At what point does the threat of constitutional convention typically get Congress to act?

[What_Exit]

@md2000

One person’s abuse is another person’s foreplay.

How would you define “abusive” to make it work? That’s the dumbest part of the idea.

What does a balanced budget mean in practical terms? The economy goes in the toilet, and suddenly everyone is paying three times as much in taxes to make up for the shortfall? Wheel the Medicare patients out the door and dump them on the sidewalk?

Did you even read my post? Or are you agreeing with it in an odd way?

As to the balanced budget it would take time to build up to it or you would destroy the economy. But it is actually a good goal overall.

[Haberdash]

How would the massive groundswell of support needed for a constitutional convention happen without simply causing the defeat of the Congressmen who were opposing whatever its agenda is? It’s impossible for Congress to defy a 75% ultramajority of every state unless they are just disregarding the results of elections entirely, in which case circumstances in the U.S. must have changed so much that asking how political pressure would affect Congress is a meaningless question.

[LSLGuy]

@Elendil_s_Heir

Bumped.

Just got a letter addressed to “Dear Fellow Conservative” (I’m not) from “Convention of States Action” (an unfortunate acronym, given the events of 1861-1865) of Merrifield, Va. The letter calls for a new constitutional convention under Art. V. Goals: Congressional term limits, a Balanced Budget Amendment, and “giving states the power to override abusive executive orders, federal regulations, and Supreme Court decisions.” Among its backers: Glenn Beck, Tom Coburn, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin. For more: http://www.conventionofstates.com/

Dumb idea and dumb people. I’ll pass.

What I find entertaining is that of those backers, several are would-be presidential candidates. I think they might be surprised if in some bizarro world this thing came into effect and they were subsequently elected President, only to discover everything significant they want to accomplish is thwarted by the many states that won’t go along.

IOW States rights are fine. As long as only the right states get to exercise the right rights. For certain rightward-leaning definitions of right.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

“I have always been a friend of states’ rights, and a foe of states’ wrongs.” - Benjamin Butler

[Hari_Seldon]

@md2000

The problem with a constitutional convention, IIRC, is that the constitution is vaguely worded. I thought I read somewhere once that even though a convention can be convened (?) to address an issue, once assembled the members could be free, according to some interpretations, to make any amendments on any issue they want. As such it would be a loose canon.

No doubt it would. There is a precedent. The consitutional convention of 1787 (?) was called not to write a new constitution, but to propose amendments to the original Articles of Confederation which were not working. For example, there was no taxing power; the Confederal government depended on assessments on the sovereign states which could not be forced to pay them and sometimes didn’t. So they called this convention which went way beyond its mandate.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@Hari_Seldon

No doubt it would. There is a precedent. The consitutional convention of 1787 (?) was called not to write a new constitution, but to propose amendments to the original Articles of Confederation which were not working. For example, there was no taxing power; the Confederal government depended on assessments on the sovereign states which could not be forced to pay them and sometimes didn’t. So they called this convention which went way beyond its mandate.

See post 10.