Roe v. Wade abandoned by Supreme Court

[Ado Annie]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-eliminates-constitutional-right-to-abortion-11656080124

I guess even if some people end up going to jail over Trump's shenanigans the conservatives have won their long-sought prize and they will consider it worth the cost. 

[toomuchbaloney]

24 minutes ago, chare said:

How exactly do you see this "get[ting] interesting"?

Why wouldn't attempts to rewrite the constitution be interesting to observe? This is arguably one of the most corrupt and perilous times in the history of this republic and there is effort afoot to allow people who spread lies intended to undermine our elections to change our constitution.  That's interesting. The world is watching with interest and we should too. Better yet, we should vote. 

Maybe we could put ballot boxes next to baby boxes.

[heron, ASN, RN]

44 minutes ago, chare said:

How exactly do you see this "get[ting] interesting"?

I want to see their specific proposals, particularly regarding elections, voting and citizenship, privacy and bodily autonomy, separation of church and state, indigenous rights, equal protection of the law, the right to bear arms.

 

[chare]

56 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Why wouldn't attempts to rewrite the constitution be interesting to observe? ...

[...]

How do you equate using Article 5 to call for a Constitutional Convention with "attempts to rewrite the constitution?"

[heron, ASN, RN]

7 minutes ago, chare said:

How do you equate using Article 5 to call for a Constitutional Convention with "attempts to rewrite the constitution?"

What else would a constitutional convention be for? Attempts to pass amendments are a rewriting of sorts. That’s kind of the definition of “amendment” isn’t it?

 No change in the questions I have about the proposals emerging from this project.

 

[toomuchbaloney]

32 minutes ago, chare said:

How do you equate using Article 5 to call for a Constitutional Convention with "attempts to rewrite the constitution?"

Because the people who are advocating this have issue with our current constitution...

[chare]

23 minutes ago, heron said:

What else would a constitutional convention be for? Attempts to pass amendments are a rewriting of sorts. That’s kind of the definition of “amendment” isn’t it?

[...]

I agree with this.  However, my question is partially based on this:

2 hours ago, heron said:

The right wing extremists are way ahead of me. They’re advocating for changes or a complete re-write of the founding document of the country. This will get interesting.

Article V provides two means of amending the Constitution. First, and what has always been done, a proposed amendment requires approval by two thirds of each house to be submitted to the states.  For a Constitutional Convention to be called, two thirds (34) of the state legislatures would have to petition Congress.  Regardless of which method, three fourths (38) states still have to approve it for it to be enacted.  

I will await @toomuchbaloney's response as to what exactly he meant.

23 minutes ago, heron said:

[...]

No change in the questions I have about the proposals emerging from this project.

Completely agree. 

3 hours ago, heron said:

Interesting thing I just found out today: Google “Convention of States Project”.

[...]

I did.  And while I didn't find much, I did find this:

Quote

Almost everyone knows that our federal government is on a dangerous course. The unsustainable debt combined with crushing regulations on states and businesses is a recipe for disaster.

What is less known is that the Founders gave state legislatures the power to act as a final check on abuses of power by Washington, DC. Article V of the U.S. Constitution authorizes the state legislatures to call a convention for proposing needed amendments to the Constitution. This process does not require the consent of the federal government in Washington, DC.

I support the Convention of States Project; a national effort to call a convention under Article V of the United States Constitution, restricted to proposing amendments that will impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit its power and jurisdiction, and impose term limits on its officials and members of Congress.

I want our state to be one of the necessary 34 states to pass a resolution calling for this kind of Article V Convention. You can find a copy of the model resolution and the Article V Pocket Guide (which explains the process and answers many questions) here:

https://conventionofstates.com/handbook_pdf
I ask that you support the Convention of States Project and consider becoming a co-sponsor of the resolution. Please respond to my request by informing the national COS team of your position, or sending them any questions you may have:

[email protected] or [phone].

Thank you so much for your service to the people of our district.

Hardly, in my opinion, a call for the "complete  re-write of the founding document of the country."

[heron, ASN, RN]

1 minute ago, chare said:

I agree with this.  However, my question is partially based on this:

Article V provides two means of amending the Constitution. First, and what has always been done, a proposed amendment requires approval by two thirds of each house to be submitted to the states.  For a Constitutional Convention to be called, two thirds (34) of the state legislatures would have to petition Congress.  Regardless of which method, three fourths (38) states still have to approve it for it to be enacted.  

I will await @toomuchbaloney's response as to what exactly he meant.

Completely agree. 

I did.  And while I didn't find much, I did find this:

Hardly, in my opinion, a call for the "complete  re-write of the founding document of the country."

Fair enough … 

[heron, ASN, RN]

3 hours ago, heron said:

Interesting thing I just found out today: Google “Convention of States Project”.

The right wing extremists are way ahead of me. They’re advocating for changes or a complete re-write of the founding document of the country. This will get interesting.

Note the full context of my reference to “complete rewrite”. I think that the end effect of this project (change vs rewrite) depends entirely on the specific changes proposed.

[subee, MSN, CRNA]

6 minutes ago, chare said:

I agree with this.  However, my question is partially based on this:

Article V provides two means of amending the Constitution. First, and what has always been done, a proposed amendment requires approval by two thirds of each house to be submitted to the states.  For a Constitutional Convention to be called, two thirds (34) of the state legislatures would have to petition Congress.  Regardless of which method, three fourths (38) states still have to approve it for it to be enacted.  

I will await @toomuchbaloney's response as to what exactly he meant.

Completely agree. 

I did.  And while I didn't find much, I did find this:

Hardly, in my opinion, a call for the "complete  re-write of the founding document of the country."

SCOTUS seems to do a pretty good job of "bending" the constitution to the wills of big pharma, large corporations and far-right religious contributors, so it seems to me that we don't need to actually change the constitution since we have all these mind-readers on the bench who absolutely know for sure what was in the minds of the original writers.  Other countries have much simpler ways to revise their constitutions to account for modern realities.  We seem to want to endorse the thinking of the 18th century and some fools, at least, are prepared to believe that people of those times could predict the future with precision.

[chare]

13 minutes ago, heron said:

Note the full context of my reference to “complete rewrite”. I think that the end effect of this project (change vs rewrite) depends entirely on the specific changes proposed.

I did, and discussed the two paragraphs separatly, as I thought that could be done. 

As it was not my intent to take your post out of context, my apologies if it appeared I did so.

[heron, ASN, RN]

So … how would you all amend the Constitution?

I would start by enshrining the concept of separation of church and state as an explicit directive added to the establishment clause of the constitution.

[toomuchbaloney]

45 minutes ago, chare said:

I agree with this.  However, my question is partially based on this:

Article V provides two means of amending the Constitution. First, and what has always been done, a proposed amendment requires approval by two thirds of each house to be submitted to the states.  For a Constitutional Convention to be called, two thirds (34) of the state legislatures would have to petition Congress.  Regardless of which method, three fourths (38) states still have to approve it for it to be enacted.  

I will await @toomuchbaloney's response as to what exactly he meant.

Completely agree. 

I did.  And while I didn't find much, I did find this:

Hardly, in my opinion, a call for the "complete  re-write of the founding document of the country."

What I mean is this, the current intentions of too many members of the republican political mechanism do not appear restrained by laws, precedent or convention.  Too many are lying about election security or allowing lies about election security to go unchallenged because it helps then to retain power while they establish mechanisms to change election results.  Their intentions cannot be trusted.  At this point if they convene a convention of like minded people what's going to stop them from essentially re-writing our constitution?

It's interesting, indeed.  Maybe we should just see if we can trust them with our constitution and take them at their word.