Unforced Error: Glenn Beck Withdraws Support for Article V Convention

PJ Media ^ | 9-16-22 | JEFF REYNOLDS

[unread]

At this point in time, we can't even began to control the fraud that's happening at the voting booth, and because of that, this entire nation is going down the toilet.!

Let's fix that problem FIRST, and then MAYBE we can get enough honest people in DC to get something done..

Job number one.. FIX THE VOTING BOOTH.!!

[tanstaafl.72555]

I heard that.

He sounds like some of the knuckleheads in here on his reasoning.

[FarCenter]

The constitution drafted by the convention in Chile has 178 pages and about 54,000 words.

That’s the main reason for not calling a convention.

[sauropod]

Beck is right. I share his sentiments.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Beck finally gets the picture.

[JoeVortex]

Egypt rewrote its constitution in 2014. They had a national referendum to adopt it.

Someone did an analysis and concluded that it contained just about every radical, looney, social justice idea you could think of. It was pretty funny.

I spent a few minutes trying to find the article but could not.

Beck is right on this one. It would be far too dangerous to open up this can of worms in the current environment.

I think a better approach is something referred to as “radical federalism”. Devolve as much power as possible back down to the states. Let the people of each state decide how they want to govern themselves.

[Codeflier]

It doesn’t need changing, it simply needs to be followed. So much takes place that is clearly unconstitutional.

[Brooklyn Attitude]

“Only a complete buffoon with terminal normalcy bias would be against an Art V convention.”

To quote another “complete buffoon” on this matter, the late Supreme Court Justice and constitutional originalist Antonin Scalia warned in 2014, shortly prior to his death, “I certainly would not want a Constitutional Convention. Whoa! Who knows what would come out of it?”

[Brooklyn Attitude]

“That’s not the reason for Article V”

Enlighten me. Tell me why it’s a good idea to give a loaded Glock to a three year old.

[Article10]

Right on que...

A Convention of States with 2 items to vote on is simple..

1. Repeal the 17th Amendment

2. Eliminate the Senior Executive Service.

To think Glen Beck or any of his ilk, a leader of anything is pure foolishness and folly.

Put your energy into real action every day. Let the circus clowns, clown on..

[Article10]

You clearly do not understand how a constitutional convention works, thus you rely on the ultimate clown called call Glenn Beck, do your research before you make decisions. Otherwise enjoy the circus and keep complaining about it

[Article10]

You are correct

Time to repeal the 17th Amendment

[Article10]

“, let us say we repeal the 17th Amendment and return to a Senate with members appointed by their State Legislatures. Is it going to make a difference?”

Absolutely will make a difference, our founding fathers were not stupid, it will definitely put a completely different type of senator and it will restore a check and balance that’s currently removed on the federal government as well as the federal judiciary

The effects of the 17th were long to realize, but it changed the thinking of the nation. The State legislatures are corrupted by big government thinking. There will be no difference in the Senate.

As far at the V-Convention goes, changing something we don’t follow in the first place is useless.

You can’t rely on The Narrative of the media back then, it’s worse than CNN is today. And yes was there corruption of course there was, every government has corruption nothing was perfect back then. Having every state legislature in capital involved absolutely takes the power away from the current fedzilla and will eliminate the uni party that you see today. The 17th Amendment put the parties and large Financial donors in power.

The point of how senators were voted on was to spread out that power across every state capitol and yes some of those state capitals will be absolutely a mess, now we have it all with parties and large lobbyists in DC. Our founding fathers were not stupid

[Article10]

You are under a common misconception of how a constitutional convention works. The set agenda is sent to state capitals, it’s one agenda it’s voted on it’s that simple

[Reily]

An Article V convention can modify the Constitution no more than any other amendment proposed, voted on by Congress & ratified by the states can.

All an article V convention does is bypass Congress. The states still have to ratify any amendment that comes out of an Article V convention.

[Loud Mime]

I suggest you read “Federalism, the Supreme Court and the 17th Amendment” by Ralph Rossum. It has an excellent history of the change.

I do not agree with you about the change that abrogation of the Amendment will bring, because you are changing the selection process, but not the philosophies of all the voters who put the legislatures in office. Consider California! QED.

The biggest problem our nation faces now is the marxist media. They control the narrative and all that follows, including education. That’s why I have written three books on the matter - - people just accept the course and never question how far out of line the narrative is with our constitutional form of govt. “The Real Constitution and its real enemies” is on amazon. You can see the details without buying it.

[Publius]

This is the usual boilerplate that I post to these threads. I've had this verbiage vetted by a retired professor of constitutional law for accuracy.

***

THE ARTICLE V AMENDATORY PROCESS

The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps:

1. Proposal;
2. Direction;
3. Ratification.

Proposal:

There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.

• The Congressional method requires the House and Senate to pass an amendment by a two thirds majority of each house.
• The amendments convention method requires the legislatures of two thirds of the states to pass resolutions directing Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments. These resolutions are called applications. Once the two thirds threshold is reached, Congress is required to set a time and place for the convention.

Article V gives Congress and an amendments convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, except that a convention is limited to proposing amendments specified in the application and there is no such limit on Congress.

Direction:

Once Congress, or an amendments convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:

• State legislature method, or the
• State ratifying convention method.

The state ratifying convention method has only been used once: to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition. A similar procedure was used to ratify the Constitution itself.

Ratification:

Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three fourths of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.

Forbidden Subjects:

Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and two implicitly forbidden subjects.

Explicitly forbidden:

1. No amendment may be added to the Constitution concerning the slave trade or direct taxes until 1808. We’re well past that deadline.
2. No amendment may be added to the Constitution to change the principle of equal representation in the Senate unless every state deprived of that right approves. If California wants five senators, every state must have five senators. To permit violation of this principle, every state would have to ratify the amendment, not just three fourths.

Implicitly forbidden:

1. The Constitution of 1787 may not be abrogated and replaced with a new document. Article V only authorizes “a convention for proposing amendments to this Constitution;” so the Constitution of 1787 is locked in place.
2. A convention for proposing amendments is limited to the topics authorized by state applications.

Reference work:

Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers

[zeugma]

Anyone who thinks that this wouldn’t be hijacked by whackjobs of all kinds is living in a fantasy world. We don’t have the kind of statesmen that we need to make any serious mods to the Constitution. I’d be better off with returning it closer to the original document.

[Reily]

The goal of an Article V would be to return it closer to the original document. Any amendments that came out of it would still have to be ratified by 3/4s (38) of the states. If there’s enough ‘whack jobs’ in the states to do that we’re gone anyway!

If you’re interested in getting any reform done this is the only way to do it. Professional politicians are NOT going to do anything that is against their professional interests. Of course, if sitting and complaining is the goal, they fine let’s not do it.

[glennaro]

You do not understand -- or you do understand but refuse to acknowledge the reality -- that while the founding constitutional convention was divinely inspired, a constitutional convention in today's America would be politically inspired; that is, religious principles and wisdom would be prohibited at such a convention.

I truly and sincerely believe that an Article V convention in today's America would be not just a bad idea, but a grievous, irreversible error and a deadly threat to our Republic.