Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Why Obama is locked on Hagel and wants him very badly. Republicans just don't play that way, yo   (politico.com ) divider line 85
    More: Interesting, Hagel, Obama administration, Vice President Joe Biden, cloture, President Bill Clinton  
•       •       •

2818 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Feb 2013 at 10:14 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



85 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-15 09:56:01 AM  
This week in the U.S. Senate...

s8.postimage.org
 
2013-02-15 10:11:37 AM  
There was an interesting point made somewhere (I don't recall where) about how this isn't even a filibuster issue. Even if there was no filibuster, this is looking like it will be a straight party line vote. What if that becomes the norm for cabinet appointments? What happens when the President and the Senate are held by different parties? Presidents no longer get to pick his own advisors?

More and more it seems to me the way we've set up our government is really cracking at the seams.
 
2013-02-15 10:16:38 AM  
Hey guys the president is about to do something that we want, but we still have a chance to blackmail him here so we need to do something.
 
2013-02-15 10:16:57 AM  
I watched him testify. It was relly terrible. Also he hates Israel.
 
2013-02-15 10:17:10 AM  
I have a feeling Obama could have nominated Napolean or Alexander the Great for SecDef, and the Republicans would filibuster it.
 
2013-02-15 10:18:05 AM  
Stupid bit of hand wringing, as the GOP would have followed this course no matter the nominee.
 
2013-02-15 10:19:40 AM  
Obama could nominate the reanimated corpse of George Washington and Republicans would filibuster him. The GOP does not care about electoral legitimacy or governance, only that they solely wield the power.
 
2013-02-15 10:19:43 AM  

vernonFL: I have a feeling Obama could have nominated Napolean or Alexander the Great for SecDef, and the Republicans would filibuster it.


I can't help but say that even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and in the case of Napolean or Alexander the Great, I don't think a cavalier warmonger is really suited to SecDef. Personally I think Donald Rumsfeld should be resurrected, and the continued safety of his phylactery bartered against his continued service to his Country.
 
2013-02-15 10:19:46 AM  

DamnYankees: More and more it seems to me the way we've set up our government is really cracking at the seams.


It was fine until the GOP realized exactly how much damage all-out obstructionism can do.  People used to compromise and occasionally break with their party, but those days are gone.  When Republicans started putting the party before the country, things went off the rails.  I'm not sure what it will take to fix the mess though.
 
2013-02-15 10:20:37 AM  

vernonFL: I have a feeling Obama could have nominated Napolean or Alexander the Great for SecDef, and the Republicans would filibuster it.


A cheese eating surrender monkey or a Greek gay guy? Certain Republican filibusters.
 
2013-02-15 10:20:48 AM  
Why is Obama dead set on Hagel?
A better question is why not?  Is there any other person in the world he could nominate who would not be met by the same exact objections from Republicans in the Senate?

"Obama nominated you, so obviously you hate Israel / want Iran to have nukes / want to destroy the country / BENGHAZI!!!!"
 
2013-02-15 10:20:59 AM  

HMS_Blinkin: DamnYankees: More and more it seems to me the way we've set up our government is really cracking at the seams.

It was fine until the GOP realized exactly how much damage all-out obstructionism can do.


It really wasn't 'fine'. We've had huge, massive problems in the past due to the way our government is set up - see War, Civil and Crow, Jim. We've survived  despite these issues, but that's hardly a ringing endorsement of them.
 
2013-02-15 10:21:36 AM  

BalugaJoe: I watched him testify. It was relly terrible. Also he hates Israel.


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-02-15 10:22:32 AM  

DamnYankees: There was an interesting point made somewhere (I don't recall where) about how this isn't even a filibuster issue. Even if there was no filibuster, this is looking like it will be a straight party line vote. What if that becomes the norm for cabinet appointments? What happens when the President and the Senate are held by different parties? Presidents no longer get to pick his own advisors?

More and more it seems to me the way we've set up our government is really cracking at the seams.


I think the basic assumption was that, when it came down to it, the different parties would eventually work together when they had to.  This assumption was, of course, proven false by the Civil War; it's no surprise the descendants of the Confederacy are the ones working again for their benefit, and to the detriment of everyone else.

Any potential real solution  must break the power of the Southern political coalition, but I don't see a reasonable way to go about doing such a thing. We've tried twice now and failed both times.
 
2013-02-15 10:27:28 AM  

qorkfiend: DamnYankees: There was an interesting point made somewhere (I don't recall where) about how this isn't even a filibuster issue. Even if there was no filibuster, this is looking like it will be a straight party line vote. What if that becomes the norm for cabinet appointments? What happens when the President and the Senate are held by different parties? Presidents no longer get to pick his own advisors?

More and more it seems to me the way we've set up our government is really cracking at the seams.

I think the basic assumption was that, when it came down to it, the different parties would eventually work together when they had to.  This assumption was, of course, proven false by the Civil War; it's no surprise the descendants of the Confederacy are the ones working again for their benefit, and to the detriment of everyone else.

Any potential real solution  must break the power of the Southern political coalition, but I don't see a reasonable way to go about doing such a thing. We've tried twice now and failed both times.


Mandating multi-member Congressional districts along with some sort of ranked voting scheme (like Schulze) would go a long way.
 
2013-02-15 10:28:14 AM  
DamnYankees: More and more it seems to me the way we've set up our government is really cracking at the seams.

Gee, it seems as though George W bush didn't have too much trouble with his appointments.

And, no, Harriet Myers doesn't count.

Funny, that.
 
2013-02-15 10:28:19 AM  

vernonFL: I have a feeling Obama could have nominated Napolean or Alexander the Great Ted Nugent for SecDef, and the Republicans would filibuster it.


Also true.
 
2013-02-15 10:28:22 AM  
Well, that's what Obama gets for picking the libbiest lib that ever libbed a lib.  What's that?  Republicans are filibustering the nomination of other Republicans to cabinet appointments?  Oh, that makes much more sense.
 
2013-02-15 10:29:36 AM  

BalugaJoe: I watched him testify. It was relly terrible. Also he hates Israel.


More importantly, what's his opinion of Luxemburg?  How about Peru?  Mozambique?
Maybe we should be more concerned about his opinion of his own country.
 
2013-02-15 10:30:24 AM  

Karac: Why is Obama dead set on Hagel? A better question is why not? Is there any other person in the world he could nominate who would not be met by the same exact objections from Republicans in the Senate?


I'm surprized he hasn't learned the lesson yet: always nominate someone you don't want, pretend the guy you really want is your second choice after the 'first choice' gets blocked.
 
2013-02-15 10:30:39 AM  

qorkfiend: DamnYankees: There was an interesting point made somewhere (I don't recall where) about how this isn't even a filibuster issue. Even if there was no filibuster, this is looking like it will be a straight party line vote. What if that becomes the norm for cabinet appointments? What happens when the President and the Senate are held by different parties? Presidents no longer get to pick his own advisors?

More and more it seems to me the way we've set up our government is really cracking at the seams.

I think the basic assumption was that, when it came down to it, the different parties would eventually work together when they had to.  This assumption was, of course, proven false by the Civil War; it's no surprise the descendants of the Confederacy are the ones working again for their benefit, and to the detriment of everyone else.

Any potential real solution  must break the power of the Southern political coalition, but I don't see a reasonable way to go about doing such a thing. We've tried twice now and failed both times.


Could totally just part ways and let em have their own country.
 
2013-02-15 10:31:24 AM  

aaronx: DamnYankees: More and more it seems to me the way we've set up our government is really cracking at the seams.

Gee, it seems as though George W bush didn't have too much trouble with his appointments.


Well, a lot of those votes were actually relatively close, but your point is taken. I just find it very hard to believe that what we've seen in the past few years is just going to go away in the future.
 
2013-02-15 10:32:00 AM  

Ned Stark: qorkfiend: DamnYankees: There was an interesting point made somewhere (I don't recall where) about how this isn't even a filibuster issue. Even if there was no filibuster, this is looking like it will be a straight party line vote. What if that becomes the norm for cabinet appointments? What happens when the President and the Senate are held by different parties? Presidents no longer get to pick his own advisors?

More and more it seems to me the way we've set up our government is really cracking at the seams.

I think the basic assumption was that, when it came down to it, the different parties would eventually work together when they had to.  This assumption was, of course, proven false by the Civil War; it's no surprise the descendants of the Confederacy are the ones working again for their benefit, and to the detriment of everyone else.

Any potential real solution  must break the power of the Southern political coalition, but I don't see a reasonable way to go about doing such a thing. We've tried twice now and failed both times.

Could totally just part ways and let em have their own country.


We don't need an unstable, militaristic, theocracy on our border.
 
2013-02-15 10:32:38 AM  

DamnYankees: aaronx: DamnYankees: More and more it seems to me the way we've set up our government is really cracking at the seams.

Gee, it seems as though George W bush didn't have too much trouble with his appointments.

Well, a lot of those votes were actually relatively close, but your point is taken. I just find it very hard to believe that what we've seen in the past few years is just going to go away in the future.


At least they were votes.
 
2013-02-15 10:33:50 AM  

Serious Black: qorkfiend: DamnYankees: There was an interesting point made somewhere (I don't recall where) about how this isn't even a filibuster issue. Even if there was no filibuster, this is looking like it will be a straight party line vote. What if that becomes the norm for cabinet appointments? What happens when the President and the Senate are held by different parties? Presidents no longer get to pick his own advisors?

More and more it seems to me the way we've set up our government is really cracking at the seams.

I think the basic assumption was that, when it came down to it, the different parties would eventually work together when they had to.  This assumption was, of course, proven false by the Civil War; it's no surprise the descendants of the Confederacy are the ones working again for their benefit, and to the detriment of everyone else.

Any potential real solution  must break the power of the Southern political coalition, but I don't see a reasonable way to go about doing such a thing. We've tried twice now and failed both times.

Mandating multi-member Congressional districts along with some sort of ranked voting scheme (like Schulze) would go a long way.


By reasonable, I mean "stands a chance of actually happening", and I don't think we'll see multi-member districts or ranked voting any time soon.
 
2013-02-15 10:33:51 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Ned Stark: qorkfiend: DamnYankees: There was an interesting point made somewhere (I don't recall where) about how this isn't even a filibuster issue. Even if there was no filibuster, this is looking like it will be a straight party line vote. What if that becomes the norm for cabinet appointments? What happens when the President and the Senate are held by different parties? Presidents no longer get to pick his own advisors?

More and more it seems to me the way we've set up our government is really cracking at the seams.

I think the basic assumption was that, when it came down to it, the different parties would eventually work together when they had to.  This assumption was, of course, proven false by the Civil War; it's no surprise the descendants of the Confederacy are the ones working again for their benefit, and to the detriment of everyone else.

Any potential real solution  must break the power of the Southern political coalition, but I don't see a reasonable way to go about doing such a thing. We've tried twice now and failed both times.

Could totally just part ways and let em have their own country.

We don't need an unstable, militaristic, theocracy on our border.


Better than being in one, surely?
 
2013-02-15 10:34:14 AM  
Obama is just a polarizing figure.  If he would just do what the GOP wanted him to do, then we wouldn't have these problems at all.  For a supposedly smart guy he is impossibly dense on this matter.
 
2013-02-15 10:35:39 AM  
Why doesn't Hagel decline his nomination? Obama says to the GOP: Who do you suggest? Go with that and let them filibuster their own nomination.

Then hire Hagel as some sort of liason.
 
2013-02-15 10:35:57 AM  
I wonder if Hagel has reconsidered his choice of political party.
 
2013-02-15 10:36:26 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Ned Stark: qorkfiend: DamnYankees: There was an interesting point made somewhere (I don't recall where) about how this isn't even a filibuster issue. Even if there was no filibuster, this is looking like it will be a straight party line vote. What if that becomes the norm for cabinet appointments? What happens when the President and the Senate are held by different parties? Presidents no longer get to pick his own advisors?

More and more it seems to me the way we've set up our government is really cracking at the seams.

I think the basic assumption was that, when it came down to it, the different parties would eventually work together when they had to.  This assumption was, of course, proven false by the Civil War; it's no surprise the descendants of the Confederacy are the ones working again for their benefit, and to the detriment of everyone else.

Any potential real solution  must break the power of the Southern political coalition, but I don't see a reasonable way to go about doing such a thing. We've tried twice now and failed both times.

Could totally just part ways and let em have their own country.

We don't need an unstable, militaristic, theocracy on our border.



A wall might help.
 
2013-02-15 10:36:47 AM  

qorkfiend: Serious Black: qorkfiend: DamnYankees: There was an interesting point made somewhere (I don't recall where) about how this isn't even a filibuster issue. Even if there was no filibuster, this is looking like it will be a straight party line vote. What if that becomes the norm for cabinet appointments? What happens when the President and the Senate are held by different parties? Presidents no longer get to pick his own advisors?

More and more it seems to me the way we've set up our government is really cracking at the seams.

I think the basic assumption was that, when it came down to it, the different parties would eventually work together when they had to.  This assumption was, of course, proven false by the Civil War; it's no surprise the descendants of the Confederacy are the ones working again for their benefit, and to the detriment of everyone else.

Any potential real solution  must break the power of the Southern political coalition, but I don't see a reasonable way to go about doing such a thing. We've tried twice now and failed both times.

Mandating multi-member Congressional districts along with some sort of ranked voting scheme (like Schulze) would go a long way.

By reasonable, I mean "stands a chance of actually happening", and I don't think we'll see multi-member districts or ranked voting any time soon.


By that standard, nothing will ever change. Hell, about 90% of Americans endorse ending corporate personhood like what enabled Citizens United v. FEC through a constitutional amendment, and even though I'm trying like hell to make that happen, I don't believe it will happen in my grandchildren's lifetimes.
 
2013-02-15 10:38:19 AM  
I would like to see Obama ask the Republicans "OK, who would YOU like to see in the position?"  Have the Republicans come up with their top choice and Obama nominate them.  Then let the grilling start...
 
2013-02-15 10:39:23 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Ned Stark: qorkfiend: DamnYankees: There was an interesting point made somewhere (I don't recall where) about how this isn't even a filibuster issue. Even if there was no filibuster, this is looking like it will be a straight party line vote. What if that becomes the norm for cabinet appointments? What happens when the President and the Senate are held by different parties? Presidents no longer get to pick his own advisors?

More and more it seems to me the way we've set up our government is really cracking at the seams.

I think the basic assumption was that, when it came down to it, the different parties would eventually work together when they had to.  This assumption was, of course, proven false by the Civil War; it's no surprise the descendants of the Confederacy are the ones working again for their benefit, and to the detriment of everyone else.

Any potential real solution  must break the power of the Southern political coalition, but I don't see a reasonable way to go about doing such a thing. We've tried twice now and failed both times.

Could totally just part ways and let em have their own country.

We don't need an unstable, militaristic, theocracy on our border.


I agree. This is something that should be avoided at all costs.

The blend of theology and militarism is the most alarming. If the Republic ever splits it will be maybe 15 to 20 years before the South invades the North in an attempt to reclaim their "God-given heritage".
 
2013-02-15 10:40:27 AM  
Secretary of Defense doesn't have to be republican, you know...
 
2013-02-15 10:41:43 AM  

Epoch_Zero: Secretary of Defense doesn't have to be republican, you know...


Dennis Kucinich FTW!
 
2013-02-15 10:43:22 AM  

Serious Black: qorkfiend: Serious Black: qorkfiend: DamnYankees: There was an interesting point made somewhere (I don't recall where) about how this isn't even a filibuster issue. Even if there was no filibuster, this is looking like it will be a straight party line vote. What if that becomes the norm for cabinet appointments? What happens when the President and the Senate are held by different parties? Presidents no longer get to pick his own advisors?

More and more it seems to me the way we've set up our government is really cracking at the seams.

I think the basic assumption was that, when it came down to it, the different parties would eventually work together when they had to.  This assumption was, of course, proven false by the Civil War; it's no surprise the descendants of the Confederacy are the ones working again for their benefit, and to the detriment of everyone else.

Any potential real solution  must break the power of the Southern political coalition, but I don't see a reasonable way to go about doing such a thing. We've tried twice now and failed both times.

Mandating multi-member Congressional districts along with some sort of ranked voting scheme (like Schulze) would go a long way.

By reasonable, I mean "stands a chance of actually happening", and I don't think we'll see multi-member districts or ranked voting any time soon.

By that standard, nothing will ever change. Hell, about 90% of Americans endorse ending corporate personhood like what enabled Citizens United v. FEC through a constitutional amendment, and even though I'm trying like hell to make that happen, I don't believe it will happen in my grandchildren's lifetimes.


I'm viewing it as the two halves to the amendment question. I think ending corporate personhood would pass if it went to the states, though it will depend heavily on how the amendment is worded, but it won't get to that point because it wouldn't pass Congress. Changing the electoral system, however, wouldn't pass Congress  or the states.
 
2013-02-15 10:51:14 AM  

qorkfiend: Serious Black: qorkfiend: Serious Black: qorkfiend: DamnYankees: There was an interesting point made somewhere (I don't recall where) about how this isn't even a filibuster issue. Even if there was no filibuster, this is looking like it will be a straight party line vote. What if that becomes the norm for cabinet appointments? What happens when the President and the Senate are held by different parties? Presidents no longer get to pick his own advisors?

More and more it seems to me the way we've set up our government is really cracking at the seams.

I think the basic assumption was that, when it came down to it, the different parties would eventually work together when they had to.  This assumption was, of course, proven false by the Civil War; it's no surprise the descendants of the Confederacy are the ones working again for their benefit, and to the detriment of everyone else.

Any potential real solution  must break the power of the Southern political coalition, but I don't see a reasonable way to go about doing such a thing. We've tried twice now and failed both times.

Mandating multi-member Congressional districts along with some sort of ranked voting scheme (like Schulze) would go a long way.

By reasonable, I mean "stands a chance of actually happening", and I don't think we'll see multi-member districts or ranked voting any time soon.

By that standard, nothing will ever change. Hell, about 90% of Americans endorse ending corporate personhood like what enabled Citizens United v. FEC through a constitutional amendment, and even though I'm trying like hell to make that happen, I don't believe it will happen in my grandchildren's lifetimes.

I'm viewing it as the two halves to the amendment question. I think ending corporate personhood would pass if it went to the states, though it will depend heavily on how the amendment is worded, but it won't get to that point because it wouldn't pass Congress. Changing the electoral system, however, wouldn't pass Congres ...


I think the best chance of abolishing corporate personhood is using the Article V convention threat. That's what eventually caused Congress to send the 17th Amendment to the states. And there are a LOT of communities and some states passing resolutions calling for that amendment already.
 
2013-02-15 10:51:53 AM  
Pointless sideshow.  The GOP have basically already came out and said they'll put his nomination up for vote in 10 days.   Why the GOP want to spend 10 days re-inforcing their image as unpopular obstructionists for meaningless theatre is beyond me.     Because they want to milk out that pointless Benghazi dog and pony show for every last drop when nobody gives a fark about it but your wack-job base?   When Hillary Clinton's approval rating soar after you've "grilled" her on the topic, it kinda shows how much weaksauce your manufactured scandal is.
 
2013-02-15 10:51:53 AM  
I know the "if a Democrat did this..." comparison can get tiresome, and I try to avoid it. But try to imagine it's 2005, Bush/Cheney just won a second term, and the president nominates a decorated war hero to lead the Pentagon. Then imagine Senate Democrats, for the first time in American history, blocking a vote on the nomination. Then imagine the Senate Democratic ringleader bragging on national television that Democrats did so in part because the nominee hurt their feelings. Then imagine liberal activists cheering them on. Link
 
2013-02-15 10:59:40 AM  

qorkfiend: I think ending corporate personhood would pass if it went to the states, though it will depend heavily on how the amendment is worded, but it won't get to that point because it wouldn't pass Congress.


With all the work ALEC and affiliated groups have done on the states? I think you'd be hard pressed to get it through state legislatures.
 
2013-02-15 11:00:26 AM  

Serious Black: I think the best chance of abolishing corporate personhood is using the Article V convention threat. That's what eventually caused Congress to send the 17th Amendment to the states. And there are a LOT of communities and some states passing resolutions calling for that amendment already.


You still need two-thirds of the states to call for a convention, though. And, with a convention, we run the risk of getting all sorts of crazy amendments sent to the states, and who knows what happens then? We wouldn't end up with a Constitutional ban on gay marriage - that ship has sailed - but we could end up with a great deal more security-related amendments. A Constitutional Convention, in my opinion, would do more harm than good.
 
2013-02-15 11:03:51 AM  

qorkfiend: Serious Black: I think the best chance of abolishing corporate personhood is using the Article V convention threat. That's what eventually caused Congress to send the 17th Amendment to the states. And there are a LOT of communities and some states passing resolutions calling for that amendment already.

You still need two-thirds of the states to call for a convention, though. And, with a convention, we run the risk of getting all sorts of crazy amendments sent to the states, and who knows what happens then? We wouldn't end up with a Constitutional ban on gay marriage - that ship has sailed - but we could end up with a great deal more security-related amendments. A Constitutional Convention, in my opinion, would do more harm than good.


That's exactly my point. Congress would be scared shiatless of what could happen during a new Constitutional Convention, so they would send the amendment to the states to defuse the threat.

And IIRC, there are about 30 states with standing calls for an Article V convention.
 
2013-02-15 11:07:22 AM  

Serious Black: qorkfiend: Serious Black: I think the best chance of abolishing corporate personhood is using the Article V convention threat. That's what eventually caused Congress to send the 17th Amendment to the states. And there are a LOT of communities and some states passing resolutions calling for that amendment already.

You still need two-thirds of the states to call for a convention, though. And, with a convention, we run the risk of getting all sorts of crazy amendments sent to the states, and who knows what happens then? We wouldn't end up with a Constitutional ban on gay marriage - that ship has sailed - but we could end up with a great deal more security-related amendments. A Constitutional Convention, in my opinion, would do more harm than good.

That's exactly my point. Congress would be scared shiatless of what could happen during a new Constitutional Convention, so they would send the amendment to the states to defuse the threat.

And IIRC, there are about 30 states with standing calls for an Article V convention.


Are you laboring under the impression that the Republicans in Congress give a rats ass about what would be good for the country:?
 
2013-02-15 11:08:06 AM  
"The big picture here is the Pentagon is not going to have much protection from outside political forces during the second Obama administration," said defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute. "Hagel has alienated so many people in his own Republican Party that reaching across the aisle would be a challenge. ... It raises questions about whether he will be able to implement any major changes at the Pentagon, given how narrow his base of support on the Hill seems to be."

So... we don't like him because he's controversial, and he's controversial because we don't like him?
 
2013-02-15 11:12:21 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Serious Black: qorkfiend: Serious Black: I think the best chance of abolishing corporate personhood is using the Article V convention threat. That's what eventually caused Congress to send the 17th Amendment to the states. And there are a LOT of communities and some states passing resolutions calling for that amendment already.

You still need two-thirds of the states to call for a convention, though. And, with a convention, we run the risk of getting all sorts of crazy amendments sent to the states, and who knows what happens then? We wouldn't end up with a Constitutional ban on gay marriage - that ship has sailed - but we could end up with a great deal more security-related amendments. A Constitutional Convention, in my opinion, would do more harm than good.

That's exactly my point. Congress would be scared shiatless of what could happen during a new Constitutional Convention, so they would send the amendment to the states to defuse the threat.

And IIRC, there are about 30 states with standing calls for an Article V convention.

Are you laboring under the impression that the Republicans in Congress give a rats ass about what would be good for the country:?


I think they would be scared of somebody proposing amendments that would end the South's voting shenanigans.
 
2013-02-15 11:15:21 AM  

Serious Black: Philip Francis Queeg: Serious Black: qorkfiend: Serious Black: I think the best chance of abolishing corporate personhood is using the Article V convention threat. That's what eventually caused Congress to send the 17th Amendment to the states. And there are a LOT of communities and some states passing resolutions calling for that amendment already.

You still need two-thirds of the states to call for a convention, though. And, with a convention, we run the risk of getting all sorts of crazy amendments sent to the states, and who knows what happens then? We wouldn't end up with a Constitutional ban on gay marriage - that ship has sailed - but we could end up with a great deal more security-related amendments. A Constitutional Convention, in my opinion, would do more harm than good.

That's exactly my point. Congress would be scared shiatless of what could happen during a new Constitutional Convention, so they would send the amendment to the states to defuse the threat.

And IIRC, there are about 30 states with standing calls for an Article V convention.

Are you laboring under the impression that the Republicans in Congress give a rats ass about what would be good for the country:?

I think they would be scared of somebody proposing amendments that would end the South's voting shenanigans.


Or see it as a great opportunity to see the entire Santorum agenda written into the constitution.
 
2013-02-15 11:17:29 AM  

Serious Black: qorkfiend: Serious Black: I think the best chance of abolishing corporate personhood is using the Article V convention threat. That's what eventually caused Congress to send the 17th Amendment to the states. And there are a LOT of communities and some states passing resolutions calling for that amendment already.

You still need two-thirds of the states to call for a convention, though. And, with a convention, we run the risk of getting all sorts of crazy amendments sent to the states, and who knows what happens then? We wouldn't end up with a Constitutional ban on gay marriage - that ship has sailed - but we could end up with a great deal more security-related amendments. A Constitutional Convention, in my opinion, would do more harm than good.

That's exactly my point. Congress would be scared shiatless of what could happen during a new Constitutional Convention, so they would send the amendment to the states to defuse the threat.

And IIRC, there are about 30 states with standing calls for an Article V convention.


Well, every state has called for a convention at one time or another. I guess it depends on your definition of standing call, though I suppose a call stands unless a legislature explicitly rescinds it; from what I can tell, there have been only 7 state calls from 5 unique states since 2008. Three of those calls are for a Balanced Budget Amendment; two are for "Federal Debt Limited by State Legislatures", which sounds like an awful idea; the other two are simply titled "Mode of Amendment" from North Dakota, and "Posse Comitatus" from Louisiana.

If we continue going back, the only specific issue with enough applications is a Balanced Budget Amendment, which I think we'll both agree would do more harm than good.
 
2013-02-15 11:17:57 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Serious Black: Philip Francis Queeg: Serious Black: qorkfiend: Serious Black: I think the best chance of abolishing corporate personhood is using the Article V convention threat. That's what eventually caused Congress to send the 17th Amendment to the states. And there are a LOT of communities and some states passing resolutions calling for that amendment already.

You still need two-thirds of the states to call for a convention, though. And, with a convention, we run the risk of getting all sorts of crazy amendments sent to the states, and who knows what happens then? We wouldn't end up with a Constitutional ban on gay marriage - that ship has sailed - but we could end up with a great deal more security-related amendments. A Constitutional Convention, in my opinion, would do more harm than good.

That's exactly my point. Congress would be scared shiatless of what could happen during a new Constitutional Convention, so they would send the amendment to the states to defuse the threat.

And IIRC, there are about 30 states with standing calls for an Article V convention.

Are you laboring under the impression that the Republicans in Congress give a rats ass about what would be good for the country:?

I think they would be scared of somebody proposing amendments that would end the South's voting shenanigans.

Or see it as a great opportunity to see the entire Santorum agenda written into the constitution.


Yeah, because two-thirds of America would agree to make right-wing Christianity the official national religion. That's highly unlikely.
 
2013-02-15 11:19:52 AM  

Serious Black: Philip Francis Queeg: Serious Black: Philip Francis Queeg: Serious Black: qorkfiend: Serious Black: I think the best chance of abolishing corporate personhood is using the Article V convention threat. That's what eventually caused Congress to send the 17th Amendment to the states. And there are a LOT of communities and some states passing resolutions calling for that amendment already.

You still need two-thirds of the states to call for a convention, though. And, with a convention, we run the risk of getting all sorts of crazy amendments sent to the states, and who knows what happens then? We wouldn't end up with a Constitutional ban on gay marriage - that ship has sailed - but we could end up with a great deal more security-related amendments. A Constitutional Convention, in my opinion, would do more harm than good.

That's exactly my point. Congress would be scared shiatless of what could happen during a new Constitutional Convention, so they would send the amendment to the states to defuse the threat.

And IIRC, there are about 30 states with standing calls for an Article V convention.

Are you laboring under the impression that the Republicans in Congress give a rats ass about what would be good for the country:?

I think they would be scared of somebody proposing amendments that would end the South's voting shenanigans.

Or see it as a great opportunity to see the entire Santorum agenda written into the constitution.

Yeah, because two-thirds of America would agree to make right-wing Christianity the official national religion. That's highly unlikely.


As likely as 2/3 of the states agreeing to significant electoral changes.
 
2013-02-15 11:21:09 AM  

Serious Black: Philip Francis Queeg: Serious Black: Philip Francis Queeg: Serious Black: qorkfiend: Serious Black: I think the best chance of abolishing corporate personhood is using the Article V convention threat. That's what eventually caused Congress to send the 17th Amendment to the states. And there are a LOT of communities and some states passing resolutions calling for that amendment already.

You still need two-thirds of the states to call for a convention, though. And, with a convention, we run the risk of getting all sorts of crazy amendments sent to the states, and who knows what happens then? We wouldn't end up with a Constitutional ban on gay marriage - that ship has sailed - but we could end up with a great deal more security-related amendments. A Constitutional Convention, in my opinion, would do more harm than good.

That's exactly my point. Congress would be scared shiatless of what could happen during a new Constitutional Convention, so they would send the amendment to the states to defuse the threat.

And IIRC, there are about 30 states with standing calls for an Article V convention.

Are you laboring under the impression that the Republicans in Congress give a rats ass about what would be good for the country:?

I think they would be scared of somebody proposing amendments that would end the South's voting shenanigans.

Or see it as a great opportunity to see the entire Santorum agenda written into the constitution.

Yeah, because two-thirds of America would agree to make right-wing Christianity the official national religion. That's highly unlikely.


I don't think it would be that, explicitly. But, we'd probably end up with some sort of Right to Life amendment - there are 20-something outstanding calls for a convention on that issue, dating back to the 70s - and probably some sort of increased protection for "religious-affiliated organizations".
 
Displayed 50 of 85 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report