This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Kochs Bankroll Move to Rewrite the Constitution

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]


A constitutional convention, something thought impossible not long ago, is looking increasingly likely.

"A constitutional convention, something thought impossible not long ago, is looking increasingly likely. Under Article V of the US Constitution, if 34 state legislatures “issue a call” for a constitutional convention, Congress must convene one. By some counts, the right wing only needs six more states. Once called, delegates can propose and vote on changes and new amendments to the US Constitution, which, if approved, are currently required to be ratified by 38 states.

There are two major legislative pushes for a convention at the state level. One would attempt to engineer a convention for a balanced budget amendment only, and the other tries to secure an open convention for the purpose of limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. But once a convention is underway, all bets are off. The convention can write its own rules, resulting in a wide-open or “runaway” convention that can make major changes to the constitution and, some argue, even change the number of states required to ratify those changes.

If America gets saddled with a runaway convention, the Koch coterie of funders will be to blame. Most of the groups pushing the convention idea are being underwritten by one or more institutions tied to billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch..."

http://billmoyers.com/story/kochs-to-rewrite-constitution/

View user profile
Floridatexan wrote:
A constitutional convention, something thought impossible not long ago, is looking increasingly likely.

"A constitutional convention, something thought impossible not long ago, is looking increasingly likely. Under Article V of the US Constitution, if 34 state legislatures “issue a call” for a constitutional convention, Congress must convene one. By some counts, the right wing only needs six more states. Once called, delegates can propose and vote on changes and new amendments to the US Constitution, which, if approved, are currently required to be ratified by 38 states.

There are two major legislative pushes for a convention at the state level. One would attempt to engineer a convention for a balanced budget amendment only, and the other tries to secure an open convention for the purpose of limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. But once a convention is underway, all bets are off. The convention can write its own rules, resulting in a wide-open or “runaway” convention that can make major changes to the constitution and, some argue, even change the number of states required to ratify those changes.

If America gets saddled with a runaway convention, the Koch coterie of funders will be to blame. Most of the groups pushing the convention idea are being underwritten by one or more institutions tied to billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch..."

http://billmoyers.com/story/kochs-to-rewrite-constitution/




So now that you've let the Koch's out of their bottle let's count down to when one of the right wingnuts brings up Soros. 3..2..1..

View user profile
I like those first two proposals.

View user profile

“Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new Constitutional Convention could not be worth the risks involved.”

Chief Justice Warren Burger

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:I like those first two proposals.

Of course you do, because you don't understand squat.

View user profile
Floridatexan wrote:
PkrBum wrote:I like those first two proposals.

Of course you do, because you don't understand squat.

You're against a balanced budget? Against limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government?

Really? Why? Or do you just knee-jerk oppose anything that I like?

I would love to see your face when you post to me... lol.

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
PkrBum wrote:I like those first two proposals.

Of course you do, because you don't understand squat.

You're against a balanced budget? Against limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government?

Really? Why? Or do you just knee-jerk oppose anything that I like?

I would love to see your face when you post to me... lol.

I am opposed to a budget balanced on the backs of the poor, elderly, women and children, while funding for wars and private defense contractors is increased and while the village idiot builds a stupid wall on our southern border at the expense of the education budget and cancer research. I don't "knee-jerk", I research. I'm opposed to most of what you like because you don't appear to have working synapses.

View user profile
You're against a balanced budget?

I am against a charade. Do you really think they are not going to craft an exception for the military Industrial complex? Please........a blank check to a standing army which our forefathers warned us to avoid, and the balance of balancing would be on the backs of discretionary programs. I am all for it if you start with the military being reduced by 25% as a precursor to a constitutional convention, with the a provision which reduces our standing military to half of what it is now, where only a declared war against another nation state can allow for their budget to be exceeded. This pretend war chit where they name sections of Interstate 65 for the war on terrorism has to stop. The truth is that the idea of progressive tax rates and general welfare of American citizens is counter completely to the libertarian John Birch origins of the Koch brothers. I think people are wary after seeing the wizard of oz not hidden behind a curtain delivering subsidy to MIC.....and the 1%. If a constitutional convention would give California six senators and one senator to six western states, I am pretty sure there will be no constitutional convention. So the risk will outweigh the benefit to the oligarchy, and all the democrats have to do is talk about a constitutional amendment on money not being speech, more senators for more populous states, and less senators for western states......just start that talk and the whole thing is done.

View user profile


I don't think we need more Senators in the more populous states, but I do think we need electoral college votes in each state to be proportional to the popular vote, not "winner take all".

View user profile
You do understand that senators bring electoral votes to a small state. The small Western states bring almost 20 electoral votes to the Republican Party structurally based on senators not being based on population. The Senate has been vested with the extractive industries who own about 12 of the small Western States. No the constitution was written when there were 13 states, and it was never was anticipated that a state who has one representative could get two senators. The big state vs the small state constitutional debates had more to do with geographic size and population, and never anticipated a state with one representative getting two senators. This would be my first constitutional amendment. Senators would be based on population increments of five million or some number which brought us close to the 100 number. A state would be guaranteed one senator. Additional senators would be based on population. Until this is changed, oil and gas will own the senate.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:You do understand that senators bring electoral votes to a small state.  The small Western states bring almost 20 electoral votes to the Republican Party structurally based on senators not being based on population.  The Senate has been vested with the extractive industries who own about 12 of the small Western States.  No the constitution was written when there were 13 states, and it was never was anticipated that a state who has one representative could get two senators.   The big state vs the small state constitutional debates had more to do with geographic size and population, and never anticipated a state with one representative getting two senators.   This would be my first constitutional amendment.  Senators would be based on population increments of five million or some number which brought us close to the 100 number.  A state would be guaranteed one senator.  Additional senators would be based on population.  Until this is changed, oil and gas will own the senate.

OK, I'm getting it now. I have been so distracted that it's hard to concentrate on anything else. We are on the same track...to make the Congress more representative of the will of the people. So, I say we advocate for both, but I think mine is more doable. I can't imagine this Congress going anywhere near your proposal.

View user profile
I can't imagine this Congress going anywhere near your proposal.


That is why it must be used as a counter measure to the Koch brothers. You need 38 states, and you will NEVER get the small states ratifying a constitutional convention when the threat of taking away senators from them is on the table. Throw in a Citizens United amendment, and the Koch brothers are dead on arrival. Once convened there is tremendous risk for everyone. That is why it is a very poor choice. Amendments should be specific and clear when going out to the states and congress. What happens in back rooms in a convention is an unknown and a risk for both sides.

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum