Wow. Gayle Ruzicka and I agree on something. Who knew?
Is this hypocrisy or lies? These people claim that the Federal Constitution is
too big and yet they continually want to add to Utah's constitution. Every
year we are voting on amendments to Utah's constitution and most of those
amendments increase the legislatures power over us. Example, the Eagle
Forum has convinced Senator Buttars to run SBJ 1- amendment giving the State
more power over local school boards. These people want to take away our local
control over schools and force their values on beliefs on every child in the
state. They do not want anyone to present any ideas in our schools that could
help kids see the world differently than the Eagle Forum does. That way our
children are indoctrinated into being good little LDS conservative Tea Party
members. No room for freedom of thought or arguing against those views. These legislators need to reign in their own power grabbing ways before
worrying about the Federal government.
A constitutional convention is a bad idea, especially in modern times. Today
fewer people have a true understanding and appreciation of American freedom, and
more people promote more government to control other people. A constitutional
convention is too unpredictable, and would leave the entire Constitution wide
open for mischief pushed by radical activist groups with lots of marketing
A constitutional convention is one of the most important checks and balances we
have on the federal goverment which is wholly out of control. As far as being
afraid that they'll just tack on any amendments they wish... I say this. If you
are afraid, get out of politics and the whole political arena, cause this ain't
no place for scaredy cats. We are facing SERIOUS problems in our country, and
we need people with vision and fortitude to see it through. If you're
"scared" go hide under a rock.As a tea party person
myself, and a very active member of the LDS community, I also completely concur
with open-minded. The state needs to get OUT of our local schools. Let locals
take care of themselves. It IS hypocrisy to tell the federal government to
loosed its leash when the state government is trying to tighten theirs.
Ah, isn't it kind of odd that the Party who says we should adhere to the
Constitution and the Founder's intent doesn't actually like what it says and
wants to change it to match their vision rather than what the founders wrote?We have people wanting to Amend the Cosntitution to remove birthright
citizenship from the 14th Amendment.We have people wanting to repeal
the 17th Amendment so that the legislature gets to pick your Senators because
they don't like who the voters pick.Now this.And all the
people pushing for the changes are Conservatives, who claim that the US
Constitution was divinely inspired. So, I ask them, if it was divinely inspired,
why did the divine inspirer not see fit to incorporate your changes at the time
of it's creation or amendment?
Why would anyone believe that a balanced budget amendment to the constitution
will make any difference in how government spends money? Our Congress violates
so many constitutional laws now, what's one more. If our leaders do not use
common sense to control spending the implosion of government is inevitable. I
would rather have an imploded government than lose our constitution, the people
will then have the power to rebuild. To call for a constitutional
amendments at this point in time of strife the nation is suffering will only
bring forth some very radical and improper amendments. Mostly to strip citizens
of more rights and give government more powers. We the people could be stripped
from the constitution and replaced with we the government. Many in
congress has already said that our constitution is outdated and not applicable
to present day world power concepts of government. They want to replace our
constitution of the people for the people with a world powers document creating
a single power over all the world, and burn our Declaration of Independence. A
convention would open the door to the annihilation of the United States of
America and creation of a one world government.
Idiotic ideas that will shut the government down and spit in the face of Abraham
Lincoln and the sacrifice we made in the Civil War. And a constitutional
convention will put at risk our freedoms. How do you control a constitutional
convention? It invites chaos. Instead of looking for easy solutions, our
elected leaders need to sit down and go to work and make the hard decisions.
The problems won't go away just by changing the Constitution they claim to love.
Such hypocrisy..Utahns want ''ammend'' the US Constitution by taking things away
from it, while at the same time taking more and more freedoms away by
continually adding to the Utah Constitution?The most ridiculous
example is this newest development. Utah was one of the biggest fighters in the
repeal of ''Obamacare'', yet they want to make it law that every college student
has maternity coverage? Talk about hypocrites...Disgusting Utah
Amending the constitution does not take a constitutional convention. Replacing
the constitution takes a constitutional convention. If you want a balanced
budget amendment, get the states and congress to agree, otherwise the "baby
goes out with the bath water". Let the republican form of government work.
I like the repeal amendment. Not a bad idea.I will have to think about
obtaining a majority of states to approve an increase in the debt ceiling.How about making all congressmen employees of the state they represent?
Their salaries and benefits are set by the state legislatures. This would end
the practice of giving themselves raises and remind them that they work for
us.Oh, and how about this idea for campaign finance reform: If you
can't vote for the candidate, you can't give them money! My congressman is
supposed to represent the people of my district; not a radical environmental
group in Calif. or some corporation or union somewhere. Only registered voters
can donate and then only to people they can vote for. Unions and corporations
don't vote so they can't give.Of course once you put such campaign
finance reform in place you would have to have a media malpractice law or the
media would determine the result of every election. I would make it illegal to
mislead the public in the news. They can say anything they want if it is
clearly identified as opinion, not so with news.
There is a simple way to deal with this on a Federal level. Simply pull all
Federal programs out of those states not wanting Federal money or programs
coming in. For Utah lets start with Hill AFB. The programs and jobs there can be
moved out of the state to other locations. Now imagine if that were to happen
what would happen to job market, housing market and local small business market
up in Davis, Weber and Ogden counties. That would not just be a recession, but a
depression locally. Lets see the citizens of Utah support those they elect by
agreeing to refuse all Federal money in order to do their part to reduce the
Federal budget. Won't happen because far too many people receive too much aid
from the Feds. Politicians need to back off this idea, it's a ploy
that allows them to try to feed this anti-Federal feeling. Yes, I agree also
that too many don't understand the Constitution enough to amend it, especially
it seems many leaders of the Tea Party movement. Let It Be sang the Beatles and
that should be the answer.
The Rock, I like your ideas for Campaign finance reform!However,
that would be thrown away quickly by the Republicans who fought against campaign
finance laws that banned corporations from giving money to elect candidates (the
Citizens United decision).It won't go far because Corporations
believe that they have the same rights as a citizen to free speech.
@Hubble65Truth be known the TEA Party folks have read the
constitution more than most.The whole country would be better off if
everyone read the constitution and they required the government to obey it.Jay Leno said it best when Iraq was writing their constitution: "I
hear Iraq is looking for a constitution. Let them have ours, we aren't using
@GWBI agree! The Repubs would not like it. I don't care and I am a
Republican.True, corporations would not like it; however, I believe
that people, well actually voters, should control this nation. Not
corporations, not labor unions, not special interests.In as much as
we are talking constitutional amendments there would be no legal basis to
challenge my proposed constitutional amendments because they are amendments.
It is interesting to see the liberals here make the accusation that
conservatives are hypocrites because they want to follow the state and federal
constitution to make changes to those documents.Nowhere have I heard
conservatives or Tea Party members said that they wanted the the Federal
Government to follow the constitution as writen in 1787. They only say that the
government has stepped beyond its constitutional bounds.If the
Federal Government wants to supply health insurance for all citizens, then they
need to ammend the Constitution.
The constitution has had 20 plus amendments. The first ten (out of 12 proposed)
took place during the first and only Constitutional Convention held in the late
1700s. All amendments since that time have been through congress proposing and
passing the amendments and the states the approving or defeating the amendment.
The latter is the best way. Pressure must be put on congress to propose the
amendments. If a Con-Con were called it could be disaster. There is no
guidance in the Constitution defining representation. limitation of subjects,
etc. If the wrong groups were to get control of the convention, we could have
many and varied amendments submitted. (How about totally legalized abortion,
same sex marriage, our water sent to California or elsewhere, open borders,
legalized drugs and on and on. Most legal scholars agree the convention cannot
be limited to one subject and certainly there is no guidance for representation
of the various states. Is this a risk we want to take? Not me!!!
All this waste of time... for someone's 15 minutes of fame...