Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, November 10, 2017

Steven Rosenfield, Alternet: On Tuesday Wisconsin quietly added itself as the 28th state to call for a constitutional convention. 34 are needed to force a rewrite of the constitution that the republicans (who control every participating state) claim to love. They want to tear it up and rewrite it so that it will be easier to cut programs that benefit the needy but much harder to raise taxes or add spending. They want to remove language that has stymied their efforts in recent years. Little things like equal protection under a law, the right to due process, freedom of the press, etc. The draft new constitution is available on the ALEC website. It is a scary read.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I usually hesitate to attack the source, but you really need to stop reading Alternet...it's like Worldnetdaily with worse spelling.

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-10 11:11 AM | Reply

The 2nd link goes directly to the proposal on the ALEC website and regardless of how you view the source the information is correct. 28 states have signed on, all republican controlled. They just need 6 more to force a convention and tear up the constitution they claim to love

#2 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-11-10 01:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

I don't want a constitution convention With the quality of leaders we have governing us at this time.

#3 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-11-10 03:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"The draft new constitution is available on the ALEC website. It is a scary read."

That link didn't go to anything other than a page detailing the desire for a convention. Do you have a better link to the draft? I would like to see what's so scary.

#4 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-10 03:13 PM | Reply

You don't think that letting the states decide whether and when to follow federal laws and court rulings is scary?

#5 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-11-10 03:49 PM | Reply

#4

I didn't find it either and clicked on all the links up top as well.

There were plenty of position papers but no draft Constitution that I could find.

#6 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-10 04:06 PM | Reply

#5

That's not what you said: "The draft new constitution is available on the ALEC website."

An article V petition is nothing to be frightened of, snowflake.

#7 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-10 04:07 PM | Reply

Why am I convinced that in the Polarized States of America nothing good can come from a Constitutional Convention at this point?

#8 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-11-10 04:07 PM | Reply

#8

For the same reason that I am convinced that nothing would come from a Constitutional Convention even if one were convened.

#9 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-10 04:16 PM | Reply

"You don't think that letting the states decide whether and when to follow federal laws and court rulings is scary?"

Your link included language suggesting that states shouldn't have to follow federal law? I didn't see that?

But since we're on it, should the states be forced to follow federal laws regarding the use of marijuana?

What about federal immigration laws?

#10 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-10 04:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

There was a link to the entire draft paper on the page. I will dig for it it looks like they moved it

#11 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-11-10 04:32 PM | Reply

#11

Thanks, I am truly interested to read it.

#12 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-10 04:35 PM | Reply

Somebody wake Zed, the fascist takeover is imminent.

#13 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-10 04:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I honestly think there would be a revolt in the ballot box if we had enough states sign up for a Constitutional Convention.

#15 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-10 05:50 PM | Reply

"I honestly think there would be a revolt in the ballot box if we had enough states sign up for a Constitutional Convention."

And the result would be...a constitutional convention?

The language in the application seems harmless at worst, but I liked what I saw.

I think that a lot of the acrimony we're seeing in this country is being driven by a federal, one-size-fits-all answer to any problems that arise. Take guns, for instance. this would be an opportunity to change the wording of the second amendment to leave gun laws up to the state government. So if California wanted to ban guns to the last, they could do so without running afoul of the constitution.

It seems like this is something that both conservatives and progressives could jump on board with.

#16 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-10 07:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I think if the red states decided to hold a Constitutional Convention the blue states would say --, we're out of here. Let these idiots struggle along on their own without our donations to them. They would end up starving. The majority of Americans is not going to stand for a rewrite of the constitution which shifts power to the states. That is basically the reason for the Civil War. Not going to tolerate it. The yahoos are allowed to keep their states poor while other states get rich, the yahoos are allowed to treat their poor like cattle while other states treat them like people then the yahoos whine about paying for it when, in fact, they aren't even paying the bills in their own states without help from the blue, prosperous states. We're going to see this in action soon when the House Republicans want to take away deductions from states with high income and property taxes. I suspect the Republican Party is going to split in a way not expected before, it will be rich state vs. poor state.

#17 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-10 07:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

For the same reason that I am convinced that nothing would come from a Constitutional Convention even if one were convened.

#9 | Posted by Rightocenter

When judges change the interpretation a law, conservatives whine that it's not their job, and must be done through rewriting the constitution. But if rewriting the constitution is impossible then how is our government supposed to keep up with situations the founders never could have imagined?

FOr example, they never imagined a party would be so childish that they would just REFUSE to do their job in appointing supreme court justices, unless you think they designed a system in which the supreme court could be whittled down to ZERO judges by a partisan congress.

They probably also never imagined a president who would refuse to divest himself from his businesses, reveal his taxes, or collaborate with our enemies to get elected.

#18 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-10 08:34 PM | Reply

I think that a lot of the acrimony we're seeing in this country is being driven by a federal, one-size-fits-all answer to any problems that arise. Take guns, for instance. this would be an opportunity to change the wording of the second amendment to leave gun laws up to the state government. So if California wanted to ban guns to the last, they could do so without running afoul of the constitution.

It seems like this is something that both conservatives and progressives could jump on board with.

#16 | Posted by madbomber

If problems stopped at state borders that might work.

But state borders dont have checkpoints and guns cross easily. As does pollution. If you can CONTAIN your problem within your state with NO EFFECTS on outside states, do whatever you want. But as soon as your ignorance starts harming others outside your state, the feds have a role to protect people from your stupid decisions.

#19 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-10 08:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

In theory the idea is fine.

In practice I expect the goal is to repeal the Fourteenth Amendment.

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-10 08:56 PM | Reply

You don't think that letting the states decide whether and when to follow federal laws and court rulings is scary?

No, actually, the states are supposed to be independent.. It's only till liberals like you want to tax everything to pay for your utopia that you talk about forcing a state to stay in this union.

Not going to tolerate it.

Nobody give a f--- what you will tolerate. You don't have a choice in the matter. Plus, everyone is leaving the blue states for the Red states, now why is that? It's because we have a better standard of living than the blue states.

I wish we could have a convention and the states in the convention would vote to LEAVE the union. Lets leave California on it's own. It's time we realize we aren't United anymore and as time goes on, we get more and more different than the idiots on the coasts.

#21 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-10 09:19 PM | Reply

"...in fact, they aren't even paying the bills in their own states without help from the blue, prosperous states."

Which is exactly the type of issue that could be addressed within the context of a Constitutional Convention. By reducing the bills the states owe to the Federal Government, they would have fewer obligations. Maybe they let the taxpayers keep the money. Maybe they take it all and split it equally amongst everyone in the state. It really wouldn't matter, because it would be the state making that decision.

#22 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-10 09:26 PM | Reply

"In practice I expect the goal is to repeal the Fourteenth Amendment."

OK..so let's say that occrrued.

Would there be anything to stop the states from including the same intent in their own state laws?

#23 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-10 09:28 PM | Reply

It's only till liberals like you want to tax everything to pay for your utopia that you talk about forcing a state to stay in this union.

Lincoln was a liberal?

#24 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-11-10 09:31 PM | Reply

Nobody give a f--- what you will tolerate. You don't have a choice in the matter. Plus, everyone is leaving the blue states for the Red states, now why is that? It's because we have a better standard of living than the blue states.

Red States rely heavily on the blue states to survive. Hell California is 6th in world economy all by itself. OOPSIE DAISY

I wish we could have a convention and the states in the convention would vote to LEAVE the union. Lets leave California on it's own. It's time we realize we aren't United anymore and as time goes on, we get more and more different than the idiots on the coasts.

Where you pulled that out of did you at least wear rubber gloves or did you just dive right in there al natural like???

Posted by boaz at 2017-11-10 09:19 PM | Reply

#25 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-10 10:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

In practice I expect the goal is to repeal the Fourteenth Amendment.

#20 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I hope you aren't serious.

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-10 10:00 PM | Reply

I'm completely serious.

The Fourteenth Amendment is the biggest hurdle to taking away people's rights at the State level.

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-10 10:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It's time we realize we aren't United anymore"

Yeah.
Some of us have always wanted to put you on a boat back to Africa.
Especially since 1865.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-10 10:19 PM | Reply

"Would there be anything to stop the states from including the same intent in their own state laws?"

Huh?

Why would they impose a State law after repealing the same law at the Federal level?

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-10 10:23 PM | Reply

I'm completely serious.
The Fourteenth Amendment is the biggest hurdle to taking away people's rights at the State level.

#27 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I agree with that statement, but I wholly disagree that this is the intent of a constitutional convention.

#30 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-10 10:27 PM | Reply

Right, so this is where you could present an alternative opinion, rather that just saying mine melts your snowflake.

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-10 10:33 PM | Reply

#2

The flaming hair idiots at Alternet conflate two separate Art. V convention movements.

One is for a convention on a balanced budget amendment. bba4usa.org That is the resolution passed in Wisconsin together with constraints on their delegates to prevent the delegates from voting on any other amendments. www.jsonline.com and host.madison.com

The other is for a convention of states for amendments on fiscal restraints, federal jurisdiction, and term limits. www.conventionofstates.com

Neither proposes "tear[ing] up the constitution," your flaming hair notwithstanding.

Both movements propose methodologies to prevent a "runaway" convention.

#32 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-10 10:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Right, so this is where you could present an alternative opinion, rather that just saying mine melts your snowflake.
#31 | POSTED BY SNOOFYW

What is the basis of your opinion?

#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-10 11:10 PM | Reply

- your flaming hair notwithstanding.

Some are here for the theatre of it all.

#34 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-11 12:12 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

From what I Remember it takes a two third majority to call for a convention of the states. So they need five more. If they have one, the agenda does not have to be announced beforehand. They can consider as many issues as they wish. All states must be in attendance. The states can appoint anyone as delegates. This is not tearing up the Constitution, this is a means to give the states the means to change it by the founding fathers intended. Why? Because the guys like Madison believed that political power was fluid, and it's concentration on one place was a bad thing. I am sure there will be plenty of the fringe with their pet issues in attendance, but I also think that having over 400 people in a room is an inherently moderating thing.

#35 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-11-11 10:14 AM | Reply

"Hell California is 6th in world economy all by itself" #25 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

www.mercatus.org

The fiscal health of America's states affects all its citizens. Sorry Laura this matters more. They might generate money but they are not fiscally healthy, so doesn't matter. End of the day they can't pay their bills.

OOPSIE DAISY

#36 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-11-11 10:23 AM | Reply

"But since we're on it, should the states be forced to follow federal laws regarding the use of marijuana?"

"HB 1076 would ban state agencies from enforcing any new federal gun laws, including background checks." www.motherjones.com

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-11 12:32 PM | Reply

we get more and more different than the idiots on the coasts

Don't you live in North Carolina?

Wouldn't that make you...an idiot on the coast?

Also, your knowledge of civics is appalling. Please refrain from voting unless an adult explains things to you first.

#38 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-11 12:39 PM | Reply

Huh?
Why would they impose a State law after repealing the same law at the Federal level?

#29 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Shhhhh. There's no place for logic here.

#39 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-11 12:41 PM | Reply

What the states need first is a new Declaration of Independence. It would be cool if the states declare their intent to leave the union.

#40 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-11 12:43 PM | Reply

#38
bozo doesn't think before he types.

#41 | Posted by cjk85 at 2017-11-11 12:52 PM | Reply

Lets leave California on it's own.
#21 | POSTED BY BOAZ

That's a great way to kill the US economy and give Californians enough funds for universal healthcare & a high-speed rail system in one fell swoop.

bozo doesn't think.
#41 | POSTED BY CJK85

FTFY

#42 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-11 02:33 PM | Reply

"That's a great way to kill the US economy and give Californians enough funds for universal healthcare & a high-speed rail system in one fell swoop."

Has a lot of faith in Calif politicians.

Ref: California's public pension systems are underfunded at historic levels. ... Unaddressed retirement liabilities could pose long-term risks to the state budget. In general, unaddressed retirement liabilities grow at a faster rate than other state liabilities.
Public Pension Liabilities in California - Public Policy Institute of ...
www.ppic.org/publication/public-pension-liabilities-in-california/

#43 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-11-11 02:40 PM | Reply

#38 | Posted by jpw

Lets take it slow JPW,

When normal, thinking people talk about the coasts in terms of politics, they are talking about the heavily populated liberal cesspools like New York and California and sometimes Portland. North Carolina isn't in that.

I thought you were supposed to be smart..

#44 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-11 03:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

they are talking about the heavily populated liberal cesspools

Says the totally unbiased observer.

#45 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-11-11 04:10 PM | Reply

When normal, thinking people talk about the coasts in terms of politics, they are talking about the heavily populated liberal cesspools like New York and California and sometimes Portland.

You mean the places where all the innovation and creativity that produces our GDP comes from? I have lived in California, Alabama, and Georgia and I now live in NC. I think you have your cesspools backward.

#46 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-11-11 04:38 PM | Reply

Boaz,

Are you seriously claiming North Carolina is flyover country?

#47 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-11 05:23 PM | Reply

Actually, NC is one of those "coastal" places with high-tech businesses and a lot of Yankees and furriners. Also, it's purple now and getting bluer. Eventually, the country will be sandwiched by blue coasts. Those on the right want to "take their country back" to a more "genteel" time when women and ------- knew their place. They want to repeal the 20th century.

#48 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-11-11 08:24 PM | Reply

"liberal cesspools like New York and California and sometimes Portland."

Yeah, the places your kids will want to go to get away from folks like you. Places where there things happening, culture evolving. life moving forward. The last years of my adolescence were spent in a small town, couldn't wait to leave. Never looked back. Best decision of my life.

#49 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-12 10:26 AM | Reply

#49 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2017-11-12 10:26 AM | FLAG: Those small towns [less expensive to live in, less crime, etc.] look pretty good when going into retirement :)

#50 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-11-12 01:22 PM | Reply

Every entity must operate with a balanced budget, except nations with their own central bank. If you doubt that at all you must have been asleep since 2008 when trillions of dollars were created from nothing, more than the GDP of that same year. Conservatives insist that leads to runaway inflation but the post 2008 history proves they are wrong.

The business of Government is to decide how much to tax and what to do with that money. We can build monuments, roads, schools, or bombs and battleships. The reason Conservatives constantly demand a balanced budget is to deprive the lower classes a piece of the national wealth. They want it all for themselves and their nasty donors. There is nothing more to their thinking and lying.

#51 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-12 02:39 PM | Reply

A balanced budget is a nice slogan but the devil is in the details. From a budgetary point of view a dollar in extra revenue and a dollar in spending cuts have the same value. There is no inherent about raising taxes that makes it worse than cutting spending.

The republicans want to use a balanced budget amendment not to enforce fiscal responsibility but rather as a tool to hamstring the government. By putting different requirements for spending cuts and revenue increases they hope to use the law as cover to enforce their political vision on the nation

#52 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-11-12 05:33 PM | Reply

#52 | Posted by hatter5183, What can be guaranteed is if the states do call a Constitutional Convention, Washington will loose power and a lot of it. Have no doubt. That is what scares the pee out of the progressives. Five more states and the law comes into effect. As a libertarian, I would rather 50 things tried to solve a problem rather than one.

#53 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-11-13 01:50 AM | Reply

As a libertarian, I would rather 50 things tried to solve a problem rather than one.

Yeah, that one thing that's composed of 535 things split between two groups.

Why do libertarians always seem to have put little to no thought into their views?

#54 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-13 01:56 AM | Reply

#54 | Posted by jpw Sorry but every elected member of congress does not have that much say. Most don't even read the bills they vote on. I would like the state I live in take care of issues that the Federal government is actually prohibited from doing. Reference the Tenth. Why do progressives always look to Washington to take care of their helpless lives.

#55 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-11-13 08:36 AM | Reply

"Why do progressives always look to Washington to take care of their helpless lives."

Because state governments tend to be so corrupt that it is the only hope of fair government.

#56 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-13 08:45 AM | Reply

"That is what scares the pee out of the progressives."

Yeah, things like one man one vote will be forgotten history when we turn our government back over to the corrupt state governments who, to this very day, workd very hard to disenfanchise blacks, hispanics, the elderly, students, etc. Let's be honest, what you really want is to bring back government by "good old boys."

#57 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-13 08:47 AM | Reply

Sorry but every elected member of congress does not have that much say. Most don't even read the bills they vote on.

So the states would magically do it better? LOL keep sipping the kool aid buddy.

I would like the state I live in take care of issues that the Federal government is actually prohibited from doing. Reference the Tenth.

Yeah yeah, you idiots love the Tenth while conveniently forgetting the nature of the system as it's set up in the Constitution.

Boaz seems to be completely unaware of the concept of federalism.

Why do progressives always look to Washington to take care of their helpless lives.

Why do libertarians always have the most brain dead view of reality? Seriously. Your entire political view, including your candidates, are laughable caricatures.

#58 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-13 08:58 AM | Reply

Because state governments tend to be so corrupt that it is the only hope of fair government

Don't be naive.

Because pooled resources from the whole gets more done than disjointed pools of resources. Hell, Conservatives should be happier the Feds take as much as they do in taxes as they're the primary beneficiaries and float their "Conservative" governance on the backs of the states and the government they deride so loudly.

Also, because our country is more competitive when things like education are standardized, commerce is simplified when national level standards and regulations are applied and national security enhanced when things like energy or food safety are maintained at a national level.

But that would require actually thinking beyond "duuuhhhh federal government bad".

#59 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-13 09:02 AM | Reply

Also because the U.S. Constitution is applied by the U.S. Supreme Court and the Congress over the objections of many of the state legislatures who happily denied voting rights to minorities for over 100 years. And are presently trying to reinstitute new but still the same measures to prevent voting by minorities.

#60 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-13 09:09 AM | Reply

#56 | Posted by danni, If your state government is corrupt, why don't you vote with your feet. I do note that many from the rust belt, the North East and California are moving down to the South and Texas. Let me guess, Illinois?

#61 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-11-13 11:14 AM | Reply

"I do note that many from the rust belt, the North East and California are moving down to the South and Texas." - #61 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-11-13 11:14 AM

Many?

Many people think 5 is many.

That was easy.

#62 | Posted by Hans at 2017-11-13 11:19 AM | Reply

Nobody give a f--- what you will tolerate. You don't have a choice in the matter. Plus, everyone is leaving the blue states for the Red states, now why is that? It's because we have a better standard of living than the blue states.

#21 | Posted by boaz

Haha you know nothing.

The reason it's cheap to live in red states is because no one wants to live there, except CEOs who want to destroy the environment without repercussions.

California isn't expensive for no reason. It's expensive because its an economic powerhouse, where intellectualism and innovation is celebrated, instead of superstition and theocracy. The weather is great, the land is gorgeous, the policies work,the jobs pay well, and that draws people from all over.

The fact that red states are cheap is proof that they suck.

Unless you think the fact that your Honda Civic is more affordable than my porsche panamera means it's a better car.

#63 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-13 01:01 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort