Posted on 02/15/2019 7:09:29 PM PST by Nateman
Little Rock, AR, February 14, 2019 – Convention of States Action, the largest Article V grassroots organization in the country, is pleased to announce that today Arkansas became the 13th state to call for an Article V convention to propose constitutional amendments that impose fiscal restraints on Washington, limit its power and jurisdiction, and set term limits for federal officials.
“We are very excited that Arkansas has become the 13th state to pass the Convention of States resolution,” said Mark Meckler, President of Convention of States Action. “This success is the result of incredible grassroots effort in conjunction with great legislative champions. It’s a great way to start the year!”
“Almost seventy percent of the people of Arkansas favor this Article V convention,” said Sen. Gary Stubblefield, referring to a study conducted by the Trafalgar Group. “This isn’t a Democrat issue or a Republican issue. It’s an American issue.”
“We are fortunate to vote for a resolution that provides a solution as big as the problem,” said Rep. Austin McCollum, a primary sponsor along with Sen. Stubblefield. In addition, the efforts of House Majority Leader Rep. Marcus Richmond were invaluable to final passage.
“The wonderful people of Arkansas recognize the need to correct the direction in Washington, and their legislators have responded,” said former U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, a COSA Senior Advisor.
Convention of States Arkansas volunteers called, emailed, visited, and sent hundreds of handwritten letters to legislators urging them to pass the resolution.
“The liberty bell rings loud in Arkansas,” said Bud Cornwell, State Director for Convention of States Arkansas. “The passion in Arkansas exceeded any partisan divide. The oath I took as a Marine to protect and defend the Constitution 20 years ago came true today passing the Convention of States legislation.”
“Convention of States volunteers and Arkansas legislators stood their ground today to show we are the ones who decide,” said Randy Alexander, Legislative Liaison for Convention of States Arkansas.
“Arkansas exemplifies self governance," said Brandon Benson, Regional Director for COSA. "They took charge of this process in getting SJR3 passed from step one clear to completion. While the vote on Convention of States is complete, the Arkansas team understands the work is just getting started.
"Now they will continue the mission of fighting for limited government. I was amazed after the vote at the number of supporters who were asking what more they could do! That’s the spirit of this movement in action. We don’t stop.”
About Convention of States Action Convention of States Action is currently organized in all 50 states, including over three million volunteers, supporters and advocates committed to stopping the federal government’s abuse of power. Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Indiana, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Arizona, Missouri, Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana have passed our Article V resolution since the project’s founding in 2013. For more information visit www.ConventionofStates.com.
If it succeeds, the left will hijack it, with the complicity of the federal courts.
Very dangerous stuff to trust modern bureaucrats with our Constitution. Who’s to say who would be delegates to this convention and why would they be any different from the “conservatives” we have in DC? We take a very grave risk if we set up a convention that is tasked with changing the Constitution.
Agree, this is very risky business, regardless of the current ground rules. Rules change and these would too.
We do it every two years when we elect a new Congress. An Article V Convention would have the same power Congress has to propose amendments and, just like with amendments proposed by Congress, three-fourths of the States would have to ratify a Convention-proposed amendment for it to become part of the Constitution.
The Court of Supreme Whim seized this power for itself. It was actually discussed in the original Convention and rejected! Thomas Jefferson was not happy about this power grab:
"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303
This power grab could be ENDED with a Convention of States. As Jefferson said:
"But, you may ask, if the two departments [i.e., federal and state] should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide ultimately between them? In cases of little importance or urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground; but if it can neither be avoided nor compromised, a convention of the States must be called to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may think best." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:47
Similar feelings were around at the time of Lincoln and his predecessor Buchanan . Instead of the sound Constitutional method of resolving the crisis though Article V , fear and uncertainty won the day and America went to war against itself and many Americans died needlessly. It’s beginning to happen all over again. The call to Civil War is now a popular theme here on Free Republic, and as much as I’d like to see leftists tossed out of helicopters into the ocean, they would respond in equal measure.
Thank you Publius for the explanation.
But I will never understand why anyone believes the congress,
courts, or dog catchers would be restrained by new amendments
given their disregard of the existing ones and contempt of the citizens.
Why would they suddenly care what the law says?
sorry meant contempt for the citizens.
States will not send representatives. They will send delegates with commissions that detail their authority and provide felony punishment for violations.
It is difficult to avoid, but its important to remove oneself from the two-party mindset. A convention is not congress. It has more in common with the Electoral College, which along with a COS are the remaining two federal institutions. Members of the Electoral College are also subject to state laws and very few have ever "runaway" and voted against their commissions.
In the big picture, there is no need to worry. The states have made hundreds of applications without Congress calling for a convention. IMO, Congress will never call a convention.
Consider our unlimited Scotus. It is a tyrannical institution within a supposedly republican government. What is your solution to curb these nine lawyers who recognize no outside checks on their power?
Some clauses of the Constitution are observed, while most are not. Those in force are those that established the three branches, elections, Washington DC as the seat of government, presidential vetoes, etc. I regard these as ‘hard’ clauses, those that are observed and unabused.
On the other hand, most clauses in our Constitution are ‘soft’ in nature, and comprise what James Madison referred to as mere parchment barriers. For instance, soft clauses are among the myriad that deal with regulation of commerce, taxation, free speech rights and the placement of all legislative powers in congress. These, the soft clauses, are disregarded, if not inverted, to serve purposes opposite of their clear intent.
On closer inspection, we’ll find that hard Constitutional clauses have an institution or an interest group to defend them. Otherwise, and without defense, they are sure to fall into the soft category and be soon disregarded.
To keep the entirety of our Constitution in force requires institutions designed for the continued defense of hard clauses and renewed defense of soft clauses. For instance, the scotus’ infamous 1942 Wickard v. Filburn opinion regarding interstate commerce did enormous and continuing damage to state sovereignty. Despite the clear wording of the commerce clause and the Tenth Amendment, Wickard or a similar ruling was an eventual certainty since the states had not been in the senate to defend their interests since 1913.
A senate of the states had previously ensured the commerce clause remained in the hard clause category. The 17th Amendment doomed many previously hard clauses into soft clause irrelevance. There are other examples. To the extent that the Second Amendment is intact is not due to its enumeration in the Bill of Rights. The 2A remains in force due to attentive citizen groups who stand ready to render electoral hell on politicians who waver on this fundamental right.
It is only by making power a check on power that liberty may be protected from the ravages of time. The Framers’ divided power design of 1787, and most notably, a senate appointed by state legislatures provided a structure of government in which the natural interests of each institution, taken in their entirety, tended toward enforcement of the Constitution.
I agree the SCOTUS is far too powerful but all it would take is a strong President telling them that they are one of three coequal branches of government that cannot tell the other two what to do beyond what is explicitly written in the Constitution.
What, for instance, does the President have to do with the 1950s ban on Christianity in public schools?
What about Wickard v. Filburn and the commerce clause?
“The federal government is in desperate need of reform. The only peaceful and realistic way of achieving reform is via an Article V Convention.”
I see things very differently, the mess we have now which our president is trying to rectify has been caused not by the constitution as written nearly so much as by the refusal of congress, the courts and certain presidents to even attempt to abide by the constitution. Changing the constitution under existing circumstances is much like having a physician write you a new prescription for a different medication for diabetes while claiming that the medicine he last prescribed does not help you and all the while overlooking the fact that you have not taken your prescribed medicine but have been eating cake and ice cream instead.
How do you propose to get a government which would not follow the current constitution to follow the new one? I might agree with your idea if it could be limited to repeal of existing amendments, excluding the bill of rights of course, but that cannot be done.
BTTT
Thanks, I found it interesting that no one has responded in opposition to what I wrote. In the past when I have posted similar messages I got a lot of replies telling me why they thought I was wrong.
I just cannot imagine why anyone would think that we need to reform a constitution which both major parties refuse to follow and one party even has members who openly hold the constitution in contempt.
This will be the coastal city states against the interior states in the end.
You are right on target, and also have pointed out the fly in the ointment. How do we correct John Marshall’s usurpation of constitutional interpretation? I haven’t a clue. Anything I can think of would probably be even worse than what we have now.
I don’t regard judicial review as a usurpation. The judicial power is a check on the other two branches. What doesn’t work for me is a Congress that long ago forgot its Article III powers to check federal courts.
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.