Georgia Becomes First State in History to Pass the Convention of Sates Application

Convention of States ^ | MARCH 06, 2014 | Mark Meckler

[Da Bilge Troll]

WOOHOO!!!

[Repeal The 17th]

Georgia Senate Resolution 736
By: Senators Staton of the 18th, Shafer of the 48th, Chance of the 16th,
Miller of the 49th, Hill of the 32nd and others

A RESOLUTION
Applying for a convention of the states under Article V of the United States Constitution;
and for other purposes.

WHEREAS, the founders of the Constitution of the United States empowered state legislators
to be guardians of liberty against future abuses of power by the federal government; and

WHEREAS, the federal government has created a crushing national debt
through improper and imprudent spending; and

WHEREAS, the federal government has invaded the legitimate roles of the states
through the manipulative process of federal mandates, most of which are unfunded to a great extent; and

WHEREAS, the federal government has ceased to live under a proper interpretation of the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, it is the solemn duty of the states to protect the liberty of our people,
particularly for the generations to come, by proposing amendments to the
Constitution of the United States through a convention of the states
under Article V of the United States Constitution to place clear restraints on these and related abuses of power.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA
that the General Assembly of the State of Georgia hereby applies to Congress,
under the provisions of Article V of the Constitution of the United States,
for the calling of a convention of the states limited to proposing amendments
to the United States Constitution that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government,
limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government,
and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.

[Repeal The 17th]

ping to 22

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

This will only make a splash if several other legislatures do the same thing within the month.

[Da Bilge Troll]

Constitutional convention at this point is a HUGE, HUGE mistake

It would be if this was a Constitutional Convention. This is not. This is an Article V Convention of States to Propose Amendments.

The Constitutional Convention that you fear is already in progress - every day.

[DoughtyOne]

C210N to DoughtyOne

Constitutional Conventions

Here we go again, every time a COS thread comes up, debunking the common myths.

Okay good.

The ONLY Constitutional Convention the US EVER had was in 1789. The ONLY Constitutional Convention the US EVER WILL HAVE under THIS Constitution was THAT ONE, 200+ plus years ago.

I dont' claim to be a Constitutional scholar, but I do have serious concerns when it comes to making changes to our Constitution.  If it can be controlled as tightly as you suggest, then my concerns are nearly addressed.  I don't trust the Leftists in this country any farther than I can toss them.  Right now the Republicans control 27 state Legislatures.  That should dampen further the ability of the left to get anything meaningful ratified.    

What is being proposed is NOT a Constitutional Convention.

Okay.  I'm glad to hear that..

It is a Constitutional means to propose (not RATIFY) amendments called a Convention of States, or Amendments Convention.

Okay, I understand the need to have the states ratify any proposed amendments.


The ratification of ANY amendments to come out of a "COS" is the normal regular process that has already occurred 27 times (at least to completion of an actual amendment).

Thank you.

And furthermore, any amendments MUST conform to the title of the COS "call". In the case of THIS COS, it is to "reign in the power of the federal govt".

Look, you can reason all you like, with so many Republicans backing the Left's plays these days, I'm not going to heave that big sigh of relief until after the COS is a done deal, and nothing Leftist advances.

Lastly, if some leftists happen to get into the COS as Commissioners (ie, delegates), my sincere wishes of best of luck to them getting their "Repeal the 2A" type amendments to conform to "reigning in the feral govt", and getting it passed 38 states during ratification.

Well, that should be impossible, I'll grant you.  It would be hard to imagine Leftist amendments passing let alone get ratified by the states.

I apprecite the response.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the clarification.

[DoughtyOne]

Evidently this is a Convention of the States. Didn’t understand the process myself.

The ratification remains as you stated though, and I would have to agree.

Short of open treachery, it would seem this would be safe.

[Da Bilge Troll]

What it did, it did in secret and without authorization.

Not true. The commissioners were, in fact, authorized.

What the next one does will be up to it. It can do as it pleases.

Again, not true. The commissioners answer to the state legislatures.

[Georgia Girl 2]

“What happens when we get a Constitutional Convention, and the Left decides to address their concerns too?”

Yeh I can hardly contain my joy. This is a terrible idea.

[Ancesthntr]

Good luck with this folks. Don’t be surprised if you wind up with some of your rights seriously curtailed.

I used to share your view. However, I've changed my mind - we are ALREADY losing our rights. Sometimes it is fast, sometimes it is slow - but the direction is always the same, as is the end game. Better to try to rein in the fed.gov now, rather than later when anyone trying to organize or advocate for a COS is deemed to be a terrorist and burned in their home or dragged off to Gitmo, never to be heard from again. Do it NOW, when enough people are alive and sufficiently vigorous to remember the way things used to be (and are supposed to be), and can do something about it if there's an attempt to impose a full-on tyranny.

[DoughtyOne]

I believe that C210N made some comments that you should read.

If his take on this is correct, our concerns may be alleviated.

I responded to him, and am linking you to that response. His comments appear in gray.

LINK

[DoughtyOne]

I believe C210N gave a decent enough answer to alleviate the most of my fears.

We'll see.

Here's a response I made to him. His comments in gray.

Thanks for you response.

LINK

[Publius]

Here's my usual boilerplate that I post to these threads.

The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps: Proposal, Disposal, and 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.
• The Amendments Convention Method requires the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to petition Congress to call a Convention for Proposing Amendments. The states may request a single-subject convention or a general convention open to all subjects. 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, no more and no less.

Disposal:

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 twice: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.

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-quarters of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.

Forbidden Subjects:

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

Explicitly forbidden:

• No amendment may be added to the Constitution concerning slavery or capitation taxes until 1808. We’re past that deadline.
• No amendment may be added to the Constitution to change the principle of equal representation in the Senate. So if California wants five senators, every state must have five senators. To permit this principle to be violated, this provision in Article V would first have to be amended; it would be a two-step process.

Implicitly forbidden:

• 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”; therefore, the Constitution of 1787 is locked in place forever. Congress and an Amendments Convention have exactly the same Proposal power; therefore, neither Congress nor an Amendments Convention can start over. Both bodies can only propose amendments. To permit the drafting of a new constitution, this provision in Article V would first have to be repealed; it would be a two-step process.

I have two reference works for those interested.

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 dislike 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 the view of the ruling class toward the process.

Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee

[C210N]

I welcome leftists joining in on THIS Convention of States. It is a win-win for conservatives.

34 states are required to “call” the COS. Doesn’t matter if a state is for reigning in the feral govt, or if the state is for repealing the 1st/2nd Amendments. As long as they join the “call” with the right phraseology, to-wit “Reign In the Federal Govt”, they get counted in the 2/3 required to start the process. In THIS republic, any COS will have to allow some ‘Rats into the process.

(*-Thank you very much for your help CA/NY/MA/etc. For your participation, here is a piece of cheese.)

The COS meets, and half those in attendance, counted by STATES (VERY important) vote on proposing amendments.

At some level, we have to trust that the bulk of STATES are sincere about limiting the scope of the feral govt, and restoring the republic.*

So, at this point, the lib states are only helping the conservative states by getting the COS started. The conservative states can together get the proper govt-limiting amendments thru the process. The libs are out of luck, having previously built up all their power in just a few states.

Then it goes to states for ratification. Here, the conservative states will get the GOOD amendments quickly up into the 20’s and lower 30’s. $x!% amendments drop by the wayside.

The tricky part is getting purple states to complete the ratification to the magic 38 number.

[Jacquerie]

The Bill of Rights has been eviscerated.

Obama is the law.

The Left regards Freepers not as opponents, but as enemies.

IRS and FBI abuse of conservatives is only the start.

A state amendment convention cannot be a mistake. It just might be our freedom's salvation.

[nitzy]

I for one can't wait until my state's political leaders send moral visionaries like Speaker Boehner, Rep. Tiberi, Gov. Kasich or Senator Portman to the convention to stand up for true conservative Ohio values and reshape the future of the republic.

/DRIPPING SARCASM

[Jacquerie]

Why did the states of the confederation need authorization to assemble? Answer: They didn’t.

I’ve notice a fairly common trait among Article V opponents. They directly, or by implication, call into question the legitimacy of our constitution.

[DoughtyOne]

I hear ya. I do have to LINK you to where I responded to C210N though. I thought he did a good job of attempting to lay my fears to rest.

[DoughtyOne]

Good response. Thank you.

I’ll have to look at it some more obviously, but it looks like a good reasource.