Doc8404
.450/400 Nitro Ex
But Cuomo wants YES
Constitutional Convention
- Thread starter Doc8404
- Start date
But Cuomo wants YES
THIS
Doc8404
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
It has misleading information.
It says that NYS could not break a contract due to a clause in the US constitution so they could not effect pensions. And that the unions are using a scare tactic.
That is a misleading statement. States without the state constitutional pension protection have changed their pension systems on those employees. One year short of a pension, opps, we are changing the rules and you don’t get one or you have to work another 10 years.
This federal protection is as valid as that lifetime gun permit many paid for. It didn’t stop the state of New York breaking that contract did it?
Shadow2
6.5 Creedmoor
pjzwtl
.308 Win
"Delegates are elected 3 per Senate district, an additional 15 are elected at large. There are 63 Senate districts 34 to 35 of them lean right."
The yellow text from the FAQ page worries me a bit.
The yellow text from the FAQ page worries me a bit.
Saltwater60
.950 JDJ
Just the democrats taking orders from cuomo. I'm sure 80% of the republicans do too.
This is a bad idea right now. Anyone who thinks different has no clue what this can AND will do to the State. Yeah, go ahead, vote for it, I will come back and say, "See, I told you so!"
Foolish to want this.
Foolish to want this.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
The faster the left gets their way in this state the sooner the whole thing collapses and we can start over. I honestly don't see another way out for us.
pjzwtl
.308 Win
The 15 at large delegates (elected by state wide vote) kind of throws any wishful thinking about the delegate math out the window. We have a hard enough time overcoming the NYC metro vote for 1 statewide election now times that by 15?
I like the concept but I don’t like the odds of this going the wrong way
S
stuck in ny
Guest
I read the stuff in my dads csea newsletter and they are dead set against it. Who exactly wants this convention, 'cause it seems to me it is viewed with suspicion on both right and left?The CSEA Union is telling its members to vote NO because their pensions and other benefits will be taken away. It could also lead to severely restricting the 2nd Amendment (what little we have now). Funny enough, the two-page article in the monthly Union rag listed several reasons for voting NO, and 'gun rights' wasn't listed.I'd scan the article but I already threw it in the recycle bin.
Term limits would be nice, but would probably not happen anytime soon. The other thing is that there's no pre-determined timeline, and it would cost so much money. They can twiddle their thumbs and drag their feet for months, getting paid the whole time.
So again, while it would be nice to impose certain changes, in this state there is no way to guarantee it would be beneficial to US.
EDIT: A thread on ARFCOM: NY Constitutional Convention 2017 - Page 2 - AR15.COM
masterswimmer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
I don't like the odds of it going the RIGHT way. The odds of it going the wrong way are way too high.
pjzwtl
.308 Win
Ok .. same thing
S
stuck in ny
Guest
I read the stuff in my dads csea newsletter and they are dead set against it. Who exactly wants this convention, 'cause it seems to me it is viewed with suspicion on both right and left?The CSEA Union is telling its members to vote NO because their pensions and other benefits will be taken away. It could also lead to severely restricting the 2nd Amendment (what little we have now). Funny enough, the two-page article in the monthly Union rag listed several reasons for voting NO, and 'gun rights' wasn't listed.
Term limits would be nice, but would probably not happen anytime soon. The other thing is that there's no pre-determined timeline, and it would cost so much money. They can twiddle their thumbs and drag their feet for months, getting paid the whole time.
So again, while it would be nice to impose certain changes, in this state there is no way to guarantee it would be beneficial to US.
EDIT: A thread on ARFCOM: NY Constitutional Convention 2017 - Page 2 - AR15.COM
The vote on a constitutional convention is required every 20 years.
S
stuck in ny
Guest
I mean't who would want a "yes" vote result.
pjzwtl
.308 Win
Hell I would if I had a guarantee the right delegates were selected.
S
stuck in ny
Guest
They would either be downstaters or downstate bought.
masterswimmer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Ding Ding freaking Ding. We haaaave a winner. But therein lies the problem here in good ole NYistan. We ain't ever gonna get the right delegates just as we ain't ever gonna get the right guvnah, as long as NYShityy is part of New Amsterdam.
JRtraderny
6.5 Creedmoor
And this is why I keep telling everyone the SAFE act isn't a 2nd amendment issue , it's a civil rights issue. They've been fighting it in all the wrong ways............................................
speedkills27
6.5 Creedmoor
open the state constitution so downstate liberals can alter it as they see fit??!!? I hope no ones fooling themselves into thinking that this would be good in anyway, for anyone but NYC
Last edited:
vanderblack
.357 mag
The unions dnt want it because the outcome could result in removing federal protection on contracts and pensions. As stated earlier, an employee is a year from retirement or even retired and collecting and boom, gone. Like or dislike unions, they do provide a balance and prevent the state and big business from dictating salaries and benefits. A convention also opens the door to letting states suggest changes to the constitution. With attacks on freedom of speech, freedom of the press, second amendment, etc, there is a huge risk if the vote is in favor of convention. 38 states must vote in favor of a convention for one to be held. 38 state conventions must ratify changes proposed (amendments).
This convention has been proposed by the left in an attempt to undermine Trump by blocking his ability to get things done by making changing to the constitution. Considering how close the election was, I not willing to take a chance on a convention. Populated with left wingers, I can only imagine the damage they would cause.
This convention has been proposed by the left in an attempt to undermine Trump by blocking his ability to get things done by making changing to the constitution. Considering how close the election was, I not willing to take a chance on a convention. Populated with left wingers, I can only imagine the damage they would cause.
vanderblack
.357 mag
Here is an excellent write up on the potential issues with a convention: States Likely Could Not Control Constitutional Convention on Balanced Budget Amendment or Other Issues
The convention is NOT for modification of the state constitution. This is for a FEDERAL convention and changes to the US constitution.
The convention is NOT for modification of the state constitution. This is for a FEDERAL convention and changes to the US constitution.
Madmallard
.223 Rem
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
On a federal level, this article is completely inaccurate and utterly misrepresents the Article V Convention of States.
Article V of the United States Constitution reads:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Article V does not allow for calling a "Constitutional Convention!" It only allows two thirds of the state legislatures to "call a Convention for proposing Amendments."
Any proposed amendments that made it out of the "convention for proposing amendments" would require ratification by three fourths of the states. So, 38 states would have ratify any proposed amendments. How does that allow a runaway convention? It does not.
At this point in time, an Article V Convention of States is probably the only way for the people to take control of our runaway government:
Convention of States
Last edited:
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
No way, nothing good can come of this.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Joe Blow
.45 acp
Agreed... And the years it could take to come to be? Fuck that...
Mr. terzmo
.308 Win
There are too many political entities against a convention so I'm leaning towards supporting one