The idea is to put Trumpian ideas in the Constitution to insure Authoritarianism is the law of the land. They expect to have everything in place for a Constitutional Convention by 2024, but even if they don’t get there within the next two years they’re getting closer. Republicans' next big play is to 'scare the hell out of Washington' by rewriting the Constitution. And they're willing to play the long game to win.
Triggering a convention would be a positive development IMO, and would unleash plenty of forces outside their control. But this all seems like pre 6-3 SCOTUS majority conservative fantasy. They got what they wanted.
Sure, but the courts can just rewrite the Constitution. Why do they need a convention? There's really no precedent for such a thing, and it would be heavily contested, unlike a court ruling.
Interesting read. But the linked article doesnt exactly get it's headline correct. "The idea of states coming together is going to scare the living hell out of Washington," Taylor told Insider. "They are going to be terrified of the states." The right isn't alone in pursuing a convention. On the left, Cenk Uygur, a progressive commentator, founded Wolf PAC in the wake of the Supreme Court's landmark 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that accelerated an era of big-money politics. Five Democratic states passed Wolf PAC's call for a campaign finance reform-focused convention: California, New Jersey, Illinois, Vermont, and Rhode Island. Uygur's organization is pressing forward even as Illinois and New Jersey rescinded their calls out of fear of a conservative-dominated convention. Wolf PAC's early momentum also spooked some on the right, an illustration of the unusual alliances on both sides of the movement. In 2012, the Republican National Committee went so far as to pass a resolution formally opposing the convention movement. But now in 2022, convention proponents have political winds at their backs. "The movement right now seems to be gaining steam. And what's interesting is it seems to be gaining steam on both left and right," Karla Jones, senior director of international relations and federalism at ALEC, told Insider. "The feeling that Washington, DC, has become a cause for the nation's problems rather than a solution … is becoming universal on both sides of the aisle."
A ConCon is a very dangerous thing ... and something that is long overdue and needed. It should scare the absolute hell out of Washington as it puts the power of the government into the hands of the people. The only question, are the people actually smart and moderate enough to utilize that power properly? Based on what I see, the answer to that question is "no" which is why this is a dangerous thing.
Well the quotes and developments in the story are all post 6-3, so the people involved apparently think just having a 6-3 majority on the SC isn't enough.
Democrats: We should pack the courts, end the electoral college, end the filibuster, and apportion the Senate based upon population. Also Democrats: Oh no! A constitutional convention! I am absolutely thrilled to have such galaxy brains as my political competition.
Yeah, let's have the likes of Q anon, Hannity, Tucker, Trump et al re write the constitution. What could possibly go wrong? A fundamentalist christian authoritarian theocracy. Good times!
Doubt that's what happens, but sure stranger things have occurred. A more realistic view perhaps is outlined here: The bolded are definitely items I can get behind.
I don't think Jefferson had that in mind when he said: "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." Many of today's Republicans are not "more enlightened", nor are they seeking "new truths", but "barbarous" is apt.
Packing the courts and ending the filibuster don't require constitutional amendments to enact, galaxy brain.
There's an argument to be made that you're only half right. Correct on ending the filibuster, arguably incorrect on packing the Court. Congress has the power to add Justices under the "Necessary and Proper Clause" of the Constitution. The argument to be made is if it's "Necessary and Proper". if it were for something as the growth of the nation and the workload of the court, that could be considered "Necessary and Proper". To do so because one side or the other is politically unhappy with it's makeup is and should not be considered under this Clause (and in fact should be vehemently resisted).
I would hate to have to apply the OP's definition of "dangerously close" to everything else. I came "dangerously close" to dying driving to work today.
