State Legislators Article V Caucus

Article V Caucus ^ | December 2013 | Website

[Baynative]

As State Legislators, we have a solemn obligation to defend the rights of the people and protect the sovereign authority of our states, but the powers in Washington D.C. have made that almost impossible. Decades of out of control spending and a slow erosion of the balance of power between the states and the Federal government have all but destroyed the constitutional federalism that our founding fathers established.

The drafters of our Constitution knew this could happen and so they gave us the tools to keep the genius of Federalism functioning, but we have to use those tools.

The stronger we are, the sooner we can take the credit cards away from Washington and put our nation back on track.

Join the caucus today!

[Baynative]

We just got underway, and we already have 72 members from 29 states. Every new member makes all of us stronger. We hope to have many more legislators signed up soon. Please invite your fellow legislators to join the Caucus. A great deal of momentum surrounds the Article V movement. Now is the time to recruit members to the Article V Caucus.

[Baynative]

Take a look at what is happening with the Caucus - there is a list of participating elected members. Maybe you know one and will thank them for their courage.

This is my first attempt to assemble a ping list. If you want to do something for our country and the conservative cause other than forward birth certificate emails to facebook friends - here's a chance.

If you want on or off this ping list, let me know.

[Publius]

Ping. It has begun.

[Baynative]

Rep. Tammie Wilson Alaska
Rep. Wes Keller Alaska
Sen. Jason Rapert Arkansas
Rep. Justin Harris Arkansas
Rep. Randy Alexander Arkansas
Rep. Brenda Barton Arizona
Rep. Robert Thorpe Arizona
Rep. David Gowan Arizona
Rep. Lois Landgraf Colorado
Sen. Mark Scheffel Colorado
Sen. Scott Renfroe Colorado
Rep. Libby Szabo Colorado
Rep. Janak Joshi Colorado
Sen. Kent Lambert Colorado
Rep. Dan Nordberg Colorado
Sen. Vicki Marble Colorado
Rep. Chris Holbert Colorado
Sen. Larry Crowder Colorado
Sen. Kevin Grantham Colorado
Rep. Jim Wilson Colorado
Sen. Kevin Lundberg Colorado
Sen. David Balmer Colorado
Rep. Lori Saine Colorado
Rep. Stephen Humphrey Colorado
Rep. John Wood Florida
Rep. Terry Rogers Georgia
Sen. Bill Cowsert Georgia
Rep. Josh Clark Georgia
Rep. Lynn Riley Georgia
Rep. Andrew Welch Georgia
Sen. Sam Slom Hawaii
Rep. Dawn Pettengill Iowa
Sen. Marv Hagedorn Idaho
Rep. Vito Barbieri Idaho
Sen. Sheryl Nuxoll Idaho
Sen. Jim Smith Indiana
Sen. Brandt Hershman Indiana
Sen. Jim Buck Indiana
Sen. Tom Arpke Kansas
Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook Kansas
Rep. Randy Garber Kansas
Rep. Kirk Talbot Louisiana
Rep. Roger A Jackson Maine
Sen. Mike Green Michigan
Rep. Tom McMillin Michigan
Rep. Jeff Messenger Missouri
Rep. Warren Love Missouri
Sen. Melanie Sojourner Mississippi
Rep. Jim Kasper North Dakota
Rep. Roscoe Streyle North Dakota
Rep. Laurence M. Rappaport New Hampshire
Rep. Jorden Ulery New Hampshire
Rep. Nora Espinoza New Mexico
Rep. Paul C. Bandy New Mexico
Rep. Yvette Herrell New Mexico
Rep. Dianne Miller Hamilton New Mexico
Rep. James P White New Mexico
Rep. Matt Lynch Ohio
Rep. Matt Huffman Ohio
Sen. Bill Coley Ohio
Sen. Gary Banz Oklahoma
Sen. Larry Grooms South Carolina
Rep. Anne Thayer South Carolina
Rep. Pete DeGraaf South Carolina
Rep. Hal Wick South Dakota
Rep. Manny Steele South Dakota
Rep. Jim Stalzer South Dakota
Rep. Scott W. Craig South Dakota
Rep. Dennis Powers Tennessee
Rep. James White Texas
Rep. Kraig Powell Utah
Rep. David Lifferth Utah
Rep. Ken Ivory Utah
Del. Jim LeMunyon Virginia
Del. Frank Ruff Virginia
Rep. Chris Kapenga Wisconsin
Del. Larry D. Kump West Virginia

[Publius]

You and Jacquerie need to combine your ping lists. This has been going on here at FR for some time.

[Publius]

My standard contribution to these threads:

I have two reference works.

The first is from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative pro-business group. This document has been sent to every state legislator in the country.

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

The second is a 1973 report from the American Bar Association attempting to identify gray areas in the amendatory process to include an Amendments Convention. It represents the view of the ruling class of 40 years ago. While I don't like some of their conclusions, they have laid out the precedents that may justify those conclusions. What I respect is the comprehensive job they did in locating all the gray areas. They went so far as to identify a gray area that didn't pop up until the Equal Rights Amendment crashed and burned a decade later. Even if you find yourself in disagreement with their vision, it's worth reading to see how the ruling class will try to dominate an Amendments Convention.

Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee

[Irenic]

Yes!

[TEXOKIE]

Thanks for the list and the ping!

[goodnesswins]

Please put me on ping list

[Irenic]

how the ruling class will try to dominate an Amendments Convention

If I understand correctly they met Sat to talk about how states can frame their rules or whatever in order to put constraints on the representatives, to ensure it won't become a runaway chaotic mess when they have decided to try the convention route. I expect Levin will have news for us on Tuesday, I am hoping anyhow.

[Irenic]

Also...I don’t think the amendment convention is the same as a concon.

“What Levin also said was that the States could also propose a convention to add a specific amendment or reject a current amendment by calling an Amendment Convention. This convention would have no bearing on the existing framework of the Constitution, but would only affect the addition or subtraction of an amendment at hand.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/07/radio_host_mark_levin_suggests_the_states_call_an_article_five_amendment_convention.html

[JDoutrider]

Please add me to the ping thing...

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

It is also important to keep in mind that the constitution is a framework for the law, that it is not, with some exceptions, the law itself. For this reason, most every element of the constitution must have “enabling acts”.

I mention this because the flip side of an Article V caucus or convention should be the enabling acts created for it by congress before it happens. Right now there is a vacuum of such enabling acts.

In practice, they could be enacted subtly, by a conservative congress and president. Likely the legislation would be shepherded through congress in the first 100 days of this new administration, with little hue or cry, just so there would be something on the books, *in case* of an Article V caucus or convention.

It is mostly administrative, but it is important to have, as it lays the groundwork for the states to act if they choose to do so.

[RIghtwardHo]

An Article V Convention DESTROYS the Constitution. Why do people think we are in the majority?

[Jane Long]

Thanks for the ping. Sad to see only ONE Rep from Texas is on this list.

[Repeal The 17th]

“...An Article V Convention DESTROYS the Constitution...
-
How so?
Or are you just hyperventilating?

[Nuc 1.1]

It seems to me from reading the ABA report that it’s intent is to gut Article 5 by injecting congressional and judicial controls into the process. Article V allows the states to protect themselves from tyranny and injecting the minions of the tyrants into the process is exactly what Article V is intended to prevent. Therefore, I would resist any attempt by the feral government to insert itself into and impose its will upon the COS.

[infool7]

Things like this map: http://cdn.theatlanticcities.com/img/upload/2012/11/07/TimesCountyMap.main.jpg
and this was against the arch conservative Romney /sarc

[infool7]

Yes, please put me on your ping list.

[Publius]

Correct. The intent of the meeting was twofold:

1. Agree on the wording of the petitions from the states to prevent Congress from tabulating petitions with one set of wording in one column and those of different wordings in different columns. This is to prevent Congress from finding a way to weasel out of calling a convention the way it did in 1913.
2. Set up rules of conduct for the convention. This is to prevent Congress from invoking the ABA Report and setting up its own rules to blunt the impact of the convention.