Factually Incorrect.
Bill Anderson

Bill, I’ll start this by saying you seem to want a set of rules that structure the world. With that said, I’ll bite on a point by point response here…

On factually incorrect.

At the level of states calling for a constitutional convention, congress really has no power. Ideally congress would ratify it, but whether congress does or does not is inconsequential. Once 2/3s of the states start meeting on their own initiative, congress and the POTUS can’t do anything. They really can’t do anything if only the democratic states met to create their own constitution except try and declare war on them.

So you lack confidence in the Republicans who have control to do the right thing now,

I lack confidence that congress whether democratic or republic has the ability to do the right thing. The ACA passed because of a BS procedure with no Republican support. Did you follow what the Republicans did in the Senate last night to get a tax bill approved? I can’t even believe you asked this question….

All I’ve seen is you saying you don’t like that CA didn’t get to decide the presidency.

No, I’m saying a constitutional convention that reduces the federal government influence on the states is the only way to unite the US. I have been very specific on this. Can you read?

Why do you insist on collectivising my response by shifting it from what I would want, to a hypothetical “what my state would start with”?

I’m only interested in personal positions that are localized versus the current “civil war” that is happening where the left and right are trying to shove their views on each other. I want to maintain legalized marrijuanna, abortion, paris agreement, strong environmental controls, etc. that a majority in CA typically approve of. I’m for gay marriage which CA wasn’t initially for based on the proposition. I’m guessing now the proposition would pass. I’m not interested in opinions from people who don’t live in CA on what CA should do any more than I’m interested in the opinions from people who aren’t gay on how I should express my gay identity. I have no need to tell you what you should do. I’m just interested in your perspective.

So we’ve dispensed with your claims that we need a convention to “unite us”, then? Because that is the opposite of uniting. At least that is some progress.

Have you any real experience/success in uniting groups with totally different goals?

That makes no sense to me.

Is that my problem?

If you think the people in a convention will not be decided by those two groups, you are a fool.

OK, I’m a fool

Except that, if you paid attention to it, you would understand they didn’t agree to anything that they could be actually accountable for. Any agreement that lacks enforcement is not an agreement. Further, I could point to the United Nations which would more often than not serve as counterfactuals to your above claim.

All I can say to this is that you have a black and white view of the world. If they don’t do what you want them to, they are not meaningful.

Right, because it is irrelevant. My perspective on those topics are not relevant to the facts, such as they are, about the mechanics of a constitutional convention, how they are began, what can be done with one, and the power structure of the parties which would be involved. My opinion on, say Madison, has no bearing on the fact that the States petition Congress to form a constitutional convention, that as such they get to decide the time and initial number as well as qualifications for delegates, and that once it starts all bets are off as to what can be done. Nor does my opinion or perspective on the current constitution have any bearing on the facts of which party controls the majority of state governments.

I don’t see a question here. Seems like nothing but declaration.

I find plenty of faults both with it and with how we’ve abused and weakened it and the protections it birthed.

Do you have a web site with your proposal. I love to start a site where we all jump in and see if we can get to some common ground.

This isn’t idle theory or FUD, this is historical and legal fact.

Yep, although a convention would be painful and hard. The value is immeasurable. Everyone (at least at the state delegate level but ideally more) would get involved in understanding what government they really want. This is a subset of the point above about asking for your perspective. My view is that to many say if we only have the right person (e.g. Obama or the Donald) all would be good. They are not saying what answer they want in the federal government, they are looking for someone to give them the answer. We need to get back to taking personal responsibility for our government. The US with the current constitution and structure is too big to allow that to happen. The only way to change that IMO is a constitutional convetion.

Of course it doesn’t because those aren’t the questions I asked, and clearly you know it.

I’m a fool as you stated above. Help me out her. Could you enumerate your questions and end them with ?

Ahh the backhanded insult.

In a sense, yes. I’m interest in perspectives are practical and have minimal need to claim those who disagree are “fools”.

If you’re looking for some debate, you won’t find it here. I don’t debate with people who clearly have no skill in debating and possess no in depth knowledge of the subject matter, just as I refuse to debate a subject I lack the requisite knowledge on

This statement proves my point that you are like the current POTUS. If it doesn’t meet your view of what is “real debate”, you discount me totally— i.e. call me a fool. Obama wasn’t the most effective president but he was very good at listening and not discounting. Clinton was the best at both listening and turn it into effective motion.

Do I believe we’ll have a constitutional convention? Not really. But I find it a very useful way to discuss how to unite red and blue (whether states, counties, etc). How laws that the current administration creates are adopted in CA is TBD. The current administration has not been effective at changing anything CA is doing at this point. It will be interesting to see how CA reacts to the FCC trying to remove net-nuetrality and how CA responds to any new tax plan that gets approved. But I still suspect that MAGA supporters are very frustrated that CA is effectively ignoring most of what the current republican congress and the POTUS are proposing or trying to make happen. In terms of CA, I think we need to get by the ignore/resist perspective to the this to proposal on how we exist in the US without being at odds with the federal government. I believe at this point, its a useful exercise for all states to create a practical statement on what should change in the constitution. I live in San Fran and many times we create laws that are at adds with state laws. Its a way of life here. I view we are likely more like the founding gathers than those who want to use the constitution as a hammer to force people who are pationately opposed to a federal law to have to comply. We of course have many of those in San Fran also, both on the left and right.

Have a great life given you don’t want to “debate” me.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.