PDA

View Full Version : DeSaulnier: Constitutional convention would fix state's problems


JDay
12-15-2008, 10:54 PM
http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_11170932

yellowfin
12-16-2008, 12:13 AM
The information I've read on here states that DeSaulnier is not our friend.

Librarian
12-16-2008, 12:47 AM
The information on DeSaulnier's own web site -prominently featuring his political events with the Brady crew - show he is no friend.

Dr. Peter Venkman
12-16-2008, 12:50 AM
The information on DeSaulnier's own web site -prominently featuring his political events with the Brady crew - show he is no friend.

The librarian doth hath spoken, and so it is.

bulgron
12-16-2008, 1:11 AM
The information I've read on here states that DeSaulnier is not our friend.

A California constitutional convention would be interesting. I don't see how it could make things worse for this state (especially where gun rights are concerned) and it might give us a chance to slip some kind of a RKBA into the state constitution. A small chance, to be sure, but a chance nevertheless.

The larger issue (which is off-topic for this board) is whether a California state constitutional convention that is being run by the same dysfunctional people as are running our dysfunctional government can possibly hope to fix the dysfunction in this state. I answer 'no'. But it would be fun to watch them try because, as I said, I don't think things can get worse than they already are.

BillCA
12-16-2008, 1:33 AM
+1 - this state is so full of well-funded bliss-ninny special interest groups that a revised constitution would make this state suitable only for Prius-driving, vegetarian urban metrosexuals with low carbon footprints.

Captain Evilstomper
12-16-2008, 2:32 AM
A California constitutional convention would be interesting. I don't see how it could make things worse for this state (especially where gun rights are concerned) and it might give us a chance to slip some kind of a RKBA into the state constitution. A small chance, to be sure, but a chance nevertheless.


i disagree, things can always get worse, look at the recent election as an example of that.
and as well we've got people in tis state who think that the bill of rights can be discarded if we don't nee it or want it right now, nevermnd that we might find it useful 10 years rom now.

Dark&Good
12-16-2008, 3:48 AM
A California constitutional convention would be interesting. I don't see how it could make things worse for this state (especially where gun rights are concerned) and it might give us a chance to slip some kind of a RKBA into the state constitution. A small chance, to be sure, but a chance nevertheless.
Since a decision was made already "up there" (and the "convention" would only be the "show" during which that decision could be officially introduced), I wouldn't agree to ANY kind of attempts to change ANYTHING about the Constitution. The Constitution needs to be restored in the whole country - that is our chance. Not "incorporated". Is this ONE country? Sure is. What's this bullsh** about subdivisions (states) overriding the Constitution? The "incorporation" should have been done the minute the USA came to exist. Otherwise you have conflicts, conflicts, conflicts... Please, no changes to something that, if agreed upon, would restore this country. All the BS here exists because the Constitution wasn't placed above all the other principles/laws/rules. Do you think that such "convention" would take place to ask the majority of the US population about what they want to improve about the Constitution? :rofl:

bulgron
12-16-2008, 1:08 PM
Since a decision was made already "up there" (and the "convention" would only be the "show" during which that decision could be officially introduced), I wouldn't agree to ANY kind of attempts to change ANYTHING about the Constitution. The Constitution needs to be restored in the whole country - that is our chance. Not "incorporated". Is this ONE country? Sure is. What's this bullsh** about subdivisions (states) overriding the Constitution? The "incorporation" should have been done the minute the USA came to exist. Otherwise you have conflicts, conflicts, conflicts... Please, no changes to something that, if agreed upon, would restore this country. All the BS here exists because the Constitution wasn't placed above all the other principles/laws/rules. Do you think that such "convention" would take place to ask the majority of the US population about what they want to improve about the Constitution? :rofl:

I believe the topic is a State of California Constitutional Convention, not a Federal Constitutional Convention (which is what you seem to be talking about).

As for why the federal bill of rights doesn't apply to a state level, that's a long story, but once upon a time (pre-civil war) it made sense. Go read a little history on state's rights.

Anyway, with the rise of federalism post-civil war, I agree that the federal bill of rights should have just been automatically applied to the state and local level. They even tried to do exactly that, too, with the 14th amendment. But the Supreme Court at the time didn't like the 14th amendment (too many southerners on the bench, I think) which is how we came to have the fubar'd situation that we have today.

So what's the answer? The only answer is to do the incorporation dance that we inherited from our forefathers. If I could wave a magic wand and fix things, I would, but no such magic wand exists.

Now.... Back to a State of California Constitutional Convention which I think would be incredibly entertaining.

Can anyone think of a way that the idiots in Sacramento could make things even worse than they are now with such a convention? I can't. Especially considering that they do have SOME limitations placed upon them by the federal courts. Also, if they screw the pooch with the taxation structure in this state, even more people leave which will really bury the state.

In other words, I think the only direction from here is 'up' or at least flat lined. But I may be suffering from a serious lack of imagination.

Ironchef
12-16-2008, 1:16 PM
Ways things could get worse:

1) no burning anything..evar!
2) no use of led ANYWHERE..evar!
3) no purchase of ammunition except by DOJ authorized stores (like state liquor stores in Utah, but for ammo)
4) e85 fuel throughout the state by 20.....12.
5) sanctuary status statewide
6) "hate" category of crimes broadened to include all but fat, white, bald, religious men..and penalties tripled
7) affirmitive action run amok
8) welfare....

fairfaxjim
12-16-2008, 7:03 PM
Ways things could get worse:

1) no burning anything..evar!
2) no use of led ANYWHERE..evar!
3) no purchase of ammunition except by DOJ authorized stores (like state liquor stores in Utah, but for ammo)
4) e85 fuel throughout the state by 20.....12.
5) sanctuary status statewide
6) "hate" category of crimes broadened to include all but fat, white, bald, religious men..and penalties tripled
7) affirmitive action run amok
8) welfare....

Somebody just woke up afte a 20 year nap! :D

Dark&Good
12-16-2008, 7:23 PM
I believe the topic is a State of California Constitutional Convention, not a Federal Constitutional Convention (which is what you seem to be talking about).


Why waste time with a State of California Constitutional Convention? How about "incorporating" faster instead? That's what all efforts should go into. I'm not particularly interested in what happened and why it happened as long as it gets fixed. Now. And if it doesn't, we get shows like "State of California Constitutional Convention" to to enjoy - and to distract everybody from dealing with the real issue.

Harrison_Bergeron
12-16-2008, 9:55 PM
First thing, our state officials can't agree on a budget, so what chance do they have of ratifying a Constitution?

Second thing, Prop 11 passed, so if this Convention were to happen after 2010, or more accurately, after all the the officials had been up for re-election after 2010, we might get a decent outcome that actually represented the state.

Since very few actually make educated votes on state officials it may be a long shot, but I think the theory is sound.

Kid Stanislaus
12-16-2008, 10:09 PM
A California constitutional convention would be interesting. I don't see how it could make things worse for this state (especially where gun rights are concerned) and it might give us a chance to slip some kind of a RKBA into the state constitution. A small chance, to be sure, but a chance nevertheless.

It'd give the lefties a chance to try and kill gun rights in CA altogether. They hold sway here and would dominate any convention.

Harrison_Bergeron
12-16-2008, 10:24 PM
US Constitution trumps state, placing something in a new Constitution that denied ownership to residents would be a waste of paper.

bulgron
12-16-2008, 11:38 PM
US Constitution trumps state, placing something in a new Constitution that denied ownership to residents would be a waste of paper.

Exactly.

We already DON'T HAVE an RKBA enshrined in the California Constitution.

We already HAVE districts gerrymandered to death so that the lefties have a death grip on state government.

We already have repeated and constant attempts to end our ownership of firearms in every single legislative session.

I don't therefore see how they could make things any worse for us via a rework of the California State Constitution.

Well, ok, I suppose they could repeal prop 11 and then close down the prop system entirely so that we can't launch a new prop 11 on them. But that still does nothing about the hurt we're going to put on these chums via the federal courts once Nordyke pays out.

In other words, as far as I can tell, things are already about as bad in California as it can get, all things considered. I mean, yes, sure, the harassment that we currently face can get worse, but they only need to continue with business as normal to do that; a new constitution would hardly grease their way any more than it's already greased.

So I see nothing but the potential for high entertainment value if they get serious about a new state constituion. Especially given how the legislature is currently in lock down in Sacramento and they STILL can't work together to arrive at a balanced budget, much less a new constitution that has any chance at all at ratification.

Meanwhile, if they're squabbling over things like balanced budgets or, god forbid, a new constitution, they'll just be that much slower on new gun legislation, which gives us time to press our advantage in the courts.

So unless someone can identify some real damage those chuckle heads could inflict on gun owners in this state via a state-level constitutional convention, I say let 'em have at it.

Kid Stanislaus
12-17-2008, 9:47 AM
US Constitution trumps state, placing something in a new Constitution that denied ownership to residents would be a waste of paper.

Correct you are, but they could erect so many barriers and set up so many hoops to jump through that only the most dedicated gun owners would go to the trouble. They are devious bastards.

bulgron
12-17-2008, 9:52 AM
Correct you are, but they could erect so many barriers and set up so many hoops to jump through that only the most dedicated gun owners would go to the trouble. They are devious bastards.

And we can work to knock them all down in court, one after another, which will bury the state in legal fees. Not something they're going to want to do in today's financial climate, I think.