"I used to have a great fear of constitutional conventions," Coburn told about 300 people at the Muskogee Convention Center. "I have a great fear now of not having one."
http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Coburn_calls_on_Oklahomans_to_push_for_national_constitutional/20130821_11_0_MUSKOG815093 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Coburn_calls_on_Oklahomans_to_push_for_national_constitutional/20130821_11_0_MUSKOG815093)
So let's see...your party fields a crabby old guy and personable but clueless twit as presidential candidates, then loses the election. It spends the next four years castigating the president as a socialist, fascist, communist, etc. and blocks his legislation at every turn. In the next presidential election, you field a country club Republican who suddenly discovered he's actually a far-right populist and yoke him to a real far right populist, then go on to lose the general election once again.
The Republicans lost the presidential elections and lost on the Affordable Care Act. The obvious solution is to call for a constitutional convention in order to remake the government in a way they find more palatable. Perhaps we could have a monarchy or a parliamentary system like the Brits. Perhaps we should petition them to take us back and put an end to all this nonsense.
I have to ask - has the Republican party lost its mind?
A constitutional convention opens Pandora's box. I have to assume that Coburn knows this and is merely using a cynical ploy that will appeal to his base. He's making impeachment noises too, and a rational person has to ask what the basis is for bringing an impeachment vote against this president. As always, Senator Coburn doesn't want to get into the details - if he actually has thought this through.
Quote from: Ed W on August 22, 2013, 05:12:34 PM
"I used to have a great fear of constitutional conventions," Coburn told about 300 people at the Muskogee Convention Center. "I have a great fear now of not having one."
http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Coburn_calls_on_Oklahomans_to_push_for_national_constitutional/20130821_11_0_MUSKOG815093 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Coburn_calls_on_Oklahomans_to_push_for_national_constitutional/20130821_11_0_MUSKOG815093)
So let's see...your party fields a crabby old guy and personable but clueless twit as presidential candidates, then loses the election. It spends the next four years castigating the president as a socialist, fascist, communist, etc. and blocks his legislation at every turn. In the next presidential election, you field a country club Republican who suddenly discovered he's actually a far-right populist and yoke him to a real far right populist, then go on to lose the general election once again.
The Republicans lost the presidential elections and lost on the Affordable Care Act. The obvious solution is to call for a constitutional convention in order to remake the government in a way they find more palatable. Perhaps we could have a monarchy or a parliamentary system like the Brits. Perhaps we should petition them to take us back and put an end to all this nonsense.
I have to ask - has the Republican party lost its mind?
A constitutional convention opens Pandora's box. I have to assume that Coburn knows this and is merely using a cynical ploy that will appeal to his base. He's making impeachment noises too, and a rational person has to ask what the basis is for bringing an impeachment vote against this president. As always, Senator Coburn doesn't want to get into the details - if he actually has thought this through.
He used to be much more sane. Don't really know what has become of him....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 22, 2013, 07:48:09 PM
He used to be much more sane. Don't really know what has become of him....
When was he more sane? When he was crying in committee three minutes after working a crossword or when he was worried about packs of lesbians in southern Oklahoma school bathrooms?
Um, if you haven't heard, Mark Levin has a book out which speaks to this issue. It's kinda in the news now nationally. Some of the issues that are the subject of the convention are term limits for House of Rep members, repealing the 17th Amendment, something like 60% majority of Congress/state legislatures overriding majority Supreme Court opinions...I happen to find those thought-provoking concepts, with the goal being a restoration of federalism.
Quote from: guido911 on August 22, 2013, 11:18:19 PM
repealing the 17th Amendment, something like 60% majority of Congress/state legislatures overriding majority Supreme Court opinions...
Do what? Having senators elected by state legislators again instead of voters and giving states the power to overturn SCOTUS? You want to give those powers to idiots that run so many states? Do we need to go over laws regarding fetal tissue in foods here in Oklahoma, or Arkansas reps saying that slavery was good for black people or anything from the states of South Carolina or Arizona?
You seriously want those morons to have more power while taking away power from voters and weakening constitutional rights. The right wing of the Republican party has truly and finally completely lost it.
Quote from: swake on August 23, 2013, 08:12:12 AM
Do what? Having senators elected by state legislators again instead of voters and giving states the power to overturn SCOTUS? You want to give those powers to idiots that run so many states? Do we need to go over laws regarding fetal tissue in foods here in Oklahoma, or Arkansas reps saying that slavery was good for black people or anything from the states of South Carolina or Arizona?
You seriously want those morons to have more power while taking away power from voters and weakening constitutional rights. The right wing of the Republican party has truly and finally completely lost it.
Do you not see your own hypocrisy in this post? Who do you think elects state legislators? I will not even touch that "you serious want..." paragraph. And since when do people enjoy having nine, unelected, politically-appointed justices deciding what is lawful, or being their being the final word? Or, having one federal judge overturning the vote of the citizenry of an entire state? It is a checks and balances argument, which I would think would appeal to everyone (I know, except you). I have no problem placing in the hands of the American people, given that very high Congress/state legislature percent requirement, the ability to "overturn" (or in my opinion correct/stop) SCOTUS. It is roughly the same percentage which is required in the amending of the Constitution process--and we have seen how often that has happened. This could have prevented Plessy, Citizens United, Roe, Obamacare, Korematsu, or Kelo. All political sides considered.
And having Senators elected by legislatures, that's the way it was intended in the beginning, in order to give state governments more control over their states. I am as big of a federalism proponent as possible. Besides, who wants Harry Reid in partial charge of what happens in Oklahoma. Or, in your case, do you really want Mitch McConnell doing so if the Senate flips next election. Our federal government should NEVER be as large or as involved in our lives as it is. Period.
Quote from: guido911 on August 23, 2013, 05:39:47 PM
And since when do people enjoy having nine, unelected, politically-appointed justices deciding what is lawful, or being their being the final word?
Since 1837, and continuously since 1869.
Quote from: guido911 on August 23, 2013, 05:39:47 PM
Do you not see your own hypocrisy in this post? Who do you think elects state legislators? I will not even touch that "you serious want..." paragraph. And since when do people enjoy having nine, unelected, politically-appointed justices deciding what is lawful, or being their being the final word? Or, having one federal judge overturning the vote of the citizenry of an entire state? It is a checks and balances argument, which I would think would appeal to everyone (I know, except you). I have no problem placing in the hands of the American people, given that very high Congress/state legislature percent requirement, the ability to "overturn" (or in my opinion correct/stop) SCOTUS. It is roughly the same percentage which is required in the amending of the Constitution process--and we have seen how often that has happened. This could have prevented Plessy, Citizens United, Roe, Obamacare, Korematsu, or Kelo. All political sides considered.
And having Senators elected by legislatures, that's the way it was intended in the beginning, in order to give state governments more control over their states. I am as big of a federalism proponent as possible. Besides, who wants Harry Reid in partial charge of what happens in Oklahoma. Or, in your case, do you really want Mitch McConnell doing so if the Senate flips next election. Our federal government should NEVER be as large or as involved in our lives as it is. Period.
Yes, let's have more backroom deals for who gets to be Senator. Let's have Sally Kern and Mike Reitze be important players in if supreme court decisions are overturned. These ideas are idiotic.
Quote from: swake on August 23, 2013, 11:45:23 PM
Yes, let's have more backroom deals for who gets to be Senator. Let's have Sally Kern and Mike Reitze be important players in if supreme court decisions are overturned. These ideas are idiotic.
I'm sure states like California would more than make up for Oklahoma.
Quote from: swake on August 23, 2013, 11:45:23 PM
Yes, let's have more backroom deals for who gets to be Senator. Let's have Sally Kern and Mike Reitze be important players in if supreme court decisions are overturned. These ideas are idiotic.
Back room deals NOW bother your? I guess you got to see Obamacare before it was passed. ::)
Just look at all these idiots of obvious lesser intelligence than you at a Levin book signing.
Quote from: guido911 on August 27, 2013, 01:53:42 AM
Back room deals NOW bother your?
Why do that? That's silly to say. "Now"...when did he say he was okay with it before? Did anyone ever say "I'm so happy there are back room deals."?
Quote from: guido911 on August 27, 2013, 01:53:42 AM
Back room deals NOW bother your? I guess you got to see Obamacare before it was passed. ::)
Just look at all these idiots of obvious lesser intelligence than you at a Levin book signing.
Just a note to remind you. Most of "Obamacare" stemmed from principles and legislation proposed by Republicans as far back as Clinton. The act itself was heavily dependent on input from healthcare lobbyists and huge operations like BlueCross. It was hardly a back room deal.
How about giving Senators votes proportional to the population of their states. There is no way the founders envisioned one state having 70 times the population of another state.
Well that was kind of the agreement that was made to have everybody sign. So....
Come on guys, everyone knows that Obamacare is Bush's fault. Duh!
Quote from: Gaspar on August 27, 2013, 04:09:34 PM
Come on guys, everyone knows that Obamacare is Bush's fault. Duh!
Not quite. It's Romney's
:o
Quote from: swake on August 27, 2013, 04:00:49 PM
How about giving Senators votes proportional to the population of their states. There is no way the founders envisioned one state having 70 times the population of another state.
You do know that the House is apportioned by population, don't you? The Senate is intended to be a more deliberative body.
Quote from: Ed W on August 27, 2013, 04:16:25 PM
You do know that the House is apportioned by population, don't you? The Senate is intended to be a more deliberative body.
I do, I was tossing out a ridiculous idea that Guido wouldn't like to counter his ridiculous idea of 60% of the states overruling the Supreme Court.
Quote from: swake on August 27, 2013, 04:49:43 PM
I do, I was tossing out a ridiculous idea that Guido wouldn't like to counter his ridiculous idea of 60% of the states overruling the Supreme Court.
I'm tone deaf to humor and sarcasm today. It's been a rough one.
Quote from: guido911 on August 23, 2013, 05:39:47 PM
since when do people enjoy having nine, unelected, politically-appointed justices deciding what is lawful, or being their being the final word? Or, having one federal judge overturning the vote of the citizenry of an entire state? It is a checks and balances argument, which I would think would appeal to everyone (I know, except you).
Unelected, meaning they are not encumbered by the desire to make decisions based upon the political and moral swings of the majority. Politically appointed? Absolutely, but I guess you have forgot that they are also confirmed by the Senate, meaning that every states interests are represented. And I will tell you "since when do people enjoy having..."; every person who has been in the minority and has had the supreme court rule that there rights have been violated. The SCOTUS is the one branch of Government who is actually considering the people involved and not whether or not they will be re-elected.... see the federalist papers #78 (for ease, see below
QuoteThat inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission. Periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to their necessary independence. If the power of making them was committed either to the Executive or legislature, there would be danger of an improper complaisance to the branch which possessed it; if to both, there would be an unwillingness to hazard the displeasure of either; if to the people, or to persons chosen by them for the special purpose, there would be too great a disposition to consult popularity, to justify a reliance that nothing would be consulted but the Constitution and the laws.
There is yet a further and a weightier reason for the permanency of the judicial offices, which is deducible from the nature of the qualifications they require. It has been frequently remarked, with great propriety, that a voluminous code of laws is one of the inconveniences necessarily connected with the advantages of a free government. To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them. Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges. And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge. These considerations apprise us, that the government can have no great option between fit character; and that a temporary duration in office, which would naturally discourage such characters from quitting a lucrative line of practice to accept a seat on the bench, would have a tendency to throw the administration of justice into hands less able, and less well qualified, to conduct it with utility and dignity. In the present circumstances of this country, and in those in which it is likely to be for a long time to come, the disadvantages on this score would be greater than they may at first sight appear; but it must be confessed, that they are far inferior to those which present themselves under the other aspects of the subject.
Quote from: guido911 on August 22, 2013, 11:18:19 PM
Um, if you haven't heard, Mark Levin has a book out which speaks to this issue. It's kinda in the news now nationally. Some of the issues that are the subject of the convention are term limits for House of Rep members, repealing the 17th Amendment, something like 60% majority of Congress/state legislatures overriding majority Supreme Court opinions...I happen to find those thought-provoking concepts, with the goal being a restoration of federalism.
Out of the closet, now, huh? Referencing Mark Levin...? Well, we new you had that particular inclination, but to come out and admit it?? In public..!!!???
Remember, this is the guy that ranted just last week that the Constitution doesn't say anything about the right to vote. And yes, for some reason, he phrased it that way. And then went on to say that nobody in the US has the inherent right to vote. Which is patently, obviously wrong....at the very least, women have a defined right to vote from the 19th amendment. Actually, what it does mean is that if anyone has the right to vote, women and African Americans also must have the right to vote. Well, until year 2000 anyway....
And all his sychophants just eat that stuff up! (Yeah, I know one of those words is misspelled - was that a great play on the word, or what...sometimes it just all comes together.)
The Constitution actually does say that the People are the voters to elect the representatives and electors, and also defines that the states are required to create laws that make voters, so I submit the right to vote is conferred in the Constitution. It just doesn't define who gets defined as getting that right.