Interesting. Pardon my ignorance but my only concern is that anti 2A States may try to do something similar in retaliation. I'm not sure how many times something like this had been implemented/attempted so if anyone has some case law on this, it would be appreciated

reign in washington about WHAT specifically?

>>30520994

DC, not our glorious Washington state.

>>30520994
Everything. NSA. BAFTE.
Obviously relates to much more than gun stuff, too.

Of course this convention will never happen though. The feds will not allow it to happen somehow.

He said that like 6 months ago though right?

What's been done?

>>30521072
Screenshot date implies it was said recently.

>>30520990
Lol, each lib state is so far up there own ass that they'd never successfully do anything. I live in fagachussetts and have been to all the others, they're all so convinced that they're better than the others that the second something even truthful is said that'll denigrate another it'll just turn into non stop shit flinging.

>>30520954
While if the summit happen its a good thing, the bad thing would be if they call for a constitutional congress.

If they do they can rewrite pretty much the whole set of laws/admendments ect. Also sensevthey states choose their reps for a constitutional congress there is no vote, it would be bad .

The 2nd admendment could over night, change to "you have the right to hunting and target shooting arms with reasonable exceptions "

>>30521102
Don't matter. This will never happen. They will use the excuse that there is too much happening with the upcoming election, etc...

>>30520990
The deep blue states don't have the numbers to push for a Constitutional Convention. They need 38, which Abbot just might get if he doesn't go full retard. He's gonna need to line up a coalition of like-minded governors and make it happen fast.

This threatens the status quo on both sides of the aisle, expect to see push back from all along the political spectrum. It'll be fought against with things like recall elections, filibusters, fearmongering, and probably mafia tactics.

If it gains significant traction, and then stalls out, it'll be another waypoint on the arc that leads to civil war.

>>30520990
This method of amending the Constitution has never been tried

>>30521090
There is no screenshot date

>>30520994
Rampant abuse of the commerce clause, for one.

>Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.
What is the 10th Amendment?

>Require Congress to balance its budget.
California has a "balanced budget" this one is meaningless with the right accountants

>Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.
That is already the case, each agency enact policies that the next agency head can then get rid of as well as the cabinet member and ultimately the president.

>Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law.
This one I love and should be enacted, although it will be a mess.

>Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
The SCOTUS is also seen as a check on the "passions of the people" so this would be a direct violation of the founders intent (up to you if that's good or bad).

>Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.
Gives too much power to the congress and removes some of the check power of the SCOTUS.

>Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.
This is a really good one too.

>Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.
There needs to be some immunity of the federal govt. from the states or else every single state that is in opposition to the current admin will just continually sue and those cases will drag on for years despite changes after elections.

Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.

>>30521252
>not looking at the filename
You faggot.

>>30521249
If im not mistaken, prohibition or the end of prohibition was the result of such a convention

>>30521102
there are far more Republican governors than Democrat governors

Republicans would control the convention

>>30520954
Could I get a more reliable source? I'm not finding anything else on other news sites about this

>>30521287
and?

>>30521260
>Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.
There needs to be consequences for elections. Don't like the laws? Don't vote in assholes.

>>30520954
Short answer: no.
Long answer: noooooooooo.

>>30521260
the supreme court stuff is bullshit considering they wont even vote in a 7th even though theyre required by law. Funny how they want to take so much power away from that guys even though it takes a lot just to get that high up the ladder

>>30521013
You need to get reined in too.

>>30521276
The 21st was ratified by state conventions instead of state legislatures. So it's kind of a hybrid. It was still proposed by Congress, though.

>>30520954
I only like about half of the amendments

Definitely think the federal government needs to lose some power to the states so I'd support everyone if I had to.