Posted on 04/22/2014 1:56:15 PM PDT by kingattax
Through structural amendments that cannot be ignored, beginning with repeal of the 17th Amendment.
when our founders called the constitutional convention... you do know that it was originally called to simply make small needed changes to the articles of confederation dont you?
that didn’t keep them from throwing out the articles and starting for scratch and it wont stop any future convention from doing the same.
This topic, Article V has been bouncing around FR since August 2013, the release of Levin’s book. Have you educated yourself at all on this?
Article V ping!
How so?
And it has been ignored ever since. Some court ruled cost of living adjustments weren't covered by such an amendment, and the congress simply gives themselves a cost of living adjustment every year while ignoring the law. And the Supreme court wont hear any case regarding the matter.
Laws only work if people are willing to follow them, and our current political leadership is willing to ignore ANY law that keeps it from accomplishing it's goal, and the supreme court through it's use of the “standing” doctrine, simply denies anyone the right to sue to make the government follow the law.
look under the Revision and replacement section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
and also
According to Article XIII of the Confederation, any alteration had to be approved unanimously:
[T]he Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
On the other hand, Article VII of the proposed Constitution stated that it would become effective after ratification by a mere nine states, without unanimity:
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
You see... under the previous constitution any changes had to be unanimous.. then it was changed IN THE convention to only 9 of 13 needed.
I am telling you, once they meet... they can do ANYTHING
There are about 1.1 guns or so for every American.
Not even CN politicians can find LEOs stupid enough to attempt the confiscation of weapons.
Don't worry about the Second Amendment.
As for almost all of the rest of the Bill of Rights, they are gone.
What else do you fear losing from a state Article V convention?
Yep, you are Bircher influenced. Here is the real history:
1781 & 1783. Congress asks for limited commerce and taxing powers. RI refuses. No amendments to the Articles of Confederation.
March 1785: Mount Vernon Conference. Legislators from MD and VA discuss Potomac navigation and commerce issues. Conferees suggest wider state meeting in Annapolis.
September 1786: Annapolis Convention. Few states attend. Nothing of substance, other than a call to meet in Philly in May of 1787.
February 1787: Congress calls for a convention that was going to happen anyway.
These meetings/conventions were extra-congressional.
Congress had no authority to call a convention, nor commission its members, nor define its purpose.
Congress was an impotent advisory group, which was the reason for the meetings/conventions of 1785 -1787.
A common trait among Article V opponents is to question the legitimacy of the constitution.
It is irrelevant, but why is that important to you?
So, existing amendments can be ignored. Are you OK with that? All existing amendments are to be observed. All existing articles of the Constitution are to be observed. They are not being observed. New amendmentss will be, though?
Why?
This is a lot like expecting gun control laws to be observed by gang-bangers. News Alert: They aren’t. Laws exist, and they are ignored. A constitution exists and it is ignored. 20-something Amendments exist and are ignored. Do you see a pattern here? Whatever a section V comes up with will be ignored, if it’s convenient.
I think it should be held at the Corn Palace in Mitchell, South Dakota. The delegates would board with the local farm families, get up at 4 AM to slop the cows and milk the chickens, and learn about life in flyover country.
See #28 for Levin’s structural amendments.
---
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.
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:
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:
Implicitly forbidden:
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
If that is what you believe, then no harm can result from a convention.
I saw it. “Structural Amendments” means nothing when they won’t even observe the structure. I’m not going to engage this argument with you, I’ve seen how it goes in to minutia, and I just don’t have the patience. I have my view on the Article V stuff, and that’s it. You are not moving me, so move on.
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.