earth_is_cool

earth_is_cool

36p

44 comments posted · 2 followers · following 0

610 weeks ago @ GrassrootsPA - Ceisler: Constitutiona... · 0 replies · 0 points

Not to be picky. A compound republic. (previous citation was in error. Interesting though.) Here's the more pertinent one. http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm Like the clarification, Ryan. "Little of either going on at the moment." By our representives. It's time to quickly reverse those mistakes in upcoming elections.

610 weeks ago @ GrassrootsPA - Ceisler: Constitutiona... · 0 replies · 0 points

You are wrong. Once in session the delegates are "the people" with the power to amend, alter, reform, abolish.

I haven't brought up liberal boogie-man. I am not an opponent of certain select proposals via the normal lengthy deliberative process with the participation of the electorate in referendum. I am opposed to a couple I've heard discussed, but that's my reasoned choice.

I am an opponent of any PA Con-Con, no matter who will sign a 'binding' promisory note to not go beyond preset limitations, I simply cannot trust any one of them, once in session, to not believe they are indeed like predecessors and will choose the time to act like crafters and not just tinkerers has arrived.'

610 weeks ago @ GrassrootsPA - Ceisler: Constitutiona... · 1 reply · +1 points

It isn't a false statement as the 'Convention' cannot be limited or constrained once delegates are in session. yes we could have passage of the enabling legislation which provides language that limits the convention to certain named items. We can elected 'citizen' delegates who take the oath, make the promise, to abide by the limitations, threaten with fines, jail time, etc.

But once in session the delegates themselves hold the power authorized to them by the Declaration of Rights. With that power it is their sole decision to abide by the preset limitations, or NOT. And all - each and every one - could determine it is in the best interests of all the PA People to thwart the limitations and yes it would be turmoil but they are equally as were all delegate predecessors, the new crafters of the PA Constitution, while in session. And they could actually present to the electorate what they have crafted, and no court no enabling legislation will prevent the electorate then, a majority of a minority, from accepting what was produced.

There is state precedent. That alone proves the statement.

610 weeks ago @ GrassrootsPA - Ceisler: Constitutiona... · 0 replies · +1 points

I agree with that suspicion. And that is the problem as much as elected legislators not reading, not understanding, and even if they do read, do not follow the PA Constitution and U.S. Constitution. The defect is in the representatives of government and how it is they who distort the form of government we are guaranteed, a republic, if you can keep it, a limited government based on a nation of laws.

610 weeks ago @ GrassrootsPA - Ceisler: Constitutiona... · 1 reply · +1 points

You haven't yet stated what you believe is the risk. that's OK.

Each of those measures could be taken up via the normal amendment process and the electorate would have opportunity to study and be apprised of the pros and cons of each proposal over a time period that enables deep and protracted deliberation.

That's fair to say the perceived risks with Con-Con vary widely... but would you not agree one of the most prominent perceived risks is of a so-called runaway convention?

610 weeks ago @ GrassrootsPA - Ceisler: Constitutiona... · 0 replies · +1 points

You haven't addressed the PA Constitution's Declaration of Rights enabling of 'supreme' Constitutional Crafting power to the delegates, not mere amending power, ever, not in that language or anywhere else. It's obvious you do not want to for obvious reasons.

610 weeks ago @ GrassrootsPA - Ceisler: Constitutiona... · 0 replies · +1 points

You answered ''Yes" to the question first. then you qualified you'd take a look.

610 weeks ago @ GrassrootsPA - Ceisler: Constitutiona... · 5 replies · +2 points

Here's the situation as I view it. a minority of the qualified to vote electorate exercises the right . Especially in primaries this is the norm. During Presidential election years barring the last one, voter turnout numbers go up slightly.

i would far far far prefer a majority of a minority wake up and throw out each and every oath-breaker than ever risk a majority of a minority riled up by reform promises in one fell swoop ok potential irrevocable structural changes/alterations of our PA Constitution.

Which is more likely to occur? If the focus in each local district were on throwing out every oath-breaking incumbent, no matter how recently elected (on a reform pact that was broken) that goal has potential. But the movement waned and instead early on the goal of a historical PA Con-Con was taken up.

I believe from watching the concerns of others than myself here and elsewhere - I do not think the Convention proposal will pass. Even on radio talk shows, callers are critics of incumbents and not structural defects of the PA Constitution. So the groundswell is not there despite the media's complicity in the change of focus.

610 weeks ago @ GrassrootsPA - Ceisler: Constitutiona... · 3 replies · +1 points

You perceive a risk. Please id then what you think is "the risk." and then please justify your acceptance of the risk over the criminal cesspool. Thank you.

610 weeks ago @ GrassrootsPA - Ceisler: Constitutiona... · 0 replies · +3 points

Exactly. We cannot get them to follow it. If they are of a character to thwart the Constitional restraints already imposed upon them, no action of the electorate or delegates in a Convention will alter that character.

goodbye next election, and next and next. Educate the electorate to the character of the oath-breaker.