law. In fact, there's a strong argument to be made that if you oppose the accumulation of fruits of personal enterprise (the very foundation of capitalism) that this itself opposes a number of civil liberties because people cannot work towards their greater goals - anything they can't achieve without an accumulation of resources is beyond their personal ken, forever. So much for civil liberties...
I'm not sure why it matters that Jill Stein is a physician. So is Ben Carson. In fact, he's a specialist. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you don't exactly want to give ol' Ben all the facebook likes.
As for socialist egalitarianism, I don't care to speak for anyone else, but you can keep it. Specifically, you can keep it far, far away from me. Every time someone talks about egalitarianism, it seems to come down to taking from those who achieved, and giving to those who didn't. In our schools, the bright kids are bored, then troublesome, then medicated. Egalitarianism for the win! Egalitarian medicine? Nobody can have more than everybody can get ... so now they want to tax the hell out of the so-called cadillac plans because they imbalance the whole situation, despite the fact that the unions who generally got those negotiated for them, and got an agreement on them - but obviously they're evil! Of course, the congresscritters are gradually realising that even if Obama is their bestest buddy (looking at you, rustbelt democrats) that pissing off the unions might just maybe be bad for the union members and bad for their votes (right, rustbelt democrats?). Or maybe you're a bigger fan of egalitarian housing? Everybody gets the same square footage? Or a formula based on family size or something, perhaps?
I have yet to see a coherent series of egalitarian policies I could remotely stand behind. If you know of such a set of proposals, please bring them for inspection. Detailed and specific policy proposals, not empty aspirational phrases.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @04:52AM
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
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.