Posted on 06/24/2015 3:15:50 PM PDT by cotton1706
Ladies and gentlemen, we are excited to announce that the state of Delaware has officially introduced SCR 31 - the Convention of States resolution!
Prime Sponsor, Senator Lawson filed the resolution, that if passed, will apply for a “Convention of the States under Article V of the United States Constitution to propose certain amendments relating to the federal government.”
Check out the full resolution here.
In the past year, hundreds of thousands of Americans have engaged with the Convention of States Project, expressing disgust with an abusive and runaway federal government.
In the 2015 legislative session, thirty-six states introduced the resolution and began discussing the merits of calling a Convention of States. So far, discussions have resulted in House victories in Arizona, Arkansas, North Dakota, New Mexico, Iowa, Louisiana, and Texas, Senate victories in Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Missouri, and final passage in Alabama.
Leadership in Delaware plans on spending the next year educating legislators and constituents about the merits of a Convention of States before the resolution is heard in committee in 2016.
(Excerpt) Read more at conventionofstates.com ...
ping
Got my popcorn!
"To provide for amendments to be ratified by three fourths of the States under two exceptions only. ''That useful alterations will be suggested by experience, could not but be foreseen. It was requisite, therefore, that a mode for introducing them should be provided. The mode preferred by the convention seems to be stamped with every mark of propriety. It guards equally against that extreme facility, which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme difficulty, which might perpetuate its discovered faults. It, moreover, equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other. The exception in favor of the equality of suffrage in the Senate, was probably meant as a palladium to the residuary sovereignty of the States, implied and secured by that principle of representation in one branch of the legislature; and was probably insisted on by the States particularly attached to that equality. The other exception must have been admitted on the same considerations which produced the privilege defended by it.
Federalist #85:
The intrinsic difficulty of governing THIRTEEN STATES at any rate, independent of calculations upon an ordinary degree of public spirit and integrity, will, in my opinion constantly impose on the national rulers the necessity of a spirit of accommodation to the reasonable expectations of their constituents. But there is yet a further consideration, which proves beyond the possibility of a doubt, that the observation is futile. It is this that the national rulers, whenever nine States concur, will have no option upon the subject. By the fifth article of the plan, the Congres will be obliged “on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States [which at present amount to nine], to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof.” The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress “shall call a convention.” Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body. And of consequence, all the declamation about the disinclination to a change vanishes in air. Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite two thirds or three fourths of the State legislatures, in amendments which may affect local interests, can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.[snip]
This is not all. Every Constitution for the United States must inevitably consist of a great variety of particulars, in which thirteen independent States are to be accommodated in their interests or opinions of interest. We may of course expect to see, in any body of men charged with its original formation, very different combinations of the parts upon different points. Many of those who form a majority on one question, may become the minority on a second, and an association dissimilar to either may constitute the majority on a third. Hence the necessity of moulding and arranging all the particulars which are to compose the whole, in such a manner as to satisfy all the parties to the compact; and hence, also, an immense multiplication of difficulties and casualties in obtaining the collective assent to a final act. The degree of that multiplication must evidently be in a ratio to the number of particulars and the number of parties.
But every amendment to the Constitution, if once established, would be a single proposition, and might be brought forward singly. There would then be no necessity for management or compromise, in relation to any other point no giving nor taking. The will of the requisite number would at once bring the matter to a decisive issue. And consequently, whenever nine, or rather ten States, were united in the desire of a particular amendment, that amendment must infallibly take place. There can, therefore, be no comparison between the facility of affecting an amendment, and that of establishing in the first instance a complete Constitution.
Alexander "thousand cent" Hamilton writes that the pre-17th amendment Senate and the Article V power to call for proposing Conventions were meant to put states on equal footing with the federal government.
Hamilton writes that the threat of states calling an Article V convention is intended as a check on a federal government that ignores their interests.
Hamilton writes that Article V gives no discretion to Congress, other than that they are obligated to call the Convention.
Hamilton recognizes that factions of states may agree on one topic and disagree on another; that these factions are fluid and malleable. Hamilton relies on the experience of the Convention delegates to sort it out.
Hamilton writes that each proposed amendment must stand on its own merits, and be ratified by 3/4ths of the states, and that a wholesale replacement of the Constitution is therefore impossible.
It is clear from the context of Federalist #43 and #85 that the convention is for the states to control the federal government, not for the federal government to coopt the convention to hurt the states.
-PJ
Almost every week we witness another outrage against popular sovereignty. The once esteemed representative body of the states, the United States Senate, voted today to once again betray the people and states to a foreign entity.
There is precious little time to peacefully correct course.
Article V while we can.
Excellent news!
Thank you for the ping, kind sir.
That's the money quote.
IOW, proposing amendments to correct defects was designed to be within relatively easy grasp, while ratification of proposed amendments required more, yet a not insurmountable level of acceptance.
While the Framers hoped history would look kindly on their product, they knew that a free republic needed peaceful means to adjust and improve, which is what the American republic did until 1913.
Oh and what better position for a politician to royally screw you/us over than one several on their last days of their term limits with nothing to lose?
Look at Obama. He's term limited out and it's scorched earth.
You numbskulls better wake up.
OH yea and if you people think the agenda is only going to be the amendments YOU favor, you are in for a rude awakening...I dare say you supporters couldn't even agree amongst yourselves what you want.
This COS BS is the new Hope and Change scam.
A balanced budget amendment will NOT have one word about spending, yet will be laden with exceptions.
How many of the states applying have balanced budgets, let alone an amendment?
SUCKERS!
Thank you for sharing your emotions.
+1
The media, a poor pitiful excuse of the Press, is complicit in the process by providing a statist sponsored soundtrack designed to keep the bidding brisk while the buyers keep bellying up to the bar. With a controlled media, dumber than rock illegal immigration slave force and statist indoctrinated ruling class, why would anything crafted in a COS be suddenly or magically observed or respected?
I mean, the patient is dying because those who have sworn an oath to protect it are carving up the heart....and you think giving them new rules will make them suddenly care?
How can they rule justly when they have no one among them with honor, courage, integrity or a conscious subject to a standard higher than their own personal understanding?
> “While the Framers hoped history would look kindly on their product, they knew that a free republic needed peaceful means to adjust and improve, which is what the American republic did until 1913.”
Spot on. 1913 led the most regrettable period of the post-civil war era. The 16th, 17th and 18th Amendments were all established then and each of those amendments are now clearly seen as deleterious to the people and the republic.
Delaware? Who has yet to discuss it... I bet Connecticut hasn’t...or Massachusetts
Regarding term limits:
1. Term limits stifle free speech, as do BS campaign contribution limits. When Dinesh D’souza’s arrest was bogus for many reasons, among those the fact that it’s his money, and he has the freedom to do as he will with it. Who do you think you are to suggest that I can’t vote for the person I believe is best? These are people in my State who represent me. If I want too keep someone in office, I should be able to vote for them, which brings me to:
2. We already have term limits. It’s called voting. Don’t like a pol? Vote them out. Work your tail off to get them out. Stand up and fight like a real patriot. Just because you don’t like the outcome doesn’t give you a right to restrict my freedom of speech.
In turn it meant that popularly derived senators, subject to shifting whims and spurious media attacks, would rarely find the backbone to stand up to celebrity presidents like FDR and Bammy.
It is how FDR got away with appointing eight radical New Deal judges to the Supreme Court. There is no way the previously state appointed senators would consent to anti-10th Amendment judges. In less than ten years they managed to fundamentally alter the constitution from a limited one that protected property rights and state sovereignty into one that knew no bounds and promoted social justice.
Too many Freepers think that words on paper alone can secure our rights. They are wrong and our history proves it.
The status quo is the way to go! Yipeee!!!
The Freepers that are against an Art 5 CoS have a bad case of “normalcy bias”.
I prefer to look at it as a burst of common sense, really. There are many, many other ways of doing this, but the fact is, Article V supporters don't feel it necessary to live up to the responsibilities we have as Americans. They would rather FedGov take the responsibility.
The best part is, I keep hearing this nonsense that somehow, we're going to get amendments passed that can't be ignored. Well, after today's obolacare ruling by SCOTUS, it's painfully clear SCOTUS will ALWAYS rule in favor of the feds, even when the law is completely clear and there is no chance of mistaking what it says, yet here we are.
Article V is certainly a tool given us by the Founders, but it opens the door to more. Be careful what you wish for, and if you think passing new amendments are going to fix anything, keep in mind the FedGov is going to do what they want, when they want, despite law, and SCOTUS WILL back them up on it.
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.