Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Conservatives Debate Amending The Constitution

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
TomCADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 01:09 AM
Original message
Conservatives Debate Amending The Constitution
Edited on Tue Nov-30-10 01:10 AM by TomCADem
Source: Washington Post

The liberals urged caution and judicial modesty. Trust the people and their elected representatives, they said; elections have consequences, and the political process is where policy should be made, not the courtroom.

The conservatives, on the other hand, called for revolution. Fight intrusive federal laws in the courts, amend the Constitution, form interstate compacts to defy laws from Washington, and - better yet - demand a constitutional convention.

* * *
Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet said it made no sense to amend the Constitution just because one side saw the opportunity to, in Cruz's words, "lock in" restraints on government.

"It's very had to defend amending the Constitution on the grounds of today's current viewpoint," he said. The idea of "amending the Constitution to preclude future democratic decision-making, that one's a little puzzling to me," he added.


Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/28/AR2010112803865.html



Gee, what happened to conservatives being against judicial activism?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 01:11 AM
Response to Original message
1. conservatives have already destroyed America
now they're just picking at its carcass
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaliforniaPeggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 01:13 AM
Response to Original message
2. They can talk about amending the Constitution all they want.
It won't happen. It's a cumbersome, tedious process.

These conservatives are freaking idiots.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 01:15 AM
Response to Original message
3. Nobody has the votes to amend the Constitution anymore. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 02:21 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Really?
That's just another rule the Republicans don't have to follow once they're in power, that Bush didn't get around to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Stalwart71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #3
14. They know this fully well. It's a ploy to get their base riled up and ready to vote in 2012.
They know that they neither have the votes nor the "veto pen" to repeal health care. But it just sounds good to their base, and they know that their minions will just eat up everything they say and do.

Amending the Constitution requires 2/3rds vote in each chamber of Congress and 3/4ths of ALL state legislatures. They know damn well that they can't win.

It's just like the abortion and gay marriage issues. The Republicans have controlled the House, the Senate, the courts, and most governerships and state legislatures. Why haven't they acted on outlawing abortion and gay marriage? You and I both know the answer and it's simple: Get their minions riled up--really to the point of inciting violence--and get them to vote. They are still scaring their followers about Obama taking away their guns. It's ridiculous!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
24601 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. Actually, Congress can be bypassed completely since only 2/3
Edited on Tue Nov-30-10 06:25 PM by 24601
of the states are needed to call for a Constitutional Convention. And once called, there is no limiting the agenda. The states send the reps and Congress is not involved in the process at all. Anything proposed is ratified when 3/4 of the States agree on a proposal. Amendments can be lined up one-by-one, not voted on as a total package.

Edited to add: Some proposals would be approved, some not. The only one that I'm confident would garner 40+ votes would be the amendment to prohibit the federal government imposing unfunded mandates on the states. It also is the likeliest proposal to convince 2/3 of the states (30) to call for a Constitutional Convention in the 1st place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 02:18 AM
Response to Original message
4. Well either they'll proceed with plans to rip it up -- or amend it ...
They originally put Ollie North in charge of undermining the Constitution --

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 02:28 AM
Response to Original message
6. "conservatives" aren't
I'm hoping some day we can clean up the language...

The crazy bastards who get elected as "conservatives" in USAmerica today...

Are NOT Conservative == they wish to conserve nothing...

They want to use it all up for short-term profit...

They want to tell you what you can do in your own homes and bedrooms...

Not "conservative"...

Real conservatives (like me) want to preserve the Earth as a viable habitat for humans and our fellow creatures until the sun burns it up...

Not use it up so that Earth cooks by the end of the century...like the republicans want...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scribble Donating Member (129 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 03:22 AM
Response to Original message
7. What the Hell is this story about?
... really. Conservatives are always debating liberals about the Constitution. Was this at a meeting somewhere? Were there any notable Conservatives or Liberals debating all this, or did this person just overhear a plumber debating a teacher in a neighborhood bar?

Really. What's going on here and why isn't it in the post?


sc
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 04:54 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. You can follow the link
There you'll find the convention of the Federalist Society, a Supreme Court judge, Senator McConnell, and 3 law professors.

Really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 05:16 AM
Response to Original message
9. First ENFORCE The Constitution as Written!
That would take care of 90% of the problems: especially the honoring treaties on torture and war crimes and such, and white collar crime.

Then we could deal with the civil rights issues by amendment, as has happened in the past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 06:19 AM
Response to Original message
10. Conservatives today use the Constitution like they use the Bible.
Like toilet paper? Perhaps, but they pick and choose the pieces they want to believe and ignore the real heart of the text. The hardest parts to follow are ignored.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 06:30 AM
Response to Original message
11. I would like to amend the Constitution
I would put the words "right to privacy" in the Fourth Amendment because "secure in your papers and personal effects" is too hard for the teabaggers to understand, and I would put the words "wall of separation of church and state" in the First Amendment because the teabaggers can't understand that's what "no state establishment of religion" actually means.

Oh, and I'd require the Speaker of the House to be elected by the people--I would put a "Democratic candidate for Speaker" and a "Republican candidate for Speaker" on the ballot of every state, and the people would vote for one of each. Once all the votes are counted and we know which party controls the House, whoever won the election for that party's speaker candidate is Speaker of the House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 06:34 AM
Response to Original message
12. Obama missed a real historic opportunity, Republicans are trying to create a fake one
Republicans took over a single house of government and they are ready to change everything about America. Two years ago Obama and the Democrats won all three branches of government and had the majority of people behind them, and they didn't try to do much. Democratic politicians almost always underachieve.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savalez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. Oversimplification.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rasputin1952 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 08:32 AM
Response to Original message
13. I can think of a few things to amend the Constitution over...
Edited on Tue Nov-30-10 08:33 AM by rasputin1952
One that really sticks out is removing protection from the SC decision that made corporations "individuals".

One other that stares me right in the face is that we still have people in this country that are discriminated against, not because of criminal behavior, but because of the color of their skin, the accents they have, their gender and/or their sexual orientation.

Equal protection under the law...no exceptions, for each and every citizen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
15. The repukes want to amend the Constitution? fine, let them...
and watch them fail epically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zambero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
16. Strict Constitutionalists who hate the Constitution as written
Strictly speaking
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. I've always been amused at that irony as well...
Like that teabag leader proposing only "property owners" get the right to vote, as the founders intended...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zigzagzed Donating Member (61 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
18. More amendment ideas
How about amending the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College and go with a straight popular vote? What about instituting a system such as Instant-Runoff Voting that would allow us to vote for alternate candidates without “throwing our vote away?” One citizen, one vote, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mvymvy Donating Member (46 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. The National Popular Vote bill
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

Now 2/3rds of the states and voters are ignored — 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states, and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. The current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states, and not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution, ensure that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Voter turnout in the “battleground” states has been 67%, while turnout in the “spectator” states was 61%. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. It does not abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO– 68%, IA –75%, MI– 73%, MO– 70%, NH– 69%, NV– 72%, NM– 76%, NC– 74%, OH– 70%, PA — 78%, VA — 74%, and WI — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE –75%, ME — 77%, NE — 74%, NH –69%, NV — 72%, NM — 76%, RI — 74%, and VT — 75%; in Southern and border states: AR –80%, KY — 80%, MS –77%, MO — 70%, NC — 74%, and VA — 74%; and in other states polled: CA — 70%, CT — 74% , MA — 73%, MN – 75%, NY — 79%, WA — 77%, and WV- 81%.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR (6), CT (7), DE (3), DC (3), ME (4), MI (17), NV (5), NM (5), NY (31), NC (15), and OR (7), and both houses in CA (55), CO (9), HI (4), IL (21), NJ (15), MD (10), MA(12), RI (4), VT (3), and WA (11). The bill has been enacted by DC, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These seven states possess 76 electoral votes — 28% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
21. Why should they bother...
They've got 5 members of SCOTUS to do it for them...

And they're doing a right fine job of it so far...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC