URL: http://community.realitytvworld.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/rtvw2/community/dcboard.cgi
Forum: DCForumID6
Thread Number: 38556
[ Go back to previous page ]
Original Message
"The United States officially declares war on Canada."
Posted by Estee on 12-05-14 at 07:35 AM
Burger King has purchased Tim Horton's.
Table of contents
Messages in this discussion
"RE: The United States officially declares war on Canada."
Posted by kingfish on 12-05-14 at 09:14 AM
Rats. I expected more from that headline.
"RE: The United States officially declares war on Canada."
Posted by Estee on 12-05-14 at 12:33 PM
Y'know the claim from certain extra-hardcore Republicans that every time we allow any hint of outside culture or influence into this country, we're destroying America?

For Canadians? This is actually it.

"RE: The United States officially declares war on Canada."
Posted by kingfish on 12-05-14 at 08:32 PM
So this is a plot to smoke out Canadian Republicans. Clever.

Are there any Canadian Republicans?

"RE: The United States officially declares war on Canada."
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 12-06-14 at 00:00 AM
LAST EDITED ON 12-07-14 AT 09:17 AM (EST)


The Conservative Party (currently the governing party with Prime Minister Stephen Harper) is relatively close to being Republican.

Feh. Tim Hortons survived being owned by Wendy's a number of years ago before going solo again. They'll do fine with this partnership with Burger King - if BK has any common sense, they'll leave Timmys alone and piggyback on them to gain ground in Canada while also opening up some Timmys locations in the U.S.

I'm in Michigan at the moment, and I'm seeing more Tim Hortons here than any other coffee-slash-donut place, including Starbucks. Meanwhile, I've yet to see a Burger King on either side of the border over the past week. Tim Hortons looks alive and well.

ETA: Been a while since we've had to pass out a lime helmet (though you, Estee, are certainly excused with the way things have been slow here on the boards)... http://community.realitytvworld.com/boards/DCForumID6/38508.shtml

"RE: The United States officially declares war on Canada."
Posted by kingfish on 12-06-14 at 02:05 PM

"The Conservative Party (currently the governing party with Prime Minister Stephen Harper) is relatively close to being Republican."

I'm sure that puts Estee's worries to rest.

"RE: The United States officially declares war on Canada."
Posted by Estee on 12-06-14 at 05:41 PM
Two words: Constitutional Convention.

One of the stated goals is to repeal the 17th Amendment.

One of the unstated goals is to repeal the First.

"RE: The United States officially declares war on Canada."
Posted by kingfish on 12-08-14 at 12:37 PM
The 17th amendment? The election of senators? I guess referring the last Anti-Obama mid-term election?

I think that's pretty much unstated too.

I don't think we have to worry about a 1st amendment repeal, while there are lunatics in the attic, they just make noise. We don't need to create a Christian Caliphate.


"RE: The United States officially declares war on Canada."
Posted by Estee on 12-08-14 at 01:05 PM
The idea behind the constitutional convention is that if the GOP states get a sufficient majority of governors, they can essentially call for the previous and rewrite the document with no interference from anyone else. Revoking the 17th then gives the GOP-dominated state legislatures the ability to assign their own Senators, making that control into a super-majority.

(Incidentally, they also want to give states the ability to repeal federal law. Among so many other things.)

As for a Christian Caliphate... have you been listening to some of the early runners? I think if you presented every major Republican politician with the option of repealing the First if doing so was the one thing which would let them truly create a Christian nation, you might not get a majority saying yes -- but it wouldn't be far off. And the idea of the constitutional convention is that it's a no-interference rewrite. The general public doesn't get a say. No one gets a vote except those at the convention. And it all depends on who shows up.

"RE: The United States officially declares war on Canada."
Posted by kingfish on 12-09-14 at 10:51 AM
The constitutional convention, like was held to write the original constitution, circa 1787? And hasn't been held since? Once again, I confess, I did not know that that could be done again, or that anyone would seriously contemplate doing that. I must have been asleep in civics class that day.

I know you're sort of being tongue-in-cheek serious, and I know I've pushed your BK mischievousness into a tangent, but I see what you're saying (now, anyway) as far as those being possibilities. But just to be serious for a moment, I see no way that a system of laws can, within reason, grant everyone the freedom of expression and individual beliefs, yet legislate against all of the crazy and self-destructive ideas.

So we really have to depend on the collective sanity and perspicuity of American voters to prevent nut jobs and their nut job ideas from damaging our society.

OK, that is scary.

"RE: The United States officially declares war on Canada."
Posted by Estee on 12-09-14 at 10:57 AM
It can be done again if a crucial percentage of state governments agree to hold one. If so, it gets around the usual amendment process and rewrites the document directly. The GOP is getting near that threshold, and many of the hardcore elements among the party want to go for it.

If so, the American voters will get no say in the process whatsoever.

"RE: The United States officially declares war on Canada."
Posted by kingfish on 12-09-14 at 11:59 AM
Is that in the existing constitution? What would be the threshold? 3/5ths (30) of the states? And I count 29 after the 2014 election. Ok, I see where you’re coming from. One more state and they take over the world!

You’ve managed to scare me. A little. But since it takes years just to get an amendment signed, it should also take years (decades) for a new constitution to be written and agreed on, and the American voters would have that time to voice their opinions thru the intervening gubernatorial elections. And I just cannot see the people nor the Feds (they actually define state’s rights, after all) allowing this to happen. I know I’d be voting Democrat. And hating it. But if it does, reserve me a spot in your protest line. Or in the exodus line to Canada.

We can depend on the sanity of a few GOP governors. Surely there are some sane ones? Heck, your Governor wouldn’t be for that nonsense, would he? It would take for all the Governors to all be in agreement, and the ability of all of the GOP Governors to act in a coordinated way. So the disunity of our Government and the inefficiency of our bureaucracy are our best friends?

Bottom line, there is no appetite among the American public to rewrite the constitution. It is a sacred political document. And although technically there may be a path for doing it, practically speaking it wouldn't be done without backing from the voters.

Pass the Kool-ade.

"RE: The United States officially declares war on Canada."
Posted by newsomewayne on 12-16-14 at 10:37 AM
U.S. Constitution - Article 5

Article 5 - Amendment

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.

So, yes, it is in the existing constitution. Currently 57 50 states, so...
34 to hold convention,
38 to pass amendment.

What I'm not sure about is who chooses the form of state acceptance, either state Legislature or state convention? Is it whoever acts first, the elected officials or the people? Can it vary from state to state, or does it have to be done the same way in every state? Are the votes secret or will it be run by the unions?


Laziness Suggested by Syren, 2005
‘Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies, because they believe that small lies can serve big truths.' - Dr Richard Lewontin, evolutionary Marxist at Harvard University.

"RE: The United States officially declares war on Canada."
Posted by kingfish on 12-16-14 at 11:58 AM
Thanks. Article 5. I did look it up after the above discussion, but up to then I had never focused on that alternative process. Apparently I was asleep that day in civics.

So 2/3rd (34) of the states have to hold separate conventions, and each convention has to vote (by a simple majority?) to propose an amendment. Then 3/4ths of the states (38) have to ratify any proposed amendment before it can be law. (I know, that’s what you just said. Just wrapping my mind around it).

The general language of that article does leave room for interpretation, which probably means it would be years if not decades until the final and definitive Supreme Court Decisions are made. Which would give the voting public a lot of time to effect changes to the outcome by voting in or out representatives (ironically, including senators) who represent their opinions.

I like the 17th amendment though, and would not vote for anyone who would be for abolishing it, I like for senators to be elected by constituents. And clueless as I am, and also aware that for every idea there’s someone that’s pro, and someone that’s con, I’ve never heard of a serious movement to abolish it, so don’t be giving anyone any ideas, OK?

And, BTW, a fairly strict interpretation of the 1st Amendment is bedrock to our survival as a nation of free people.

"RE: The United States officially declares war on Canada."
Posted by newsomewayne on 12-09-14 at 02:07 PM
*bang* *pop* *crash*

What was that? I couldn't hear you from up here.

</resume>*bang* *pop* *crash*

"RE: The United States officially declares war on Canada."
Posted by newsomewayne on 12-16-14 at 10:23 AM
One of the stated goals is to repeal the 17th Amendment.

You mean, going back to our government working the way it was designed to work? What a novel idea.


U.S. Government: Doing everything you used to do yourself for you since 2008.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson

"RE: The United States officially declares war on Canada."
Posted by Estee on 12-16-14 at 01:10 PM
And in the name of that argument, you could also repeal the 13th. For starters.
"RE: The United States officially declares war on Canada."
Posted by newsomewayne on 12-16-14 at 03:27 PM
I'd say there's a big difference between the two arguments.
"RE: The United States officially declares war on Canada."
Posted by Estee on 12-16-14 at 05:41 PM
Not to a few of the people making them.

I do suspect you wouldn't be so quick on the -17 if the states calling for the convention were a blue majority.

"RE: The United States officially declares war on Canada."
Posted by newsomewayne on 12-17-14 at 09:34 AM
Sadly, there will always be a few.

---

Perhaps. But, as the party of fear and populist fervor, I highly doubt they would be the ones looking to go back to that.