|
Can it really be any worse than what we got the
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:12 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Can it really be any worse than what we got the Yes. No Washington around to threaten a bunch of worthless pols into making a working government this time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Can it really be any worse than what we got the Balanced Budget Amendment
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
xrunner posted:Until the 1920s a woman lost her citizenship when she married a foriegn national. It only took an act of Congress to end that, so it would technically only take an act of Congress to reenact it. If marriage is enough to renounce, it seems like they can make it pretty broad. Do you think that such a law would hold up post Afroyim v. Rusk?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Balanced Budget Amendment Stop frightening me. That wouldn't really happen right 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 09:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Stop frightening me.  
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 13:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Stop frightening me. Depending on who you ask, Congress may already be obligated to call an Article V convention on that exact topic. (However, some estimates suggest that we are still about 7 states away) ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 15:10 on Aug 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Depending on who you ask, Congress may already be obligated to call an Article V convention on that exact topic. (However, some estimates suggest that we are still about 6 states away) It looks like the distinction there is "can a state rescind its call for a convention" and I think the answer has to be an obvious yes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Depending on who you ask, Congress may already be obligated to call an Article V convention on that exact topic. (However, some estimates suggest that we are still about 7 states away) If an article's headline is a question then the answer is always "no."
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
This is one of my favorite examples:
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Balanced Budget Amendment Establishing Christianity as the National Religion
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Take that, logic!
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Depending on who you ask, Congress may already be obligated to call an Article V convention on that exact topic. (However, some estimates suggest that we are still about 7 states away) I'm guessing that in the long shot that one of these conventions get called it would result in pro GOP amendments and policies given that they control most of the legislatures in the country, and in the hypothetical scenario in which one was successfully called it would mean that there were 37 GOP controlled states.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
I'm kinda curious what kind of nightmare constitution the current congress and state governments would create.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Radish posted:I'm kinda curious what kind of nightmare constitution the current congress and state governments would create. The Gospel according to Paul, Reagan and full ammo clips for the Unborn, amen. King James Version LLC.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Radish posted:I'm kinda curious what kind of nightmare constitution the current congress and state governments would create. Let me think:
What else?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Let me think: The full text is here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
The scary part is, unlike most of those hypotheticals, I can actually imagine the constitutional codification of pro-cyclical fiscal policy passing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Let me think: what does this one mean? Is it the Weed amendment?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
DOOP posted:what does this one mean? Is it the Weed amendment? Yes, but it's also the "What Civil Rights?" Amendment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
DOOP posted:what does this one mean? Is it the Weed amendment? Sorta, the idea is that it is the no federal laws that do something the states don't want. So no NLRB, no EPA, no Civil Rights as our dear Comrade pointed out, no FDA, etc. The idea is that the next clause forces states to criminalize weed etc because the neighboring states can claim harms. The clause after that prevents states from regulating businesses and preventing states from using the previous clause to regulate industry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
I think that Republican's only control though like 24 state legislatures so the possibility of them doing it is slim and none. It's basically just nightmare fuel for liberals.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:I think that Republican's only control though like 24 state legislatures so the possibility of them doing it is slim and none. It's basically just nightmare fuel for liberals. 31, actually. 24 is the count of those with a Republican executive as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Still just not something that is going to happen. Although who knows maybe that's the republican's long game, control legislatures then change the constitution through magic or some poo poo. All just bullshit that's never gonna happen. Democrats are getting hosed in State Elections though , seriously.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Sorta, the idea is that it is the no federal laws that do something the states don't want. So no NLRB, no EPA, no Civil Rights as our dear Comrade pointed out, no FDA, etc. gotcha that's terrifying
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Still just not something that is going to happen. Although who knows maybe that's the republican's long game, control legislatures then change the constitution through magic or some poo poo. You only need 3 Democratic/Split-legislature states to fail to repeal a prior call for an amendment though. This would include New Mexico, Delaware, Maryland and Iowa. And Delaware and Maryland have Democratic majorities in both houses and still have outstanding calls for a convention. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Aug 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
It's pretty muddled though on who's done it and who hasn't. This whole Michigan thing is just smoke. Seriously it happened a year ago and guess what nothing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Still just not something that is going to happen. Although who knows maybe that's the republican's long game, control legislatures then change the constitution through magic or some poo poo. Although I do wonder about a direct trade: Balance Budget Amendment in exchange for GENDA amendment,.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
It's just this weird scenario like a tied presidency that's possible but never realistically ever going to happen. If republicans majorly controlled 40 States they'd also probably at that point control the presidency as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Capt. Sticl posted:Even after a Constitutional Convention gets called, 75% of states have to approve amendments. 38 states have to approve. I can't see anything like that happening. Yes, protecting gender expression in the workplace to whatever degree is provable and enforceable is definitely worth wrecking the economy and destroying every social safety net in the United States. Good call.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Yes, protecting gender expression in the workplace to whatever degree is provable and enforceable is definitely worth wrecking the economy and destroying every social safety net in the United States. Good call. Well, the short drunken response is that, with no real macroeconomic knowledge, I suspect there is enough financial fuckery leeway to make a balanced budget amendment meaningfully null. Depending on the specifics (in this imaginary scenario) why couldn't you call "future earnings" or something enough to balance a budget?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
Capt. Sticl posted:Well, the short drunken response is that, with no real macroeconomic knowledge, I suspect there is enough financial fuckery leeway to make a balanced budget amendment meaningfully null. Depending on the specifics (in this imaginary scenario) why couldn't you call "future earnings" or something enough to balance a budget? Depends on how it's written, and any shenanigans are liable to be struck down by a sympathetic Supreme Court at any time. Not a gamble I'm willing to take.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
I'm imagining people like Michale Bachman being a part of rewriting the constitution from the ground up. First off, I'm not gonna sleep tonight.  Second, they'd have to send people who knew what they were doing instead of just random idiots right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:Second, they'd have to send people who knew what they were doing instead of just random idiots right? Who do you think would be in charge of sending delegates?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
MasterSlowPoke posted:Who do you think would be in charge of sending delegates? ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Aug 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:What else? This, basically
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:
Nope.  Any delegates the legislature chooses to send. Although as Cosmobot notes, there may be state-by-state restrictions.Also, if you think all state legislators know what they're doing, I have a bridge to sell you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Nope.  I have no illusions about state legislators knowing what they're doing thank you very kindly. God drat it, I don't think the founding fathers knew what they were doing either, but they knew they had no clue what they were doing and they planned for the long run. I mean, they did manage to write up a constitution without any mention of slavery in it, so they were able to conceive of a world in which the U.S. didn't have slavery anymore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:12 |
|
|
Klaus88 posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 15:22
|
|
