Slash Boxes

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This discussion has been archived.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 Friday December 11 2015, @06:12PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @06:12PM (#275073)

    As your politics are in line with the farthest reaches of the Democratic party...

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @08:34PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @08:34PM (#275137)

    You haven't been paying attention at all.
    My politics border on anarchy: Anti-Capitalist (Communist--as Marx described it: Democracy everywhere) which means that civil liberties are a given.

    I have little regard for Right^Wrong Wingers (Capitalist Authoritarians) which includes most Democrats. []
    (My candidate for that year, Cynthia McKinney, [] is not shown on that chart but would be near Nader--for whom I had voted when he was a Green.)

    Dennis Kucinich is a Democrat for whom I have respect (though he has let himself be manipulated by that party into doing things of which I disapprove.)

    Among the current crop of Reds and Blues, I like a few of the positions of Rand Paul [] (orig) []--though his other positions (the majority of his politics) really turn me off.

    I find Bernie Sanders to be slightly less heinous than the rest of the 2-party bunch (though he doesn't measure up to even FDR or LBJ) and I would be disappointed if Hillary beats Bernie in the primaries--but he's still a Capitalist and a warmonger so he still doesn't get my actual approval.

    Among the candidates running, I tend to vote Green.
    I would like to see a third party get a high enough percentage of the votes at the presidential level to get the federal matching funds available.
    Jill Stein, a physician, (who got my vote in 2012 and is running again) is still closer to what I want in a president than any Red or Blue.

    Though Eugene Debs got 6 percent of the votes when he ran for president as an (actual) Socialist in 1912, and Milwaukee has had several Socialist mayors, Cold War propaganda still pervades USAian politics and I don't see Socialist egalitarianism coming out on top any time soon over Fox so-called News' politics of Oligarchy and racism and religious nonsense.

    -- gewg_

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @03:54AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @03:54AM (#275291)

      My politics border on anarchy: Anti-Capitalist (Communist--as Marx described it: Democracy everywhere) which means that civil liberties are a given.

      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

        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.

  • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday December 12 2015, @06:33AM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday December 12 2015, @06:33AM (#275320) Journal

    Yesssss. Speak your special words . . . .. Death-eaters! Death Angels! Angles of Saxon death to the Lamanites! And migrants from Missouri in Meadow Mountains! This is not a partisan issue, it is a terrorist issue. Radicalized people right there in the kingdom of Zion, thinking they are the heirs of Zion. And no, Laurence Fishbourne is not allowed. Whether you are ISIS, Anti-abortion Dude, or Mormon, it makes no difference because all absolute claims to the right religion are an abomination. Took the Jews some 2000+ years to get the message that being the chosen people does not mean you get special priviledges and get to smite other people. Of course, there are some who still haven't, mostly because their brother got wacked doing exactly that kind of stuff, and the message is really not getting through. If I was God, and I am not, and there is no god, but if I were, I would be really, really frustrated about now. How many times have I told the Westboro Baptisers that I hate Flags! The idiots cannot spell. You would have thought, as an omnicompetent being, I would have created more intelligent followers (Hint for all you budding rationalist skeptical agnositic types!). So while to some this may sound like gibberish, I beg you, pay attention to the less rational people around you. They may be thinking of having a Constitutional Convention, just because, or of voting for Donald Trump, just to get back at the people who could read in high school.

    Take-away, for you business types with short attention spans who have already stopped reading this post because SJW and whatnot: The Farthest reaches of the Democratic party is what most people call "sane". Others would call it center-right, or Moderate Republican, like Hilary Clinton. So look to your Right. If you see no one there, you are the Nazi party. If you see someone with a marmot on his head, you are in danger of being seduced by the Nazi party. So don't be a dummy, be a smarty, come and join the Nazi party! "Springtime, for Hitler, and Germany!" Ah, the producers, of reality TV. Don't you love it when reality imitates art, for a change? You're Fired!

    "Believe it or not, your opinion on this topic is really not necessary,"