Only 34 states needed. Oregon should help make it happen. Eight States have already pass the call for the convention. COS is and effort underway calling for an Article V Convention of States to propose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limits on the size and scope of the federal government, and place term limits on federal officials. There probably is no other way to eliminate the career corruption in the Federal government and our representatives. Email or call your local representative to express your support. Even if you do not live in Oregon, your state representatives need to hear of your support. https://conventionofstates.com/
Dislodging Wyden and De Fossio with term limits would be a grand start. I have no illusion that a Republican would be win as the replacement. However, a better one might give it a go. If not, then I am sure you all would select a democrat that live here and tried to represent you. It would be required, force to give way to party duty bound system.
I'm all for term limits ..I like local govt to be working for the local people..as it is I really pay close attention to the politics in my neighborhood small town..that's where it starts for me...DeFazio has a good track record of regularly having community Q and A's in Eugene and seems to reach out to the communities in the State more than any rep I've seen so far. He also does a lot of radio conferencing here. I like to see representatives actually have contact with Oregonians. Wyden has been pretty vocal in DC and is usually at the front of issues there...but I don't like the current administration so he speaks for me and probably not for you.
I do not understand why Oregon keeps voting down a sales tax which should lower property tax but won't and giving the Navy a contract to build a base and use that deep port in Coos Bay...bring some money into the state and particularly that area...best deep port undeveloped on the coast from what I've read. I'd rather see sailor's paychecks spent out on the town in Oregon than in Korea
Yes, Coos bay would be just right for a Destroyer flotilla. Disperse the fleet and still be in just the right place to join Carrier Battle groups being deployed from the West Coast. A damn good place to build them too. More than enough unused dock space already in place in Coos Bay, part of the State of Dereliction. Might need to repair the hell out of some of those docks though, but the parking places are there, the channels marked and maintained.
Has Oregon turned down a naval base at Coos Bay? My understanding was that the Navy abandoned the base over our protests. barfo
I heard they voted against it...but hey...I might just be hearing the voices in my head..very well could've been protests....tweakers have rights too damnit!
So this convention of states is going to make Trump hire better White House staff? It doesn't explain how that will come about. barfo
As former Chief Justice Burger wrote, a “Constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all for special interest groups.” “I certainly would not want a constitutional convention. Whoa! Who knows what would come out of it?”a Former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scali the biggest problem to the convention is that no one can control the agenda. everything goes on the table, including the bill of rights. i agree with you about term limits, and personally i would like to limit the monies involved in our elections. but tackling free speech-donation issues would be very very difficult since the high court equates a corporation to a person. brokered deals and riders would be the coin of the realm at any constitutional convention i fear.
yes, it is a convention of states article V constitutional convention. amendments to the constitution,yes?
Yes, a convention to purpose amendments. The approval process remains the same unlike the Constitutional Convention where we had no Constitution. So this would be the first time article 5 was evoked, at least I think so.
i get the subtle difference, yet still, it is a constitutional convention and that is what the two supreme court justices were referring to. a convention of states article V constitutional convention.
I guess I do not agree this is what they are referring to. Since there has never been one. Referring to what has never been does not make sense for being compared as if held today. I think they are referring to the Constitutional Convention actually held in 1787 or so as being a problem if held today. Probably very true. But I do not see the same problem with a Convention of the State that can only propose amendments to the Constitution. The approval process would still be the same. What would be different would be on something like Term limits, not likely any Congressman would propose this but if the Convention of States did and his state supports it, then he sure as hell best vote for it.
Black's Law Dictionary, the definitive legal lexicon in American law, defines the term constitutional convention, then refers to an Article V convention as an example of one: Constitutional convention. A duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising, or amending its constitution. Art. V of U.S. Const. provides that a Constitutional Convention may be called on application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the states. [Emphasis added] This definition of a constitutional convention originates from the second edition of A Law Dictionary: Containing Definitions of the Terms and Phrases of American and English Jurisprudence, Ancient, and Modern published in 1910, by Henry Campbell Black (1860-1927), and remains unchanged in contemporary editions of Black's Law Dictionary.
1) Would this stop trillion-dollar tax cuts for the rich, which have occurred for decades early in every new Republican president's term, and are a main cause of big deficits? 2) After Reagan was elected (because he promised in every speech to balance the budget while criticizing Carters' small deficits), he immediately multiplied the federal deficit to 8 times that of Carter, easily an historic high. It has never recovered since. In reaction, the 1985 Gramm–Rudman–Hollings act set spending limits on Congress, which the Republican majority ignored at the slightest sign of good news in 1990, rendering the bill moot. A new constitutional amendment would be similarly ignored by those in power. Pretty obvious. You need to become as smart as the average voter. Sales tax impacts mostly the lower class (a regressive tax). Property tax impacts the middle and upper classes (a progressive tax). You can't squeeze blood from a turnip.
