In Maine, a push in Legislature could lead to a rewrite of the U.S. Constitution
Source: Portland Press Herald
A pair of resolutions under consideration by the Legislature that lift much of their wording from model bills written by a secretive, corporation-funded group could help lead to a radical rewriting of the U.S. Constitution.
The resolutions seek to add Maine to the list of states that have called for the convening of a constitutional convention for the first time since the Constitution was drafted in 1787. Maine would become the 29th state to endorse the most successful of the two measures, which would put the effort just five states short of the 34 required to convene a convention under Article V of the U.S. Constitution at which delegates could set about amending the document in any way they wished, regardless of the purported purpose for which they had convened. The other state legislatures passed their resolutions over the past four decades, and there is no time limit to reach the required number.
Both of the bills were introduced by Rep. Nathan Wadsworth, R-Hiram, the Maine state co-chair of the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, an organization funded by corporations and conservative donors that allows businesses to write legislation and give it to state lawmakers to introduce at home. Each borrows much of its wording often word for word from ALECs model bills.
These proposals are nakedly political, said Arn Pearson, executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy, a Wisconsin-based nonprofit that tracks ALEC. Republicans are at a high-water mark in their control of state legislatures, and they see this as an opportunity to make sweeping changes in how the government works.
<more>
Read more: https://www.pressherald.com/2018/03/01/maine-resolutions-would-aid-scheme-to-rewrite-u-s-constitution/
Cosmocat
(14,543 posts)lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 2, 2018, 10:56 AM - Edit history (1)
Because they know that in November, the jig is up.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Right now Pubs have 33 state governors and control a similar number of state legislatures. This is their high point. They HAVE to hold this ground, and they can't, much less get that 2/3. Republicans are losing seats in special elections practically every Tuesday now.
ON NOVEMBER 6,
* If we get a majority of EITHER house of the U.S. congress, their federal agenda's dead.
* If we take the senate, their packing of federal courts with extremists stops.
* If we control congress, we are back in power, and Trump has to work with us.
* 36 governor's offices are on the ballot -- 26 of them currently help by Republicans, 13 of those open with no incumbent running, and 13 of them are in states that went for Obama.
* Most states will have HALF their state senate seats on the ballots, and the rest their ENTIRE
senates.
* 30 state AGs are on the ballot, another few to be appointed by the winning party
* 2018 will strongly affect redistricting for 2020 - 2030.
COUNTDOWN TO MIDTERMS: 249 days
winstars
(4,213 posts)Cosmocat
(14,543 posts)We HAVE to had had power in some of the states that have these statements in place - any D held state legislatures should make it a priority to get any existing statements revoked.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Also a weakness, a lack of belief where there should be proud conviction, among some Democrats that's almost the mirror image of the intense conviction of the right's troublemakers.
No Democratic political professionals are in the least oblivious to this threat, and none are sitting around on their favorite finger refusing to act while it happens. No matter where you picked this idea up, you must know enough to realize it has to be wrong. So what gives with this?
We're the good guys. The people of the Democratic Party are the ones fighting for government of, by and for the people.
Maybe spread the good word? Every time someone badmouths us, instead of going after evildoers on the right, is an opportunity to get off our own fingers and step up to the plate.
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,038 posts)We need to flip every seat we can before GOPer traitors shred the Constitution.
5 more states and they write their regression, repression and religion into the supreme law of the land.
keithbvadu2
(36,362 posts)DownriverDem
(6,206 posts)This is why I can't agree with divisive left leaners who think this is time for infighting. No people. Win in November and then work to make the changes you want. Your focus should be on beating the repubs.
MBS
(9,688 posts)DemocracyMouse
(2,275 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)Moostache
(9,895 posts)The Constitution is not going to be subverted without a bloody fight and a birth of a new nation to replace this failed state...
barbtries
(28,702 posts)republicans are too feckless to consider consequences. they want what they want and must think this is their time.
sl8
(13,584 posts)It would still require 3/4 of the states to ratify them.
Frustratedlady
(16,254 posts)It has gone on too long and should be illegal.
IthinkThereforeIAM
(3,072 posts)... sadly, my state, South Dakota, has a legislature that is near totally infested with ALEC members/beneficiaries. They speak of ALEC as if it were a public service organization.
PAC's like this have to go. Thanks, Nixon.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)"amendments convention".
All the "amendments convention" can do is propose amendments to the constitution which then still have to be ratified by "the legislatures of three-fourths (presently 38) of the states or State ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states".
Constitutional convention:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(United_States)
Amendments convention:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution
7962
(11,841 posts)What a difference a few facts make!
Farmer-Rick
(10,072 posts)But history doesn't support this. The original convention's results still had trouble passing through the states.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)(60%) prevents most anything from being passed - the bar for amendments is 3/4 of the states (75%).
In this day of political polarization what amendment is going to get 75% state support?
Farmer-Rick
(10,072 posts)bullimiami
(13,042 posts)keithbvadu2
(36,362 posts)Turbineguy
(37,208 posts)There's a simple answer to every complicated question.
The Visgoths were conservatives.
FakeNoose
(32,351 posts)That's what they do with their legislative bills now. None of them know how to actually write a bill.
mountain grammy
(26,569 posts)ancianita
(35,812 posts)Farmer-Rick
(10,072 posts)It allows him a chance to have input into our government. He still has the vast wealth of Russia to bribe our capitalists.
ancianita
(35,812 posts)tomp
(9,512 posts)...and I'm pretty sure that's in the plan.
A new Civil War would not be geographically one section of the country against another. This would truly be brother/sister against brother/sister. Thanks repubs.
Cold War Spook
(1,279 posts)Asked why he co-sponsor of multiple ALEC bills he answered "I don't know - you're asked to sponsor a bill and you do it." I guess that is easier than having to think.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,129 posts)DownriverDem
(6,206 posts)This should be more motivation to get out and vote next November. We don't want the repubs to be in charge of changing the Constitution. I truly feel we are at a very dangerous crossroads.
Cyrano
(15,023 posts)Republicans control the majority of states and would therefore control a Constitutional Convention. And at such a convention, there are no rules except for those passed by the majority. Our existing Constitution can be thrown out and the convention can start from scratch.
Given today's Republican Party, a new "Constitution" would probably include:
O America is a white, Christian, English speaking Country.
O Women are subservient to all men at all times.
O Only the ruling class may own unlimited guns and other weapons of choice.
O Elections are banned. Membership in the ruling class is by appointment.
And that's just for starters. Think about every horrible idea ever put forth by Republicans, and you can bet it would be included in their new "Constitution."
Chipper Chat
(9,635 posts)The rest would be a patchwork of blobs of states.
FakeNoose
(32,351 posts)They can throw whatever crazy shit they want into the Constitution 2.0, the crazier the better. I say that because unless 3/4 of the states ratify it, it has no meaning at all. They're just whistling Dixie.
Once the entire country sees how morally and intellectually backrupt these people are, there will be a quiet revolution (that's already started) to throw these people out of office. We already know for a fact that the Tea Party is dead, and there's nothing to replace it except Trussia. How long will that last? As soon as Trump is out, the Trussians will be gone too.
Cyrano
(15,023 posts)It would never make it to "version 2.0."
The big question is, what would the military do? Without control of the military, a "new" Constitution would go nowhere.
FakeNoose
(32,351 posts)It's not a law until it has been ratified, and any changes to the Constitution are the hardest changes to get ratified.
That was my point.
vercetti2021
(10,150 posts)This is some scary shit
radliberal
(51 posts)Oregon will secede.
Cyrano
(15,023 posts)The 19th Century Civil War was North vs South. How a modern day civil war would be fought is difficult to imagine.
Voltaire2
(12,626 posts)But civil wars with no clear boundaries are not uncommon.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Political??
Hell they are fascist !!!!
titaniumsalute
(4,742 posts)They can have a convention and say or do whatever they want. But to ratify any actual changes it would require 3/4 of the states approving the changes. That is 75% or 38 states. That would be a tough road to actually pass.
However, it also means we should still be as diligent as possible to win as many state House and Senate seats this fall. The more Dems in these seats the less likely an actual convention would ever be called.
Fiendish Thingy
(15,367 posts)CC's can only propose amendments; the ratification process remains unchanged as spelled out in the Constitution.
So much misinformation and mythology about this is annoying...
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)An amendment to ban abortion would be blocked by the 13 most liberal states, just as an amendment to overturn Citizens United would be blocked by the 13 most conservative states.
The real danger is amendments that fall less on the left-right divide than on the federal-state divide. A big item would be a federal balanced-budget amendment. I could see a lot of Democratic state legislators happily voting to ratify it. They'd get to pose as guardians of fiscal responsibility. The hard part -- cutting spending and/or raising taxes -- would fall to members of Congress. Those unpopular votes by members of Congress might make them vulnerable to challenges by, for example, state legislators.
A similar dynamic would apply to an amendment for Congressional term limits.
I disagree with the posts in this thread that downplay the danger of a Constitutional convention. Yes, let's elect Democrat state legislators, especially with the next redistricting looming, but we can't assume that they'll block all bad amendments.