Posted on 10/02/2017 1:19:11 PM PDT by Jacquerie
THE I’s had been dotted; the T’s were crossed. The 55 delegates to America’s first and so-far-only constitutional convention had hammered out compromises on the separation of powers, apportionment of seats in the legislature and the future of the slave trade. But on September 15th 1787 George Mason, a plantation owner from Virginia, rose to his feet to object.
Article V of the draft text laid out two paths by which future amendments could be proposed. Congress could either propose them itself, or it could summon a convention of representatives from the states to propose them. Mason warned that if the federal government were to become oppressive, Congress would be unlikely to call a convention to correct matters. To protect the people’s freedom, he argued, convening power should instead be vested in the states. Should two-thirds of their legislatures call for a convention, Congress would have to accede to their demand: a convention they should have.
The constitution was signed two days later, with Article V changed as Mason had suggested. Since then 33 amendments have been proposed, with 27 subsequently ratified, a process which requires approval in three-quarters of the states (see chart 1). Whether the issue was great (abolishing slavery) or small (changing the date of presidential inaugurations), all 33 of the proposals came from Congress. Mason’s mechanism for change driven by state legislatures has never been used. Even politically informed Americans often have no idea it exists.
That could soon change. In recent years the Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force (BBATF)—a shoestring group that received just $43,000 in donations in 2015—has been campaigning with great success for such an “Article V” convention. There are now 27 states in which the legislatures have passed resolutions calling for a convention that would propose a balanced-budget amendment . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at economist.com ...
Wouldn’t it be closer to an Amendment Convention?
An Article Five Convention of the States is NOT a Constitutional Convention! The column is dead wrong right from the very title.
Or not. They’ve been predicting one “soon” for almost as long as viable solar.
I fully support Article V - balanced budget, repeal 17th Amendment, term limits on all federal offices including Judiciary, congressional review of all SCOTUS decisions.
Still need 38 states to ratify any changes.
Misses the mark IMO.
According to the Constitution as WRITTEN and originally UNDERSTOOD and INTENDED, 80% of the $4 trillion federal government is unconstitutional.
ENFORCE the Constitution by abolishing the unconstitutional 80% of the feds, then let’s see if we need a CoS.
Correct. Like I said, not too many errors.
A Constitutional Convention is risky, of course; but, (IMHO as just an interested bystander) better than continuing to leave it up to the nine oligarchs comprising the Supreme Court to, in effect, amend the constitution as they see fit.
You’re exactly right, Jim, but don’t hold your breath waiting for it to be corrected. As the late, great Joe Sobran liked to say, the Constitution poses no threat whatsoever to our present form of government.
I liken the denial of an Article V COS to the sovereign people as akin to clamping down the governor on a steam engine. Release pressure or the whole thing will blow up.
What are you waiting for?
A Convention of States is not a Constitutional Convention. It can’t rewrite the US Constitution. It can only propose amendments to the Constitution and repeal of existing amendments, the 17th for instance.
America has a really fine Constitution. Too bad our Government doesn’t follow it.
Step 1? Kill the Federal Reserve and restore real money. It will take money, that most basic of all commodities, out of the hands of politicians and corrupt insiders. the Fed is the foundation of the progressive-left nanny state.
Scares the crap out of me, because with our sorry current state of Constitutional education it will become a free-for-all for every activist seeking a RIGHT to medical care, college tuition, a house and a job.
DC, and most USAians, don’t even begin to follow limitations of USGovernment within our USConstitution. What makes anybody think that adding amendments would fix anything?
Return to (existing) USConstitution, or perish.
Yeah, well, the REAL question is what are WE THE PEOPLE waiting for.
The _federal_reserve_ is THE mechanism which DC used/uses to create the powers which are not given to it, lawfully. Period.
I blame 90% of our failure to follow the Constitution on the 17th Amendment. The Framers considered and rightly rejected popularly elected senators; the 17th opened the door to progressive government. All good things are impossible without repeal of the 17A.
Yes.
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.