Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: "a Far-Right Movement to Gut the Constitution" 46

Journal by smittyoneeach
Inside Mike Johnson's Ties to a Far-Right Movement to Gut the Constitution

For the last 10 years, the "Convention of States" movement has sought to remake the Constitution and force a tea party vision of the framers' intent upon America. This group wants to wholesale rewrite wide swaths of the U.S. Constitution in one fell swoop. In the process, they hope to do away with regulatory agencies like the FDA and the CDC, virtually eliminate the federal government's ability to borrow money, and empower state legislatures to override federal law.

Now, fustakrakitch rightly blames the voters for the collapse of everything around us, but goes Full Bircher at the idea of those voters supporting a Convention of States

I endorse the COS as the only likely shot at improvement. If we can "just add a variable" (as fustakrakitch put it) The Powers That Be variable isn't going to accept any sort of reform.

What's needed is some analysis. The original, agrarian, island nation Constitution of 1787 is like a local machine script in your tool of choice that was put in production and has simply become swamped. The basic ideas, as Amended, are largely sound, but the feedback loops that should keep it stabilized were removed a century back by Woodrow, and the system has gone unstable.

Congress doesn't actually legislate; the Executive and its agencies (alphabet organizations especially) run amok and essentially unchecked; the sclerotic SCOTUS is awash in Commie fools and trying not to get shot for making feeble attempts to preserve the Constitution.

Mike Johnson seems like a straight shooter, but may prove too little, too late. We'll see. America can be great again, but there is much Commie folly that needs to be puked out to get the country back on course, and the Eminence Orange cannot be the only means of getting there.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

"a Far-Right Movement to Gut the Constitution" More

"a Far-Right Movement to Gut the Constitution"

Comments Filter:

  • Imagine software that has never been refactored.
    Imagine software that is never deleted, long after any need has been exhausted.
    Imagine software that everyone is forced to keep using, by law, whether they want to, or not.
    That's the federal government.

    The states are the only genuinely democratic institutions left. My own state of Virginia, for example, one of the original 13 colonies, has had six complete revisions of its Constitution. The first was made in 1776. The last was made in 1971.

    So yes, by all means

    • My fellow Virginian, our federal government is merely a facade in front of an Administrative State that finds your quaint notions of self-government very quaint, indeed.

      We have voted our way into an homo bureaucratus infestation, and it will be quite the struggle session to make the country great again.

      But worth it.

      • We have voted our way into an homo bureaucratus infestation

        You vote yourselves in, you can vote yourselves out, best to do that before calling your little convention there, choice is yours.

        • you can vote yourselves out

          You seem to take a Polyanna approach to the reality of, for example, a Venezuelan junta, but I love you nonetheless.

          • Oh, are we in Venezuela now? Does a "junta" get 98% of the vote? Your blame passing precedes you, just like the other guy

            • are we in Venezuela now?

              I was dropping an example. Objects in the mirror may be closer than they appear.

              • Bad example. Up here it's only as bad as we let it be

                • Now you're going damn_registrars and dictating what can and cannot be discussed. *WHY* do you think this a bad example, then?

                  • We're not Venezuela, not even close.

                  • Now you're going damn_registrars and dictating what can and cannot be discussed

                    I love that you are uniquely qualified to make that statement. I am not aware of a time that I have ever dictated that we could not discuss a given topic. I have many times tried to steer the discussion back to its originating topic, but I cannot recall a time I have ever said a topic could not be discussed. I would say that your tendency to shift the topic is a much stronger indication of someone trying to avoid discussing certain matters than anything I have ever said here.

                    • I am not aware

                      Of course not.

                    • I am not aware of a time that I have ever dictated that we could not discuss a given topic

                      Of course not.

                      You could try offering an example of such a thing happening. I can't be certain that it never happened, but you called me out by name on the matter which strongly suggests you believe that it did. If it happened, can you provide an example of it happening?

                    • I have been too strong here. You've never explicitly marked a topic as off-limits. The general patterns of topic control I've noted over the years include, but are not limited to:

                      * Rejecting topic inputs as "partisan" due to source

                      * Rejecting examples of, e.g. disagreement with a party, for various pettifogging reasons

                      * Rejecting a stated viewpoint as "I don't think you actually mean what's been said"

                      In summary, the experience of interacting with you is that of a really, really bad boss. If your ant

                    • I have been too strong here. You've never explicitly marked a topic as off-limits.

                      Thank you.

                      * Rejecting topic inputs as "partisan" due to source

                      When sources have an established reputation of going after people based on their party affiliation - as well as a reputation for not worrying about the accuracy of their statements while doing so - it is fair to call them partisan.

                      * Rejecting examples of, e.g. disagreement with a party, for various pettifogging reasons

                      Can you elaborate on that?

                      * Rejecting a stated viewpoint as "I don't think you actually mean what's been said"

                      I don't believe I've ever tried to tell you that you mean something other than what you have said or quoted. Quite the opposite in fact, I do believe that you believe in what you say. However that will not stop me from pointing out when yo

                    • I'm willing to accept that you are oblivious. Accept that the aforementioned post is exactly where I am at. I also expect, based upon past experience, a lack or graciousness. Part of acting like a really, really bad boss is refusal to accept simply that folks are unhappy. Seems part of the territory.

                    • refusal to accept simply that folks are unhappy

                      I do not question at all the sincerity of your anger. I recognize your right to be angry with me, or with anything else you choose to be angry with - real or imagined.

                      However when you base your anger on falsehoods I will exercise my right to point out those falsehoods. You can of course shove your fingers in your ears and insist that the sky is orange if you wish.

                    • "falsehoods" implies that I am in some way dishonest. We tend to circle the drain on subjective matters. When I've been wrong, e.g. my recent NIH/NHS confusion, I am quick and unfailing to confess. The bulk of the time, one walks away awed at your Will To Tendentiousness.

                    • "falsehoods" implies that I am in some way dishonest.

                      :-) Only with yourself.

                    • "falsehoods" implies that I am in some way dishonest.

                      if that term bothers you we can use a different one. I'm trying to avoid calling you a liar, but I want to use a term that makes it clear when I am showing that your arguments are not supported by factual information.

                      When I've been wrong, e.g. my recent NIH/NHS confusion, I am quick and unfailing to confess

                      In that case you were. In plenty of other cases you've been quite dodgy when shown to have no factual support for your conspiracies, even when it has been shown that the best support you have for them are fabrications.

                    • The Holy Spirit grills me when in prayer about those little plays that one tries to run.
                    • Emphasis mine:

                      In plenty of other cases you've been quite dodgy when shown to have no factual support for your conspiracies, even when it has been shown that the best support you have for them are fabrications.

                      Please. This is an age of broad-spectrum shenanigans. I lack confidence in quite a lot of what you've said on here.

                    • In plenty of other cases you've been quite dodgy when shown to have no factual support for your conspiracies, even when it has been shown that the best support you have for them are fabrications.

                      Please. This is an age of broad-spectrum shenanigans. I lack confidence in quite a lot of what you've said on here.

                      A great example that comes to mind is your fairly recent conspiracy about Biden trying to throw out his VP. You and some others from Your Team spread that conspiracy around with great abandon for a few weeks, and then just as quickly stopped it.

                      If we went a little further back in time we could find conspiracies you've spread about Minneapolis as well, but your weird anti-Harris conspiracy was particularly odd - and particularly notable for how it came out of nowhere entirely.

                    • Zombie Joe is going to fall over at some point in the near future. In truth, the ZOTUS is as vacuous as the Veep. It's not clear what practical difference it makes which meat puppet gets the ruffles & flourishes [youtube.com]: President Personal Pronoun will continue to enjoy his third term by proxy.

                    • President Personal Pronoun will continue to enjoy his third term by proxy.

                      Oh c'mon.. according to you this is Wilson's 27th term. Actually it's more like Reagan's 10th, you should be pleased

                    • The only pleasure is that we could...maybe...reach a nadir soon. One podcast I was listening to threw out the notion that every ~80yrs or ~3 generations, the U.S. has a major crisis, and we're just due.

                      I want that to be true, but I'm skeptical because tech is the variable and the Information Age isn't the pre-WWII era.

                      Socialism is reversion to the human-historical mean, and we're not even beginning to deal honestly with the challenge.

                    • So... you want to have a crisis... why not create one? Oh... wait...

                      we're not even beginning to deal honestly with the challenge.

                      Do tell!

                    • Well, it gets at the fundamental unscalability of people that I have been on about.

                      The crash is looking inevitable, AFAICT. Whether we are exceptional enough to decentralize remains to be seen.

                      Your Pollyanna bromides--"We just gonna vote our way out!"--seem unlikely to produce anything useful.

                    • Your Pollyanna bromides--"We just gonna vote our way out!"--seem unlikely to produce anything useful.

                      Personal opinion, mere hand waving. You have no other choice, unless you want your dictatorship, which appears to be so...

                    • You have no other choice

                      We have a spectrum of choice, chief among which are selecting better leaders and moving in more strategic directions to preserve the ideals informing the Founding. Casting valid ballots is necessary, but not sufficient. This is my contention.

                    • Casting valid ballots is necessary, but not sufficient. This is my contention.

                      Based on what? What of any pf this goes beyond the voter and their choices?

                    • If you lack the wit to see what's going on in front of you, then just keep doing what you're doing.

                    • :-) Your cheap shot is water off a duck's back... I see perfectly.. You are still in denial, blaming what's going on in front of you for what goes on inside of you

                    • Not a cheap shot, but an observation. But you're clear that *I* am the one in denial. Hopefully you can at least perceive the symmetry.

                    • Not a cheap shot, but an observation.

                      Which only reveals your bias, and that you remain in denial of that bias.

                    • Oh, yes, I own 100% of the bias here. Your Olympian objectivity remains untouched.

                    • Oh, yes, I own 100% of the bias here.

                      Yes, you are attached to a system that provides preferential treatment

                    • Well, d_r's team will cheerfully provide "managed" liberty. It will suck in reality, but the propaganda will be chef's kiss. Isn't that what we want? Infinite rectal sunshine?

                    • *sigh* You and d_r share the same "team" that wants to mangle our liberties. Your bickering is all about style, quite the amusing spectacle over there

                    • You and d_r share the same "team"

                      Couldn't be farther from the truth. I'm interested in blowing away (in an org-chart sense) the vast bulk of that un-elected, useless "team". But you accuse nonetheless.

                    • Couldn't be farther from the truth.

                      And just like him, you remain in denial, the attachment and tribalism is powerful.

                      I'm interested in blowing away (in an org-chart sense) the vast bulk of that un-elected, useless "team".

                      Yeah, and replace them with your own yes-men, loyal to the emperor above all else.. exactly like your so-called "opposition", the routine couldn't be more obvious

                    • The only attachment and tribalism to which I cling is the Carpenter. You really haven't understood a thing.

                      replace them with your own yes-men

                      Yes-men are inevitable. This is intrinsic with humanity. Therefore, to minimize the yes-mennery, the preferred approach is going to be such things as term limits and decentralizing the power through, e.g., Article V. Which is why, if you're not advocating such substantive improvements to the feedback loops in our government, then you're just spouting a bunch of happy talk.

                      And, to your point, DJT hasn

  • When did it deviate?

    the Eminence Orange cannot be the only means of getting there.

    Ah, more of the same old idolatry I see.. When will you resolve that conflict?

    • ...but...I...was...*rejecting*...the...idolatry...

      • But you're not, you show faith in his lip service (as d_r does with his democrats), not actions

        • Quite the opposite. Trumps actions are quite a bit better than his rhetorically flaccid lip service. If his results were as stupid as his rallies, I'd be a hard core Never Trumper. In any case, the VP pick is where the discussion is. If he goes with another Pence-type milquetoast, then your point is solid: he's all sham.

Slashdot Top Deals

As long as we're going to reinvent the wheel again, we might as well try making it round this time. - Mike Dennison

Close