Past midterms, some zero in on amending Constitution

[Judi Lynn]

Past midterms, some zero in on amending Constitution
Source: Associated Press


Matt Sedensky, Ap National Writer
Updated 4:21 pm CDT, Saturday, November 3, 2018

NEW YORK (AP) — Whatever success Republicans have amassed in taking control of all three branches of U.S. government, and whatever fate awaits them as midterm elections near, some on the right are working to cement change by amending the Constitution. And to the mounting alarm of others on all parts of the spectrum, they want to bypass the usual process.

They're pushing for an unprecedented Constitutional convention of the states. While opponents are afraid of what such a convention would do, supporters say it is the only way to deal with the federal government's overreach and ineptitude.

"They literally see this as the survival of the nation," said Karla Jones, director of the federalism task force at the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, which represents state lawmakers and offers guidance and model legislation for states to call a convention under the Constitution's Article V.

Among the most frequently cited changes being sought: amendments enforcing a balanced federal budget, establishing term limits for members of Congress, and repealing the 17th Amendment, which put the power of electing the Senate in the hands of the public instead of state legislatures.

Read more: https://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Past-midterms-some-zero-in-on-amending-13360133.php

[whathehell]

1. " The federal government's 'over reach and ineptitude'"..Riiiiiight

and do they seriously believe we'll give up voting for our own senators? . .Good luck with that, chumps.

[Judi Lynn]

2. Isn't that a shock? My god. They are stupid enough to think they can pull it of, apparently.

I really want to know who threw this idea in there and brought it to life, anyway.

We really need to find out, as soon as possible.

[whathehell]

15. Yes, as if they haven't stripped down government enough already,

except for the military, of course.

I've been hearing a little about this, off and on, for couple of years now. Who exactly dreamed it up, I don't know, but I'm not sure how they could "convene" unless all the states agreed to it, which seems unlikely.

That said, there may be something I'm missing.

[irisblue]

3. Thanks for moving it here Judi Lynn. This is an important read.

[Judi Lynn]

5. Thank you, irisblue. Could barely believe my eyes reading it the first time.

[Downtown Hound]

4. Among the most frequently cited changes being sought: amendments enforcing a balanced federal budget

You don't need a constitutional amendment for that. You just need to stop voting Republican.

[Wounded Bear]

6. RW wet dream...

and why the governor's and state legislative races this cycle are so important. They are only a couple of states shy of the number they need to kick that off.

Go vote!

[asiliveandbreathe]

7. With regards to the 17th amendment..a nugget found -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Due to the controversy over the effects of the Seventeenth Amendment, advocates have emerged to reform or repeal the amendment. Under President Barack Obama's administration in 2009, four sitting Democratic senators left the Senate for executive branch positions: Barack Obama (President), Joe Biden (Vice President), Hillary Clinton (Secretary of State), and Ken Salazar (Secretary of the Interior).

Controversies developed about the successor appointments made by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and New York Governor David Paterson. New interest was aroused in abolishing the provision for the Senate appointment by the governor.


Accordingly, Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Representative David Dreier of California proposed an amendment to remove this power; Senators John McCain and Dick Durbin became co-sponsors, as did Representative John Conyers.

The Tea Party movement has been arguing for repealing the Seventeenth Amendment entirely, claiming that it would protect states' rights and reduce the power of the federal government.

On March 2, 2016, the Utah legislature approved Senate Joint Resolution No. 2 asking Congress to offer an amendment to the United States Constitution that would repeal the Seventeenth Amendment.

So much more at link....

[Judi Lynn]

12. So good! That's a deeply worthwhile excerpt, asiliveandbreathe. It adds a great deal.

I had completely forgotten how many Senators left the Senate for that administration. I really feel glad to get that information back, in addition to learning about Feigold, Dreier, McCain, Durbin, and Conyers!

Thank you, so much.

[asiliveandbreathe]

13. You are welcome...I am in agreement that governors of states should NOT

appoint a senator, when for whatever reason, a senator leaves their seat..the people of the state should be afforded a primary, and an election...we just went through this in AZ..Ducey SELECTED Kyl...due to the death of Mccain...and if, there is an election closing in, then whoever wins the primary, the state should hold a special election - the people should decide...IMHO...

As for the total removal of the 17th, nope....

[Turbineguy]

8. Yeah, it's time to do what the Founding Fathers intended:

Destroy the country.

[Garrett78]

9. As many red states as there are, I don't think they have enough. Thank goodness.

I'm all for term limits for members of Congress, though. It shouldn't be a career.

It's bad enough that every state still has the same number of Senators (the one aspect of the Senate that the 17th Amendment didn't address). Giving (s)election power back to the state legislatures would be an absolute disaster for Democrats (and, quite frankly, the world).

Requiring a balanced federal budget is too absurd to even comment on.

[Jake Stern]

10. This again.

1. It takes 34 states to call for a convention they currently have 28 (per article 4 states rescinded their resolutions).

2. It takes 38 states to ratify any proposed amendment by the convention. Between Dem governors and instances where we control at least one house in state legislatures the real chances this will come about are minuscule at best.

There are many things that concern me. This convention nonsense is not one of them.

[Jim Lane]

11. You're too sanguine about the balanced budget amendment.

You seem to assume that all Democrats will oppose it. I'm not very confident of that.

Remember that the entire Article V process would be under the control of the states. With no involvement by Congress, the states can call for the convention, select the delegates, and vote on ratifying whatever proposals the convention approves.

A lot of voters like the idea of a balanced budget. One practical problem is that those voters don't like the tax increases and spending cuts that it would entail. For a state official, though, the federal balanced budget amendment is a chance to curry favor with the electorate, by posing as a champion of fiscal rectitude, without having to make any of the resulting hard choices.

Plenty of state-level Democrats would be happy to vote for such an amendment. The unpopular steps to implement it would be left to Senators and Representatives, and if their votes made them vulnerable to a challenge -- by, say, an ambitious state legislator -- so much the better.

[Omaha Steve]

14. Thanks for posting