A Constitutional Convention - Could It Happen?

[Tidewater]

Declarations of War interplay heavily with the United Nations Charter. One important interplay is that the lack of such a declaration makes it impossible to ever charge treason, even with clearly treasonous acts...

One of the principles of Just War Theory is that war must be a last resort. Every other means must be exhausted before the ultima ratio regum comes into play.
There is merit to forcing a country to declare war.

 

[JDCrimson]

Here is the best explanation for who holds US Debt.

Who holds US Debt?

Here is a little accounting lesson at a macro level.

Debit - Consumption/Purchase of Anything
Credit - Funding for the Purchase in the form of Credit or Revenue

We are a consumer nation yet we don't want taxes to fund the consumption so the only thing we can fund our consumption with is debt.

If you read the article closely, foreign countries hold less than 10% of our debt. The Federal Reserve owns the significant majority of our debt along with other domestic entities. This is critical; our debt is owed largely to ourselves. When the Fed shrinks its balance sheet it is shrinking the supply of money where the dollar also happens to be the world's dominant currency.

So if we want to balance the budget the WE, you and I, are going to consume A LOT less and then the Fed, theoretically, would return the excess money back the US Treasury. Massive asset and wage deflation would have to occur to balance the budget.

But the downside to deflation, economies grind to a halt, deflation does not spur movement, ingenuity, or risk taking. And do we want to be worth less than the $150T we are worth as a US population? Essentially, deflation would be the taxes that we have tried to avoid paying the last 50 years.

So to balance the budget, we first have to consume less that means ALL OF US not just the government. Those Social Security payments fund our consumption, our ability to survive. Or we can pay more taxes. If we don't want to do that, which we don't, we have to absorb more inflation.

But don't worry, we will have to deal with deflation once the Baby Boomer generation dies off. And we are in the same emerging demographic deflation that China and Japan are already in.

Our national economy doesn't balance the same way as our checkbook. Just sharing this.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

In the unlikely event that it does happen, what specifically would we want to see changed or strengthened?

Of all scenarios that will never happen, this is the least likely to happen. Seriously, the ONLY way something like this ever happens is if something along the lines of the Civil War (which, I'll remind you, didn't even cause it) or the Great Depression.....situations where one of the political parties has plenty of votes to impose their will....that's the only way this will ever happen. (I'm not arguing whether it's a good idea or a bad idea - I'm simply saying it won't happen).

Wanna know what else won't happen?
- Abolition of the Electoral College
- Abolition of gerrymandering
- A Supreme Court packed one particular way that stops at stage one

All that's really happening now is that communication has allowed people who wouldn't be heard beyond their breakfast table to post something online that another (usually equally ill-informed) person shares.

And then they tell two friends.
And then they tell two friends.

You know all this whining about the Electoral College?
Been going on since before the country began - still with us.

You know all this whining about gerrymandering?
"We can't win the majority of seats because Republicans have rigged the game!"
"We won the national popular vote in the Congressional elections"

You know what's hilarious?
In the 1980s, the REPUBLICANS were making the EXACT SAME arguments the Democrats are now....and the Democrats, who controlled Congress for reapportionment during the census recalculations of 1940/1950/1960/1970/1980/1990...were sounding exactly like the Republicans today, right down to the exact same words.

Texas wanted to secede because Obama.

California wanted to secede because Trump

It would take the kind of catastrophe NONE of us want for this to happen.

 

[Its On A Slab]

Of all scenarios that will never happen, this is the least likely to happen. Seriously, the ONLY way something like this ever happens is if something along the lines of the Civil War (which, I'll remind you, didn't even cause it) or the Great Depression.....situations where one of the political parties has plenty of votes to impose their will....that's the only way this will ever happen. (I'm not arguing whether it's a good idea or a bad idea - I'm simply saying it won't happen).

Wanna know what else won't happen?
- Abolition of the Electoral College
- Abolition of gerrymandering
- A Supreme Court packed one particular way that stops at stage one

All that's really happening now is that communication has allowed people who wouldn't be heard beyond their breakfast table to post something online that another (usually equally ill-informed) person shares.

And then they tell two friends.
And then they tell two friends.

You know all this whining about the Electoral College?
Been going on since before the country began - still with us.

You know all this whining about gerrymandering?
"We can't win the majority of seats because Republicans have rigged the game!"
"We won the national popular vote in the Congressional elections"

You know what's hilarious?
In the 1980s, the REPUBLICANS were making the EXACT SAME arguments the Democrats are now....and the Democrats, who controlled Congress for reapportionment during the census recalculations of 1940/1950/1960/1970/1980/1990...were sounding exactly like the Republicans today, right down to the exact same words.

Texas wanted to secede because Obama.

California wanted to secede because Trump

It would take the kind of catastrophe NONE of us want for this to happen.

I forget who said it, but here goes: After a person is elected to office, he/she becomes a member of another party: The Party Of Incumbency. Which means they will sway like a tree in the wind on public whims. Say/do whatever it takes to keep their seat. Al Gore was a staunch anti-choice proponent when he was in Congress. Changed horses when he ran for Veep with Bill Clinton.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I forget who said it, but here goes: After a person is elected to office, he/she becomes a member of another party: The Party Of Incumbency. Which means they will sway like a tree in the wind on public whims. Say/do whatever it takes to keep their seat. Al Gore was a staunch anti-choice proponent when he was in Congress. Changed horses when he ran for Veep with Bill Clinton.

Yep. And Clinton did (pretty much) as well.

When Dick Gephardt was representing his Catholic district in St Louis, he was anti-abortion. The moment he decides to run for President, he has a Saul on the road to Damascus conversion on that issue. Bill Clinton wasn't exactly a pro-lifer, but he DID support parental notification and opposed federal funding (as did Biden most of his career). Gore went so far as to propose an amendment to the constitution on fetal personhood, and it was amusing to watch the press let him get away with it insanely in the 1992 VP debate. (Then again, his level of lying made Clinton look like an altar boy).

Of course, it isn't just Dems. Reagan was never anything but pro-life, but he DID sign one of the most liberal abortion laws in the US in 1967, ironically because he feared forcing "mentally ill" women from having babies (which led every single woman who wanted one to show up with a shrink's note). Daddy Bush was mildly pro-choice and let's not even get started on Mitt Romney, who somehow ran to the left of Teddy for Senate in 1994 and to the right of Atilla the Hun in 2012.

=========================================

Folks think that tribalism stuff started with Gingrich - and make no mistake, he DID make it far worse - but it was always around, there never was really a time of good faith argument in US politics no matter how much we pretend there was.

I would argue that MUCH of what caused it was when we moved from the parties selecting "we think this nominee could both best represent us and win the election" (even if they were wrong) to "let's turn this over to the hardcore extremist activists in both parties and see what nominees we get." It scorched the Democrats in the 70s, but the religious right then went full "hold mah beer" in the 80s.