The Next Constitutional Convention Could Bring an End to the Constitution

Coach is Right ^ | 7/26/15 | Ed Wood

[Oldpuppymax]

Just a little more about the call for a “Constitutional Convention,” or a “Convention of States,” as it is now being called. They just gave it a new name to make you think it is an exercise by the various states. It isn’t. And here is why.

The authorization for calling a “convention,” or “meeting” for the purpose of changing the Constitution of the United States is found in Article V. It is very short. Only one paragraph. In fact, it is only one sentence! Here it is, in its entirety.

Article V

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.

As shown above, there are two different ways Congress may be requested to hold a meeting for the purpose of amending the Constitution:

(1) “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or...

[ilovesarah2012]

I thought Obama already brought an end to the Constitution.

[Sasparilla]

Any Amendment proposed still has to be approved by 3/4 of the states.
It is hard to get 3/4 of the states to agree on anything.

[Political Junkie Too]

So you see, under Option 2, there is nothing in the Constitution that states that Congress is to be the body of the Convention. They just call for it. Congress may decide to appoint their own members as delegates; or may permit the States to appoint delegates; or may decide upon some other method of determining how delegates will be selected. The delegates attending could be anybody. In such a convention, the delegates could propose an entirely new Constitution, with its own new method of ratification — or with no ratification at all! There would be no limit.

In fact, our current Constitution could be replaced entirely!

Federalist #43:

---

"To provide for amendments to be ratified by three fourths of the States under two exceptions only. ''That useful alterations will be suggested by experience, could not but be foreseen. It was requisite, therefore, that a mode for introducing them should be provided. The mode preferred by the convention seems to be stamped with every mark of propriety. It guards equally against that extreme facility, which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme difficulty, which might perpetuate its discovered faults. It, moreover, equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other. The exception in favor of the equality of suffrage in the Senate, was probably meant as a palladium to the residuary sovereignty of the States, implied and secured by that principle of representation in one branch of the legislature; and was probably insisted on by the States particularly attached to that equality. The other exception must have been admitted on the same considerations which produced the privilege defended by it.

---

Federalist #85:

---

The intrinsic difficulty of governing THIRTEEN STATES at any rate, independent of calculations upon an ordinary degree of public spirit and integrity, will, in my opinion constantly impose on the national rulers the necessity of a spirit of accommodation to the reasonable expectations of their constituents. But there is yet a further consideration, which proves beyond the possibility of a doubt, that the observation is futile. It is this that the national rulers, whenever nine States concur, will have no option upon the subject. By the fifth article of the plan, the Congres will be obliged “on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States [which at present amount to nine], to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof.” The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress “shall call a convention.” Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body. And of consequence, all the declamation about the disinclination to a change vanishes in air. Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite two thirds or three fourths of the State legislatures, in amendments which may affect local interests, can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.

[snip]

This is not all. Every Constitution for the United States must inevitably consist of a great variety of particulars, in which thirteen independent States are to be accommodated in their interests or opinions of interest. We may of course expect to see, in any body of men charged with its original formation, very different combinations of the parts upon different points. Many of those who form a majority on one question, may become the minority on a second, and an association dissimilar to either may constitute the majority on a third. Hence the necessity of moulding and arranging all the particulars which are to compose the whole, in such a manner as to satisfy all the parties to the compact; and hence, also, an immense multiplication of difficulties and casualties in obtaining the collective assent to a final act. The degree of that multiplication must evidently be in a ratio to the number of particulars and the number of parties.

But every amendment to the Constitution, if once established, would be a single proposition, and might be brought forward singly. There would then be no necessity for management or compromise, in relation to any other point no giving nor taking. The will of the requisite number would at once bring the matter to a decisive issue. And consequently, whenever nine, or rather ten States, were united in the desire of a particular amendment, that amendment must infallibly take place. There can, therefore, be no comparison between the facility of affecting an amendment, and that of establishing in the first instance a complete Constitution.

---

Hamilton writes that the pre-17th amendment Senate and the Article V power to call for proposing Conventions were meant to put states on equal footing with the federal government.

Hamilton writes that the threat of states calling an Article V convention is intended as a check on a federal government that ignores their interests.

Hamilton writes that Article V gives no discretion to Congress, other than that they are obligated to call the Convention.

Hamilton recognizes that factions of states may agree on one topic and disagree on another; that these factions are fluid and malleable. Hamilton relies on the experience of the Convention delegates to sort it out.

Hamilton writes that each proposed amendment must stand on its own merits, and be ratified by 3/4ths of the states, and that a wholesale replacement of the Constitution is therefore impossible.

It is clear from the context of Federalist #43 and #85 that the convention is for the states to control the federal government, not for the federal government to coopt the convention to hurt the states.

-PJ

Federalist #43:

[mykroar]

As a fellow FRiend pointed out (I cannot recall whom), when both parties are ignoring the Constitution currently - what’s to stop them from doing the same thing when the Constitution’s amended?

[RIghtwardHo]

There won’t be one nor should there be.

[ken5050]

If you think about it objectively, this might be the best, and only way, to get term limits into law. There are so many state legislators eager to move up to Congress, in both parties, that they might be willing to create more “opportunities.”

[Biggirl]

Did not talkradio show host Mark Levin had authored a book about the “Liberty Amendments” ?

[moovova]

“Just a little more about the call for a “Constitutional Convention,” or a “Convention of States,” as it is now being called.”

Or, they could just call it...”Pandora’s Box”.

[Biggirl]

If anyone wants either on or off the Mark Levin Show PING List. IT’S HERE! The long-awaited new book on how to fix our broken government. Restore the Republic!

Mark explains it ALL… and boy do we NEED him!!

Levin FRinks List:
1. Yhello, Yhello, Yhello
2. Get off the phone you _________________ ! :
3. Wiener Nation or “BACK BENCHER” Mention
4. Mark says “Thank Me" or "Thank Me very Much"
5. Mark makes the gargle sound or “Levintizes” a caller
6. "Women's Underwear" (OVERBITE’s Theme Song) or "I'm Against It" by Groucho
7. A FReeper Mention, FReeper Caller, or MarkLevinFan.com Mention
8. “COCKAMAMIE!”
9. Mark mentions Lactose Intolerance or gives away Free Government Cheese
10. It's [time] Under God!
11. Mention of the New York Slimes or Washington Compost
12. Mark calls someone a “Dumbass”
13. Mark plays – and SINGS! – “Kumbaya”
14. Mark says “God bless us!” or “THERE, I SAID IT!” or “Yabba Dabba Doo”
15. Mark mentions the “clintonoids with their hemmorhoids”
16. Mark plays the “Quack Quack” or cuckoo clock sounds
17. “I WILL SUE THEIR ASSES!”
18. A RuPaul supporter or Crazy-Jim catches mister call screener napping
19. “Barack MILHAUS Nobama”
and last but most important…
20. MARK CALLS A “LEVIN SURGE!”

[freedomfiter2]

No, that was Chief Justice Roberts.

[gdzla]

Simply declare the Constitution unconstitutional.

[MrB]

The nut of any amendment through ArtV will be

“you can’t force other states to comply with XYZ”.

They won’t be “other states and the fedgov can force your state to comply with XYZ”.

Now it depends on what kind of control freaks run the various legislatures whether you’ll get the 3/4 ratification.

[MeganC]

COACH IS WRONG!!!!

A Convention of the States can only propose amendments that still have to be ratified by the legislatures. There will not be a Constitutional Convention because there is no authority for such a thing in the Constitution.

STOP REPEATING LEFTIST PROPAGANDA, thank you.

[RedStateRocker]

You are completely right, BUT, the Federalist is not the law of the land and can (and often is) completely ignored by Congress, the Executive and the courts.

[GeronL]

and gay marriage will never happen

gays in the BSA will never happen

Muslim in the White Hut will never happen

[Jim from C-Town]

There is a full time Constitutional Convention held every time the Supreme Court is in session.

The author as well as so many Freepers have no clue as to how a convention of the states is constituted. Even if it is set up any amendments would still need to be approved by 3/4 of all the states in order to place it in the constitution. That requires 38 or 50 state legislatures to ratify the amendment.

As it sands now we have a majority of Republican State Legislatures at 31 and the Democrats have 11 and 8 are split. I find it hard to believe that the Democrats would control the agenda in such an environment.

[CodeToad]

The Constitution is already dead. There isn’t a thing in it that the courts have not mutilated already, not a single thing.

[VanDeKoik]

Saw the headline and knew that the usual retarded replies about “runaway” conventions would be repeated by the same fools that have not even a 4th grade understanding of the constitution would be repeated over and over again.

[Mariner]

Coach is an idiot tool.