That cite notes that 34 states have called for such a convention, but over a period of more than 25 years, and several have explicitly rescinded the call. Moreover, the call has been for a convention to propose a Balanced Budget Amendment; most of the calling states have explicitly not called for a general convention (although Article V doesn’t specify whether any constitutional convention under its terms would be limited in scope).
There is none. But again, the government needs to treat this the same way they treat foreign policy situations. Just because it’s domestic you don’t take a no negotiation, no compromises attitude. And you back down if the costs are greater than what is to be gained.
Sure, it can encourage future scofflaws, but a confrontation over an issue Al Franken made fun of in Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot is just not worth it for the same reason we don’t put troops on the border and shoot at illegals.
And of course if one believes in state’s rights, one would fully support a state’s right to rescind the call for a convention, right?
Not all votes relating to the Constitution are rescindable. That’s always been a matter of dispute.
Why else would someone protest the government? War protesters want to stop the military and DOD from doing their jobs. Protests against censorship want the censors to stop doing their jobs. Protests against unjust laws want to prevent the legislature from doing their jobs.
Dealing with these people peacefully and with respect is part of your job as a government employee. We had to go through a fair amount of “how to deal with civilians” training in the Army, including, specifically, protesters. Do other government agencies not do that?
Sounds like an asshole who owes over a million dollars grasping at straws to me.
Furthermore, whether a proposed constitutional amendment comes out of Congress or the first constitutional convention ever since 1787, it is still not effective until ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. Therefore, there will be no balanced budget amendment, ever. Same with any amendment having anything to do with this story.
Yeah, but I don’t recall people protesting THOSE actions while brandishing (carrying, holding, toting, whatever you want to call it. Let’s not get tied up in semantics, here) firearms. Also, those other folks you mention protest against what they feel are unjust actions. From what I’m reading there was nothing unjust about what the feds were trying to do with that guy’s cows. Those people who claim to be “defending” that guy are doing little more than causing trouble, as far as I’m concerned. If they come to a bad end because of what they’re doing down there then I’ll just figure they deserved it.
It might be unwise to take a no-compromises attitude, but the situation is in no way analogous to foreign policy. The latter involves relations between sovereign states, the former between a sovereign state and some selection of its citizens who are sovereign only as voters.
As soon as I heard that he doesn’t recognize the authority of those coming for his cows I knew he was a whack-job. I find it interesting that those who are so quick to call for action against, for example, illegal immigrants all of the sudden are on the side of the lawbreakers when it comes to people like Mr. Bundy. Seems to me that they’re picking and choosing just which laws they think ought to be obeyed.
“County government thing”?! Oh, Jesus K, he’s not thinking in Posse Comitatus terms, is he?! :rolleyes:
What, if anything, does it say about situations where the protesters are armed and angry?
The feds handled this whole situation like clowns and brought a well-deserved media shitstorm down on their heads. I suppose one should be grateful that they had the good sense to withdraw before people got killed but not before coming up with the most repellent aspect of this affair, the ‘First Amendment’ zone, the implication of such being that the Constitution of the United States didn’t apply outside of that zone. Which bonehead came up with that one?
Of course there are issues that have to be dealt with here but dealt with intelligently and judiciously. If they can’t come up with anything better than sending in armed agents to steal the guy’s cattle then they need to seek other employment.
To me, there’s a pretty wide gap between “I want the military to stop bombing Cambodia” and “I want this soldier who is right in front of me to stop loading that plane, and I am prepared to take measures to stop him.” A protest in front of the BLM offices in Las Vegas, for example, or at the offices of the Nevada congressional delegation would have brought public attention to the issue and would not have endangered the lives of the low-level staffers trying to carry out decisions they had no influence in making and no authority to change.
Similarly, if you want to protest police brutality, protesting the actions at the mayor’s office or police chief’s office or governor’s office is more reasonable than standing, armed, in front of the officers serving warrants. If you want to protest censorship, talk to the school board or library board or whoever made the decision; don’t threaten the library clerk charged with removing the offending material at the boss’s direction.
John Ashcroft, I believe. Or, one of that crowd.
Not really. They’ve been around since Operation Rescue threatened to try to shut down the 1988 Democratic National Convention, and were used by both parties at subsequent conventions, although post-911 the Bush administration honed them to a fine art.
Seize his bank accounts, freeze all his credit. Get a court lien on every bit of his property and seize it the second he appears in public, right down to his skivvies. Put out public announcements that any sale of assets will be seized, so he can’t sell anything to raise money. Then wait. As for that asshole on the overpass - arrest his ass for brandishing a firearm, Mopery & Dopery, and anything else you can think of.
I’m glad the initial conflict ended without bloodshed, but you can bet there will be some before this is over.
Why would there be?!
We, the public, have no interest in his underpants.
Although I’m sure they think we do.
If he thinks the feds are going to seize him or his property the second he appears in public, he won’t appear in public without some of his dippy supporters (armed) in the vicinity to “protect” him/property. Any attempt at seizure therefore results in an opportunity for bloodshed, and certainly any move on the real property (Bundy’s home, barns, whatever) is almost guaranteed to be ugly.
Beyond that, he’s got 14 kids, most or all of them adults and most of them living on/near his ranch. If one of the kids sells some cattle at auction, are you going to seize the kid’s assets, not being sure or the source, or let Junior sell Daddy’s cattle under Junior’s name and funnel the money back to Daddy in private? Add in some of the other supporters, and I am certain there are a bunch of people willing to act as Bundy’s nominee.
The only way to guarantee no bloodshed is for the feds to give up any effort to seize anything.