Posted on 04/14/2012 9:30:37 AM PDT by broken_arrow1
Thirty four (34) is the number of Legislatures from the several States necessary to call a States Convention or a Constitutional Convention. This also known as an Article Five(5) Convention, or a Convention to Amend the U.S. Constitution. With fifty (50) States in the U.S. Federal Compact today, thirty four (34) is the Constitutional number of legislatures from the several States needed to cross the threshold for such a convention.
Let's look at Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution :
"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. "
Thirty eight (38) is the number of legislatures from the several States that is necessary to ratify and thus amend the U.S. Constitution after such a convention. This amendment could be "to dissolve". By "dissolve" I mean the whole compact between the several States. Yes, the entire Federal Government and every thing it has or was created under it's jurisdiction. This would include but is not limited too, the Federal Debt, the Federal Reserve Bank, the FDIC, the Department of Education, the Department of Homeland Security, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, etc. etc... Think of it as a Constitutional self destruct mechanism.
This would leave the fifty (50) several States and the numerous Federal Territories, sovereign and under their own rightful and direct jurisdiction. Of course each State or Territory would then be free to individually or in groups engage in new compacts and trade arrangements. That is up to them to decide at a further date.
I know this information is very powerful and the far reaching ramification of such a decision may be a little hard for the reader to grasp or understand at first glance. I openly admit that I am not capable of understanding all the possibilities or consequences of such a decision. That being said, please allow me to entertain some ideas that immediately come to mind.
The Federal Reserve and Federal Reserve Notes are gone. The National Debt under the Federal Governments' promise to pay, evaporates Of course the IRS and all Federal Taxes. Social Security , Medicare and all that has been promised, owed or collected. Any claim to Federal Park Lands, highways, military bases, equipment, buildings, assets of any kind inside the several States. Any and all Federal agreements or treaties such as NATO, the UN, WTO, NAFTA,CAFTA, GAT and so on. I invite the readers to speculate and comment on any of the challenges or possibilities that could result if such a course was taken.
I will leave you with this final thought, "That which has been created can NOT be greater than the creator." It is time for the people through their several State Governments assert their power over the Federal Government over which they created. 100% Legally with pen and paper!
bump for deep musing
Too late for that ...
1-3 more SCOTUS Justices for this marxists administration and this becomes an insurmountable obstacle to my fervent wish and desire for your suggestion that is constitutionally viable (until SCOTUS says it’s not). Frankly, I doubt we could defeat the supremacy clause now but that defeat is certain with 4 more years of Obama.
I agree, the states are the key.
A COostitutional convention would be a disaster of the first order.
The convention will be dominated by those who agree with SCOTUS Judge Ginsberg, who would swap the US Constitution for a combination of the UN Declaration if Human Rights and the South African Constitution.
A convention may make sense in a time when people basically still support the Constitution. But now we have an administration and a Democrat party who actively disavow the Constitution, and often say so in so many words.
We have a president who explicitly and publicy states that blames the Constitution for his own failures.
Let’s secure the existing Constitution as the foundational legal document of this nation, before we go mucking around with it.
I disagree with a few details here. First, the Constitution includes one sentence that established the United States with exceptionally strong credit: "All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation." They accepted the valid debts from the Articles of Confederation based on a moral obligation. If we want support from 34 states to dissolve the Constitution, we need voters in 34 states backing that action. Considering how many individuals hold T-Bills and Government bonds, either directly or in retirement accounts, it's potentially worth the money to buy those votes by agreeing to satisfy those debts. Further, to the extent that those debts are valid, we have a moral obligation to satisfy those debts even if there is no political need to do so. Perhaps the answer is to divide the debts among the states in proportion to population.
Regarding your larger suggestion, I have no objection to a Constitutional Convention to either restate the Constitution and remove the potential for misunderstanding the fact that it limits the power of the central government, or to dissolve the Union. Either attempt is a risky option, but so is remaining under a Constitution that is being weakened and corrupted by thugs.
And the “self-destrcut” method would not be needed if we had a majority of constitutionally conservative (originalist) governors in the States.
And, with the will to continue the agreement of a representative republic; IOW, have a spine!
I am truly clueless on this but, don’t the States send more money to DC than they get back?
The problem with a Constitutional Convention is that you don’t know what kind of mischief they will perpetrate after it begins.
Invite all their sorry a**es to a pool party in a lime pit!!!
Russia is like this now, isn't it?
Something to think about ...
We don’t need a constitutional convention, what we need is a states vs fed confrontation.
I’d love to see a situation where a few states entered a trade contract while shutting the feds out and ignoring the interstate commerce clause.
What could the feds do aside from cutting highway funds (just one example) If Michigan offered up 1000 tax free tons of the world’s purest copper to Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Indiana? The feds trying to blockade the shipments would likely lead to retaliation from other states.
We don’t need separation, we need the federal government to return to its rightful place and role.
We don’t need separation, we need the federal government to return to its rightful place and role.
Have you noticed? Something must change.
Civil War - How bad could it be?
Once you kill off the mob, the socialists will capitulate.
Of course the surrendered socialists will all have to be destroyed and no one will have the courage to see that through. In a short time they will re-name themselves and be back in business.
The last such convention was supposed to simply fix some problems with the Articles of Confederation. By the time it was over we had a Republic and look what that has brought us. I’d be very wary of a Con-Con.
A Constitutional Convention is a retarded idea.
A Constiutional Amendment to ban the government from spending money it doesn’t have, transferring funds between state and federal coffers or giving money to non-government organizations would be good.
Following original intent, it isn't us to SCOTUS to make that decision.
However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.
James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions
According to the man who wrote it, anyway.
“I openly admit that I am not capable of understanding all the possibilities or consequences of such a decision.”
The last thing in the world you want right now is a Con Con. All it would take is a bunch of Commie libtard delegates getting sent from enough states and the next thing you know you would have a new Constitution and an ammended Bill of Rights minus the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 10th Ammendments. Noooo! Trust me you don’t want a Con Con right now.
The 10 Ammendment gives the states enough rights to take down and/or control the Federal govt. They just have not been exercising those rights for the past 100 years. Recently its started to change.
the federal reserve bank is not under, nor part of, the federal government
Yes it is. It was created by Act of Congress, it's board is appointed by the President with confirmation by the Senate. It is part of the US Government.
It's a "Quango" (Quasi governmental organization). It functions as a "bank" "owned" by other banks, but that is a legal fiction. It could be dissolved by Congress tomorrow and it's "owners" could not stop it.
It's part of the government.
It's just not formally part of the executive branch.
Me too.
Secession is not illegal. Where did you get that idea?
It would take about five minutes for the communists (aka, progressives, socialists, moderates, civil rights leaders, human rights leaders, feminists, racial diversity leaders, union troops, university professors, ABA, etc.) to control and dominate the constitutional convention and toss us to Stalin.
No constitutional convention. Make them obey the constitution we already have.
You are correct when you read it literally, it is not the decision of SCOTUS. Perhaps, they would read it that way or they could act as an activist court. SCOTUS has ruled enough against states already to give me confidence that they would again.
For the record, I find the 10th amendment to be one of the most important. As long as we continue to overlook it, it will be difficult if not impossible to rein in the Federal government. The shift following the Civil War was a fundamental change in our nation and the courts have played a role.
The Federal government, including the courts, is practically divorced from the founders intent and they have repeatedly demonstrated that they will run over any state no matter what it’s citizens want. There is no reason to think a radical Obama court would not play right along with the progressive agenda.... constitution be damned.
I don't! In today's climate, any attempt at a Constitutional Convention will lead to a civil war.
ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?? You could forget the Second Amendment, the 9th Amendment and the 10th Amendment, and that is just in the Bill of Rights.
The resulting constitution would more resemble Russia’s constitution rather than ours.
However, the day is coming (sooner rather than later) when the Federal Government will be unable to fulfill its obligations to the States simply because it won't be able to do any more deficit financing. The contract will be broken, not by the States, but by the Feds.
All these big spending Statists, who want to keep controlling more and more by spending more and more (think Obamacare) are making a huge mistake. Once the power of the purse is gone, the federal government will have no choice but to loosen its tight grip on the States.
The 9th and 10th are pretty much already gone. The 2nd is attacked daily.
Some sacrifices will need to be made but using trade is exactly the sort of confrontation I’m proposing in post 15.
Today we have an advantage that didn’t exist in the civil war era. We have instant communications and any federal pressure applied to the states involved in a “trade revolt” would spark immediate anger in virtually all the other states. Meanwhile the revolt states would be offering similar deals to states that wanted to join.
The states may well be the key, BUT they are firmly attached to the FedGov money spiggots.
The states may well be the key, BUT they are firmly attached to the FedGov money spiggots.
We could use a Constitutional Convention to amend article V of the Constitution.
Article V describes how the Constitution is to be amended. The following is what needs to be amended from article V.
1. require a single issue convention only
2. the congress will have no part whatsoever in any constitutional convention
3. applications for a convention should be limited to one amendment
Then it will be safe to call a constitutional convention to amend the constitution.
Please read, excellent article on how to do this:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No3_Rogersonline.pdf
I still go with session and a new Confederacy—for that you just need 11 states or so.
On second thought, eliminating direct election of Senators would be a very good thing, but first things first.
It's already there in Article Four, Section 4.
Under no circumstances would an Article V “Constitutional Convention” simply erase the existing Constitution and force something new and weird down our throats. Please folks, relax.
Article V describes how to AMEND the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution — anywhere — about dissolving the Union. Zero. Nada. And if such an assembly even TRIED to write a new Constitution (good luck with that!) then any such proposal would require the approval of 3/4ths of the state legislatures for ratification, which I simply don’t believe would ever get off the ground. We are not idiots and they are not forcing anything down our throats. Period.
The Framers originally planned for a States’ Convention as the ONLY way to offer amendments. They allowed Congress as a second means to amend the Constitution only at the last minute. (On the second to last day of the Constitutional Convention, if I’m not mistaken.)
Personally, I no longer trust any of those bums in Congress, so it SHOULD be up to the States to propose amendments. Let’s start with term limits, which Congress will NEVER approve. Or a clarification of the Commerce Clause.
I do like jdirt’s proposal to amend Article V such that a Convention may ONLY offer ONE amendment at a time. That would cool a lot of fevered brows and give the States much more confidence to propose needed amendments. But no Convention will take place until Congress calls one, at the request of 2/3rds of the States, which they have steadfastly refused to do.
I also agree with volunbeer, that even one more liberal on the Supreme Court will doom the Constitution to irrelevancy. We all agree that the feds should abide by our founding document, but how do we punish them for failing to do so? Only the States have the power to put pressure on the feds, and so far they aren’t doing much about it.
Without federal compliance to the Constitution, we have no government. Simple as that.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
SCOTUS 5-4 decision - How can this language mean something different to 4/5 SCOTUS justices?
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit
No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008 District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.
Much simpler, and safer, to simply throw all the bums out...and replace them with men and women who understand the basic obligations of their sacred oaths of office.
Much simpler, and safer, to simply throw all the bums out...and replace them with men and women who understand the basic obligations of their sacred oaths of office.
First of all, consider the following states, and the fact that the majority of the individual states in the USA are conservative:
Utah
Idaho
Wyoming
Alaska
Alabama
Arizona
Texas
Tennessee
Kentucky
Montana
North Dakota
Nebraska
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Mississippi
South Carolina
Indiana
Arkansas
Kansas
Georgia
Louisiana
North Carolina
Virginia
New Hampshire
West Virginia
That's 25 states we can usually depend on to be conservative. The next group are iffy:
Nevada
Colorado
New Mexico
Missouri
Ohio
Florida
Iowa
That's 32. We'll still need 2 more from one of these more liberal states:
Wisconsin
Pennsylvania
Michigan
Maine
Delaware
Depending on how bad things get, it might be doable.
Finally, states that would stab us in the back (in order of their conservative minority to liberal majority--in my opinion):
Minnesota
Illinois
New Jersey
Washington
Oregon
Rhode Island
Hawaii
California
New York
Vermont
Connecticut
Maryland
Massachusetts
So that would be how the Constitutional Convention would line up. Your mileage may vary!
Supposedly a majority of States have already taken action, filing a Notice with the International Court in the Hague that we are no longer members of the Corporation known as THE UNITED STATES (see The US is a corporation, not a country http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm). According to the folks @ www.freedomreigns.us, we will be going back to the original Constitution before the “Act of 1871” was forced upon us, which turned us into slaves to the corporation. If you listen to the recording done on March 28 (under Alerts tab) with David Wilcock and an “insider” named Drake, they give some specifics. Supposedly this action gives the Military the authority to follow the orders of WE THE PEOPLE. Again, according to them this plan has been in place for over 20+ years but no one was willing to do it, until now. Whether this is for real or not is anybody’s guess at this point but I’m sure we’ll soon see if it is.
Out of the frying pan, into the fire!
Say goodbye to a government which is supposed to protect God-given rights. Say hello to a godless, hedonistic, totalitarian state (pretty much what we've become), but enshrined in charter form.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.