S.C. lawmakers discuss U.S. Constitutional convention

When I saw this this morning:


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.

16 thoughts on “S.C. lawmakers discuss U.S. Constitutional convention

  1. Mark Stewart

    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?

    Reply
  2. Brad Warthen Post author

    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…

    Reply
    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      This may answer my question:

      Many of the speakers, on both sides of the issue, had ties to Tea Party and liberty movements in the state.

      Apparently, Grooms also wants a federal balanced budget amendment….

      Reply
      1. Mark Stewart

        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.

        Reply
  3. Barry

    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.

    Reply
  4. Karen Pearson

    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.

    Reply
    1. Lynn Teague

      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.

      Reply
      1. Kathryn Fenner

        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.

        Reply
        1. Bryan Caskey

          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?

          Reply
        2. Kathryn Fenner

          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….

          Reply
            1. Kathryn Fenner

              The problem with calling for a redo of arguably the most effective governing document ever, is that it throws wide the floodgates.

              Reply
  5. Bryan Caskey

    “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.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *