When I saw this this morning:
I’m at a Senate meeting where they’re discussing bills that would call for a convention of states to amend the US Constitution. Packed room.
— Jamie Self (@jamiemself) February 18, 2015
I had nothing to go on, so I facetiously responded, “Here we go again. Tell the boys at The Citadel to break out the red flag…”
But based on the reporter’s subsequent Tweets, I’m guessing this is what it’s about:
Amending the U.S. Constitution to make marriage between only a man and woman. (Main sponsor: Larry Grooms, R-Berkeley)
That one kinda snuck up on me. I missed that story when it ran. Or maybe I saw it, and missed the thing about Grooms wanting a U.S. con-con, which was only mentioned in a bulleted sidebar, not the main story.
I’ll let you know if it turns out I’m wrong and its about something else.
A U.S. Constitutional convention, eh? If we do that, can we straighten out the language in the 2nd Amendment this time, do something about that oddly placed comma? Not this one, the first one.
Related Posts
Because that is the biggest issue facing this state, right? Talk about deflecting!
The legislature cannot figure out how to provide a funding mechanism to adequately maintain existing roads and this is what attracts a packed Senate hearing?
Oh yeah, and they are going to try to weasel out of funding poor schools, and and and
I’d like to see a description of the crowd — who was mostly there? Other lawmakers? Lobbyists for groups for and against? People off the street? Had some group bused people in?
Of course, maybe it was a small room…
This may answer my question:
Apparently, Grooms also wants a federal balanced budget amendment….
Why are these people given media/political oxygen over stuff like this?
How about we have a Top 10 list of the SC legislature knuckleheads instead?
I’ll start:
Sen. Mike Fair
Sen. Larry Grooms
Sen. Kevin Bryant
Sen. Tom Corbin
Sen. Lee Bright
Sen. Katrina Shealy (not in the same league here, at all, but her fetal protection stand your ground proposal is a contender, among other things)
Rep. Alan Clemmons
Rep. Gary Smith
Rep. “Coach” Hayes
Rep. Todd Rutherford
The last two are a bit different, but I find their cynical misuse of the intersection between their public office and private careers to be worthy of ridicule.
Normally I would rather focus on the positive, but sometimes it’s good to highlight the bad.
Prefer that SC just get out of the marriage business 100%.
That would have a better chance than a state senator getting a constitutional amendment passed.
This debate is much more morally important than crafting legislation for independent review of our lawmakers’ questionable actions. Of course. It’s also so-o-o much more doable.
Email newsletters from several legislators suggest that this is seen as a way to address the broadly defined dreaded disease of “federal overreach.” As we know, only the SC General Assembly can legitimately micromanage lower levels of government.
I like the observation some legislator made that this was opening up the Constitution to the majority of voters, who elected Obama twice. He said this as if it were a bad thing.
I guess each state would send a delegate, right? Kind of interesting to spin some hypotheticals about who would show up and what coalitions of states would form.
What could we reasonably expect 3/4 of the states to agree upon?
Why would we do it with each state sending a delegate? There are far fairer ways to do it, and since everything would be up for grabs….
I don’t know. Just spitballing over here.
The problem with calling for a redo of arguably the most effective governing document ever, is that it throws wide the floodgates.
“If we do that, can we straighten out the language in the 2nd Amendment this time, do something about that oddly placed comma? Not this one, the first one.”
Ha! I was about to make a similar comment so it’s clear that I can keep all my evil semi-automatic weapons. 🙂 Not sure I would want a fully automatic weapon, since I’m mostly punching holes in paper and not laying down covering fire for Easy Company.
It doesn’t surprise me too much that that the idea of an Article V convention would get a fair bit of interest from the folks up at the Statehouse. I guess it’s kind of the check and balance we never really talk about much – the one between the federal government and the state governments. Seems like it’s the only way states can band together and then force the feds to do anything, right?
Anyone in the commentariat want to propose any new constitutional amendments? This might be your big chance.
Kasich, Grooms, et al:
Just boys at play in the political sandbox that is South Carolina.