Hillary Clinton: always wrong.
Oh, I’m sure that when she tells the maid “We need milk,” she’s accurate enough. Otherwise — forget it.
Her latest howlers pertain to the movement to convene a Convention of States. If two thirds of the states call for the convention, it “will be” convened, per the U.S. Constitution. If 38 states approve a convention-proposed amendment, it will be added to the Constitution.
Different pro-convention groups support different amendments, on everything from a balanced budget to spending limits to term limits. U.S. Term Limits is promoting a Term Limits Convention to propose an amendment for congressional term limits.
A great idea.
Clinton, though, sees calamity: “The right wing, aided and funded by the Mercers, Koch brothers, etc. [sic], is very serious about calling a constitutional convention,” she warned recently.
“Part of their gerrymandering is to control state legislatures, elect Republican governors, and to call a constitutional convention [no, a convention of states] and,” the author of What Happened elaborates, “if you really get deep into what they are advocating, limits on the First Amendment, no limits on the Second Amendment, limits on criminal justice … [A] very insidious right-wing agenda.”
Gee, the old multiple-fallacies-and-vague-ominous-assertions-per-second trick!
First, how to “gerrymander” statewide gubernatorial elections?
Or “gerrymander” the enthusiasm of millions for restraints on government?
Or apply the districting concept to the Founders’ constitutional provision for end-running Congress?
As for the political issues she blunderingly raises, Clinton seems to regard any political disagreement whatever with herself as proof of billionaire-funded “right-wing conspiracy.”
Well, left-wing conspirators always say such things.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
5 replies on “O That Wacky Gerrymandering”
Really devestate her to not be able to run again until 2020 for a federal office whose power has been severely curtailed.
It would be the end of everything that gave her life meaning, except for chardonnay.
I have VERY mixed feelings concerning the COS. Ron Paul who I admire and respect has come out strongly against it while many others who I agree with in principal are for it. I lean against because I think that everything that they say that they want to do can be done by Constitutional Amendments instead of changing the very Constitution itself.
I will add one more thing, if the do have the COS then they had better get people like Judge Napolitano or Roy Moore as delegates and not let a bunch of One Worlders leftists run the convention. And once the COS starts they should have private security contractors with orders to shoot to kill surrounding the building to keep protestors out- and that especially includes the leftist media.
The COS won’t change the Constitution. They will propose amendments to the Constitution, just like Congress does today. The ratification process is the same as well. Whatever comes out of a COS will have to be approved by at least thirty eight of the states to become part of the Constitution.
Congress has refused to act on many of the issues important to Americans. The Constitution gave us an end-run around Congress. Those who support COS are simply following the Constitution.
The Convention of the States effort seeks several amendments, but both the Balanced Budget effort and U.S. Term Limits are seeking a single amendment to be proposed by the convention. That sort of clarity and singular purpose makes it much tougher for any funny business.
On top of that, any change must gain support from 38 of the 50 states. That’s a very high bar.
Rather a. Leap of faith. Hope it works.