Since Jan 9, 2016
Shame on you, Newbie, for besmirching the cyberspace occupied by the world's finest conservative forum with this dreadful assortment of lies.
Posted on 01/23/2016 2:18:33 PM PST by Alexander Reagan
The Convention of States rhetoric is overly simplistic since they know that most supporters of a constitutional convention rely on the words of admired conservative leaders topped off with little time for doing their own independent research. This is unfortunate since they are being deceived.
Here is some information to show the deception.
Like the first convention in 1787 any future convention could exceed the authority of its commission.The below information shows this occurred in 1787.
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875. Farrand's Records, Volume 3 Pages 13&14
Page 13
I. Resolution of Congress.
1787, February 21.
Whereas there is provision in the Articles of Confederation & perpetual Union for making alterations therein by the Assent of Congress of the United States and of the legislatures of the several States. [continued on next page below.] http://tinyurl.com/Sole-and-express-purpose-A
Page 14
Resolved that in the opinion of Congress it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several states be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. http://tinyurl.com/Sole-and-express-purpose
They obviously exceeded their commission since they gave us a whole new constitution.
In the Articles of Confederation Article XIII, there is no provision for item specific, or general subject matter amendments, or for delegate restrictive rules. The States, Congress or any outside influences never attempted to impose any restrictions on the convention. The same is true for Article V contrary to what some advocates for a second constitutional convention say.
The new Constitution gave us a whole different mode of ratification from,"confirmed by the legislatures of every State," to only 3/4's of the States needed to ratify any proposed convention amendments.
Articles of Confederation Article XIII ...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. http://tinyurl.com/AoC-Art-XIII
Should a second convention be convened, it could give us the proposed Constitution for the NewStates of America where the States are replaced by federal regions and through Article XI any proposed amendments come by way of a judicial council and need the approval of a dictatorial president. http://tinyurl.com/NewStates-Const
As seen below, the 1787 Convention made it own rules, and Article V by its lack of direction like the Articles of Confederation Article XIII, leaves it up to the convened convention delegates to make convention rules and not as some Article V advocates profess.
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875. Farrand's Records, Volume 1. page 14 McHenry. Philadelphia 14 May 1787. Convention. Second para.
The convention appoint a committee to prepare and report rules for conducting business which were reported, debated, and in general agreed to on the 28th. http://tinyurl.com/Convention-makes-its-rules
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875. Farrand's Records, Volume 1. page 15. Tuesday, May 29, 1787. Journal. paras. 5-9.
rules.
That no member be absent from the House so as to interrupt the representation of the State with out leave.
That Committees do not sit whilst the House shall be, or ought to be, sitting.
That no copy be taken of any entry on the journal during the sitting of the House without the leave of the House.
That members only be permitted to inspect the journal.
That nothing spoken in the House be printed, or otherwise published, or communicated without leave. http://tinyurl.com/Convention-makes-it-rules-2
Oppose all efforts for an Article V Constitutional Convention as subversive to our Freedoms.
I am pro Art V all the way.
So, are you fer it or agin it?
I can’t tell from your ramblings.
As for me, I am fer it.
To become operable, any changes made by an Article V convention to the US Constitution must:
1. two-thirds of the Convention must vote to send to the states.
2. three-quarters of the states must vote to approve.
Any amendment must pass both tests.
If a vote by three-quarters of the states is a serious threat, you are in more trouble than an article v convention.
Please re-read the article. It states that a convention could give us a different constitution with any amendments approved by a dictatorial president. It also argues that the States could do nothing about it since hey will be dissolved and replaced by 10 federal regions.
FEDERAL REGIONALISM
The Abolishment of Local Government
http://www.barefootsworld.net/regional.html
List of regions of the United States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_of_the_United_States
Map of 10 federal regions
http://www.ncmhr.org/downloads/10-FederalStandardRegions-m.jpg
God help us.
An article V convention will not have to draw up the form of government. It will be called for specific tasks, and it will have to be ratified by the states if they are successful on some of those tasks. The issue is not the Constitution, but the Judicial interpretation and extension of Federal authority over the states. We don't need to create a new Constitution, but we need to DownSize DC! Close entire Rogue/Unconstitutional Departments. It is TIME!
BS!
States must ratify any changes.
, Alexander Reagan wrote:
“...Please re-read the article. It states that a convention could give us a different constitution with any amendments approved by a dictatorial president. It also argues that the States could do nothing about it since hey will be dissolved and replaced by 10 federal regions. ...”
10 regions?
I don’t think Texans are gonna go for that!
Since Jan 9, 2016
Shame on you, Newbie, for besmirching the cyberspace occupied by the world's finest conservative forum with this dreadful assortment of lies.
OK I did some searching on the caption
“standard federal regional boundaries” in your link.
I found this, among others:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/300.105
Those areas were set up for oil spill/ chemical spill/pollutant cleanup purposes.
http://www.labtrain.noaa.gov/labwaste/section1/300-2.htm
“...Coordinate their planning, preparedness, and response activities with affected states and local governments and private entities; ...”
States are still states; they are grouped as such in that map that’s linked in your last link.
http://www.ncmhr.org/downloads/10-FederalStandardRegions-m.jpg
Those regions are nothing more than groups of —EXISTING— states.
Nice try... /s
The States or Congress do not have any constitutional authority to hold a constitutional convention to any specific tasks. All Congress can do is set the time and place.
I am not looking for a different constitution. But some people are.
Book review by Larry L. Stage
The Emerging Constitution
is an excellent book, written over
40 years ago, by former New Dealer, Professor Rexford Tugwell.
He, Professor Tugwell, favors a new U.S. Constitution—The Newstates Constitution!!
Professor Tugwell was one of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s
“brain trust” that was “created” to end the two Great Depressions—
the Hoover Depression of 1929-1932, and the equally severe ROOSEVELT
DEPRESSION of 1937-1939.
Tugwell was one who called for, in 1936, for the end of State
governments, and instead favored a UNITARY national governmental
structure, including GUN CONTROL, and a disarmed populace.
ALSO:
Tugwell favored the a “United States Police Force” to handle ALL
local crime, thus over-riding the powers of local State, County, and City police forces.
The Book Review, that I am writing about—’The Emerging Constitution’
is prophetic as we have seen the rise, under both Democratic
and Republican Presidents, of the IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY!!
Looking at Tugwell’s book— “The Emerging Constitution”:
Tugwell favor a President, popularly-elected for a 9-Year Term, AND with
no term limits.
This new “strong-man” President would appoint 75% of the U.S.
Senate for his/her 9-year term.
(Sounds like the 2008 new Constitution of Myanmar (Burma))
There would be fewer bureucracies, but there would be SIX, not just
three, BRANCHES of the Federal government.
A. The Executive Branch—’The Presidency’. In effect, a tightly-
controlling Super-President
scroll down
http://www.amazon.com/The-emerging-Constitution-Rexford-Tugwell/dp/0061282251
How much of an idiot are you, Mr. "Alexander" "Reagan"? The President has no say in any Article V convention, much less any "approval. Also, how stupid do you think we are? The relevant section of Article V states:
". . . on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States. . . "
There is no mention anywhere in that Article about approval of the President. Nor, does it state anywhere that the States will be dissolved and replaced by 10 federal districts. . . Without the approval of three-quarters of the states. I cannot picture 38 states voting to eliminate their existence, especially when the vast majority of those legislatures are Republican controlled.
Tugwell was an idiot and a traitor.
No free nation can survive a federal police force and eliminate the states.
Even after 240 years, if an attempt was made to eliminate the states 2/3 of the nation would refuse. It would be CWII plus.
Not going to happen.
And the bastards can forget taking the guns. Not going to happen.
End trans
bump
“Please re-read the article. It states that a convention could give us a different constitution with any amendments approved by a dictatorial president. It also argues that the States could do nothing about it since hey will be dissolved and replaced by 10 federal regions.”
Simply not so. The original constitution remains in effect until any new constitution is approved. The original constitution says how it must be modified and includes nothing about “dictatorial presidents”.
If you think the Article V convention could, on it’s own, without approval of the states, change the constitution, then you also have to believe that the current congress and president can unilaterally change the present constitution.
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.