Ind. Senate calls for U.S. constitutional convention

[silvershadow]

Source: Indy Star

Indiana would seek a U.S. constitutional convention — the first ever called by the states — under a measure that passed the Senate on Tuesday.

The idea is being pushed by Senate President Pro Tempore David Long. When the Fort Wayne Republican found himself under fire from conservatives and tea party activists for blocking bills that defy the federal government — bills Long said were unconstitutional — he came up with an answer: Rewrite the constitution.

Long’s resolution, if it clears the House, will make Indiana the first state to seek a constitutional convention this year limited to two issues: restricting the federal government’s use of the interstate commerce provision and its taxing authority.

Long just needs 33 more states to agree. It takes two-thirds of the states to agree to invoke Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution to call for a constitutional convention to rewrite some or all of the document.

Read more: http://www.indystar.com/article/20130226/NEWS05/302260067/Ind-Senate-calls-U-S-constitutional-convention?nclick_check=1

---

All I would add is if they go there, I intend to be a delegate. Mods I originally posted in GD thinking it was a blog posting, but this is a news article from Indy Star.

[jerseyjack]

1. Another attempt at starving the beast.

shudder to think of the harm these fuck-ups can do.

[pipoman]

2. Half a dozen

a year for around 200 years..(guessing)

[elleng]

3. HA! LET them try to repeal the Commerce Clause and Taxing authority!

[Kelvin Mace]

4. Sadly, they might get their way

The GOP controls a LOT of state houses these days. NC fell in the last election.

[silvershadow]

5. They control both chambers here. :(

[DeSwiss]

6. K&R

[alp227]

7. Some of the most-liked comments:

"Indiana is fast becoming a cultural backwater and national joke. A domain of Pharisaic self-righteous white sepulchres."

"What Tea Party extremists don't realize is that a constitutional convention is not bound by any edicts issued by legislatures. It is free to do as it pleases. We could start off by writing a new Constitution that says that corporations are not persons, that women are equal to men and cannot have their reproductive choices be dictated by the state, and that all power resides in the working class. We could also choose to go our separate ways with the rational ones becoming provinces of Canada, the irrational ones having their own theocracy, and Texas going its own way."

http://www.indystar.com/comments/article/20130226/NEWS05/302260067/Ind-Senate-calls-U-S-constitutional-convention (click the # of comments then "social ranking" to see the best comments, not necessarily in chron order)

[Bernardo de La Paz]

14. Re: "... irrational ones having their own theocracy, rational ones becoming provinces of Canada ..."

[alp227]

15. even OHIO = Jesusland????

Oh wait that map is from 2004...in 8 years, 4 states (CO, FL, NM, and VA) have chosen to leave Jesusland.

[rurallib]

27. mmmmmm - Iowa also

[drm604]

8. How would a constitutional convention work?

Who decides the platform? Who gets to vote?

[silvershadow]

13. I don't knoow, but you can bet I will be finding out long beforehand.

[davidpdx]

17. There is no way they'll reach the threshold for it to happen

I'd go as far as betting they won't even half the number needed (17). It's all for show.

[NBachers]

9. No! No! No! the Teahad Jindalists are not allowed to dismantle and fuck up the constitution!

[merrily]

10. Hard to imagine a worse idea at this time than a consitutional convention.

Then again, who's really been paying attention to the Constitution?

[Initech]

11. Good lord no, this is a fucking dangerous idea.

You're playing with fire here by opening up the constitution for a modern day rewrite. You really want the tea party fucking morons and fundamentalist Christians getting their hands on it?

You want women's rights obliterated and Roe v. Wade overturned?

You want the billionaires given absolute power?

You want a news network as toxic as Fox to have any sort of influence on this?

You want total, absolute and endless war?

You want to see your free speech rights gone, your freedom of religion and right to protest completely taken away? To be replaced by a theocratic corporatocracy?

Then by all means open the constitution up. I can't believe there are people here cheerleading this idea. Pandora's box would be opened.

[Posteritatis]

18. Yep. Constitutional amendments these days are always about restricting rights. (nt)

[DallasNE]

12. There Is A Good Reason That There Has Never Been A Call For

A Constitutional Convention and it should be obvious.

It is called the Constitutional amendment process. When a proposed amendment gets a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress and 2/3 of the States ratify it it becomes part of the Constitution. It has been done 20 something times. The first 10 of those is called the Bill of Rights.

Now if you take away the taxing authority how do you pay for a bloated military. Obviously, Social Security and Medicare are dead because the payroll tax is dead. National parks would be dead but the States could take those over but what kind of fee schedule would they put in place. While most of Yellowstone is in Wyoming there are parts of it that are in Idaho and Montana so how does that work.

While getting rid of the Commerce Clause would end Obamacare it would end a whole lot else as well and I don't think much thought has been given to all of the ramifications of doing this. It would be the end of America as we know it and that is not an overstatement. And this passed the Indiana Senate? What could these brain dead nuts have been thinking.

[John2]

19. If we had

a Civil War today, who do you think would win? The Tea Party and those mostly rural areas or the states with more urban areas? And if we do, who loses their rights?

[JoePhilly]

20. The rural areas would lose.

Many in rural areas don;t realize that their existence is tightly coupled to the subsidies that the government takes from the more populated areas.

Like what you might ask?

Well, like wireless communications. A wireless cell tower costs lots of money. So how does a wireless company afford to put a wireless cell tower in the remote rural area? They can't. The number of subscribers living near the tower is too small to make a viable business case. So the government is requiring wireless companies to put towers in areas where there is no business case to do so. And how is it paid for, by raising the rates in urban areas where there are more people.

What's the incentive to pave roads to these rural areas? Run cable lines? Run electric lines?

Again, the number of customers is generally too small. And so, the cost of this infrastructure is subsidized.

If rural America decided to start a civil war, the government would cut them off. Cell tower in a rural area gets damaged in a tornado, oh well, too bad ... there is no economic reason to fix it.

The cities become green zones. And the rural areas become the waste land.

[LittleGirl]

21. good analogy

thanks for your post.

[Drale]

26. On the National Park Issue

one of the reasons the National Parks were created was to stop the States from having their way with the land. Yellowstone was the first national park and was put in the hands of the Federal Government because Wyoming was not yet a state but plenty of others including Smokey Mountains National Park were saved just in time to stop them from being completely ruined by the states and corporations. If the States took over the Park system there would be no more Yellowstone or Great Smokey Mountains because the land would be sold off to the Rich.

[reverend_tim]

16. One you one Pandora’s box it is open to everything. Not just the things these republicans want

[thetruthhurtsforsome]

22. Yes and things would not work out as many would think either

Say they do get 33 states to agree once they meet the red states could band together write a new Constitution that EXCLUDES all the blue states, as in they are not part of the people writing it nor will their states be included in the new nation, vote on it without Blue State participation and once passed for they will have constitutionally seceded from the United States.

I could live with that.

[John2]

24. I suggest this could go

to even further extremes. The reason I use the Civil Analogy is because even within the Deep South, certain citizens did not go along with Seccession. The South itself is divided and one ethnic group is trying to oppress the rights of other ethnic groups. The urban areas are the most populous areas and have most of the revenues. If you look at what happened during the American Civil War, West Virginia seperated from the state of Virginia and joined the Union. That is how West Virginia came into existance. I also think the Governor of Missouri had to move his government because Missouri was divided.

So regardless of these gerrymandered districts, a large portion of the populations within those states may not go along with the wishes of rural representatives especially if some are in the minority. You could possibly have rebellion within states. This is why it wouldn't work in the end. So why stop at the state level when cities have their own jurisdictions?

[Myrina]

23. Dear Goddess, get me out of here ....

[silvershadow]

25. Take me with you! nt