Push for Constitutional Convention Gathers Steam

Chicago Tribune ^ | November 30, 2014 23:20 GMT | Albert R Hunt (Bloomberg)

[Up Yours Marxists]

Rising frustration with Washington and conservative electoral victories across much of the U.S. are feeding a movement in favor of something America hasn't done in 227 years: Hold a convention to rewrite the Constitution.

Although it's still not likely to be successful, the effort is more serious than before: Already, more than two dozen states have called for a convention. There are two ways to change or amend the founding document. The usual method is for an adjustment to win approval from two-thirds of the Congress and then be ratified by three-quarters of the states. There have been 27 amendments adopted this way.

The second procedure is separate from Congress. It requires two-thirds of the states, or 34, to call for a convention. The framers thought this was necessary because Congress wouldn't be likely to advance any amendments that curtailed its powers. But this recourse never has been used.

[Up Yours Marxists]

With the moonbat GOPe in control, I'm not certain this is such a wonderful idea.

[Publius]

Poorly written article.

[Publius]

This is a poorly written article full of factual inaccuracies, but considering the source, I'm not surprised.

This is the usual boilerplate I post to these threads to state the facts.

***

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 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:

• 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

[Hostage]

> “....Hold a convention to rewrite the Constitution.

It is not a rewrite of the Consitution. It is an assembly of states to PROPOSE AMENDMENTS. And it takes 3/4’s of States (38 States) to ratify any amendment. So it’s a high bar.

> “The second procedure is separate from Congress. It requires two-thirds of the states, or 34, to call for a convention. The framers thought this was necessary because Congress wouldn’t be likely to advance any amendments that curtailed its powers.

Here the writer Al Hunt got it right. And it’s exactly WHY we need the States to step in and rein in a federal government that won’t rein itself in.

[PIF]

An exceedingly bad idea.

[Up Yours Marxists]

Thank you for that wonderful insight.

I will agree the article is erroneous diatribe and typically spins the ole “fear factor”. However, the fact still remains. We have an out-of-control federal regime, and the states are sucking on the hind tit of this dragon.

States must use caution in exercising this Constitutional power until We the People are ensured liberalism won’t destroy what little protection we have left.

[Publius]

Al Hunt is a hard-core Leftist who used to appear with Mark Shields, another hard-core Leftist, on CNN’s “Inside Politics” a few decades ago. You can count on him for the textbook Leftist position on any issue.

[Hostage]

I know but at least he got the one part right, likely unintentionally, where he wrote:

“The second procedure is separate from Congress. It requires two-thirds of the states, or 34, to call for a convention. The framers thought this was necessary because Congress wouldn’t be likely to advance any amendments that curtailed its powers.”

[2111USMC]

I don’t trust any of the bastards enough to open up the potential for foul play.

The Constitution isn’t broken. We just need to get back to following it as the rule of law.

[Publius]

From the pens of idiots occasionally comes a bit of truth.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

There's a third, and much more common way to amend the Constitution (works in Canada, as well as the U.S.A.)

Nine unelected jurists don these special "Ben Franklin" glasses to read the Constitution. In so doing, they can see the words they want to see there -- unlike the great unwashed masses, who can only see the words written in black and white.

[Publius]

We are following the Constitution, but it's the Living Constitution, the Tree, as opposed to Original Intent, the Rock.

I've covered a lot of this in Federalism: Yesterday and Today.

[Hostage]

Parts of the Constitution ARE BROKEN, broken by democrat AND republican Congresses and Supreme Court decisions.

I for one, would trust my fellows in the States to get the Constitution repaired before I trusting anyone connected with the syndicate inside the Beltway including McConnell or Boehner.

I am all in for an Article V Convention. Just answer one question:

“If an Article V is so dangerous. then why haven’t Leftists organized one for themselves? What’s stopping them?”

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

We need a Federal Marriage Amendment to stop the legislating judges.

[Publius]

We need a constitutional mechanism for Congress and/or the states to overturn Supreme Court decisions.

[ThunderSleeps]

No, it is not a good idea. The vast majority of the {expletives} in DC are in no way qualified to modify the Constitution. Nor do I trust any of them, not one single one of them.

Here's a crazy idea, rather than trying to "fix" the Constitution, let's try simply constraining government to abide by it! Then maybe we'll find out it works just fine.

[Publius]

Read Post #12.

[terycarl]

with the plethora of nitwit “progressives” in power, it’s the LAST thing that we need.

[piytar]

Ditto. We could end up with an EU style “constitution.”

[Revel]

Does anyone have any idea of the disaster this would be in a day and age where the American people have become so dumbed down that they are constantly advocating the destruction of everything good and decent. The left would have a field day with this.