Posted on 11/07/2013 3:03:07 PM PST by Jacquerie
INDIANAPOLIS - The leader of the Indiana Senate has invited lawmakers from every state to join him Dec. 7 at Mount Vernon, George Washington's Virginia home, to discuss the state-led process for crafting amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Senate President David Long, R-Fort Wayne, asks in a letter written to fellow legislative leaders that each state send a bipartisan group of three delegates to the "Mount Vernon Assembly."
He said the meeting will lay the groundwork for a Convention of the States that would, when established by Congress, propose amendments to change various provisions of the Constitution.
"The authors of the Constitution included a state-led amendment option as a check on a runaway federal government," Long said. "The dysfunction we see in Washington, D.C., provides an almost daily reminder of why this option is needed now more than ever."
The initial meeting won't actually consider potential amendment topics, Long said. Instead, it's intended to set up the rules to be followed if and when a constitutional convention is called.
There are two authorized methods for changing the nation's fundamental governing document. The only one that has been used is when two-thirds of Congress proposes an amendment and three-fourths of the states (38 states) ratify it.
However, the Constitution also permits what has come to be known as an "Article V convention," named for its placement in the fifth section of the Constitution.
Under that scenario, two-thirds of state legislatures (34 states) ask Congress to call a Convention of the States for proposing constitutional amendments. If the convention approves an amendment, it then can be ratified by three-fourths of the states and added to the Constitution without congressional approval.
Because an Article V convention has never been called, there are no clear rules on how it would begin — does every state have to pass an identical convention request? — what rules the convention would follow or whether it could be limited in scope.
The primary criticism of the convention idea is the possibility that a "runaway convention" will scrap the entire Constitution.
In fact, the current U.S. Constitution emerged from a convention called to recommend fixes to the Articles of Confederation, America's first constitution.
Long tackled the "runaway convention" issue earlier this year for Indiana by winning approval of two new laws that severely restrict the ability of a Hoosier delegate to a future Article V convention to make decisions outside the explicit instructions provided by the General Assembly.
An Indiana delegate that acts contrary to the wishes of the legislature not only is automatically replaced, but also faces up to three years in prison.
"I was proud to see Indiana lead on this issue in the most recent legislative session and I will continue to support it as a legitimate tool of the states to push back against federal overreach and restore a more proper balance of power," Long said.
He said the Mount Vernon Assembly will devise a "prudent and cautious process" other states can follow to ensure an Article V convention remains focused on specific subjects.
Long has indicated he supports a convention that would propose amendments limiting the power of Congress to impose taxes and regulate business.
Thanks. Good thread.
She won’t wield anything at a CC. One state one vote.
“I don’t believe the states would send lunatics to the CC”
Really? Your state may not but how about the states with far more population outside of fly over country.
Sorry, from my point of view folks thinking this is a good idea are sadly deluded.
If you seriously believe this, then you know that the 17th amendment undid what the Framers intended.
Can I assume that you would support an amendment that repeals the 17th amendment and restores the Framer's original intent, since you said that "we simply don’t have anyone who could possibly do better than the Founders," and so the authors of the 17th amendment did worse by your assessment?
Even an "idiot" can introduce that amendment, and it wouldn't be "improving on what we have," it would be restoring what we had.
-PJ
Get out of the talk radio echo chamber, learn to count. Your/my view is in the minority.
We are a country of idiots.
This idea enables those who want do destroy the little freedom we have easier path..
For any changes to take place the proposed amendments would then be put to a vote of the states and would require 38 states to ratify or approve to actually change the constitution. This is a very high bar indeed.
This is also the reason to not fear liberals at all in this process. The ideas of the left have ALWAYS been supported by a very small minority in this country. This is the reason the left must use the courts, lies, and utter corruption to move its agenda forward. If given a straight up vote of the people from each state the liberals would never win anything.
Repeal the 2nd amendment? you've got to be kidding. Put your thinking cap on. If the left could repeal the second amendment then they would have proposed and done just that many decades ago. It's impossible and the left knows it.
You said that the Framers couldn't be improved upon by amendments, and so I presumed that to mean that a later amendment that tried to do that (by the "idiots" of 1913) would not have your support.
If you think that the Framers can't be improved upon, then why not undue the 17th and restore the Framers' work? It's no different than the 21st that undid the 18th.
-PJ
That’s what I’m saying except I’m not even seeing the thread.
Really. And we are not deluded. We may see. I used to live in Vermont, so I understand your point. However, with one state one vote and the ratification process, I don’t believe we have anything to fear. Certainly not compared to what we have now, a completely out of control government.
It’s a pretty thin thread. Kinda microscopic actually.
Because numerous states are ‘blue’ and would love to see a ‘modern’ constitution. Stealth radicals will get into the process. The “progressives” are good at that.
For decades I have heard politicans talking about a new constitutional convention..The first thing that would change would be the bill of right and a liberal convention that no one would recognize as one of the USA. Plus it wouldn’t pass muster amongs the states.
States will send delegates with commissions, not representatives with plenary powers.
Here is Indiana’s statute:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3088806/posts
well, granny, i’ll try to give you some my reasoning as a conservative for having an article V convention under the Constitution:
first. the country is already gone and the status quo will not save it. i’ll put it this way. if you are a student of history, you’ll know who King George was. Currently, I’d be rather ruled by George III, then then our current oligarchic masters. his rule would be far more tolerable than Obama, Roberts, Reid and Boehner. That is how bad it is today. Tommorrow, it will be far worse, if nothing changes.
second. an article V convention was the founders own invention. they were and still are the wisest men ever to gather and invent a system of government.
third. any individual amendment will have to get 3/4 of the states to sign on before it passes. thus, the blue states are insulated from destroying the bill of rights. e.g., suppose they got the following somehow through the convention: resolved that we will strike the First Amendment. that will get about 10 states max out of fifty. not even close to the 38 states required. there are currently 30 or so states controlled by reps at this point. thus your worries about the convention are completely unfounded.
finally, even if they did gut the constitution, it wouldn’t matter. the constitution is already being ignored by all three federal branches of gov’t. the only branch that has really enforced the constitution in the last 100 years has been the executive, and that only under a very few presidents: Reagan, Eisenhower, Cooledge, and maybe Harding (despite his “scandals”).
In short, an article V convention is a no-brainer at this point in our history. It’s that now, or financial collapse and chaos in the near future.
ok, granny, take me on point by point and tell me where i’m wrong.
I am still not convinced that a Convention would yield anything meaningful and consider it a high risk venture.
Mostly because the communist press still has the ability to drive the low-info types.
We well know that the left has the ability to “flip” votes in the states. Several of the current amendments were ratified under “suspicious” circumstances like 16, 17 and 18.
What exactly do you propose to do that will stop the left and return us to liberty and limited government? What risk would be acceptable?
The Constitution itself tells us exactly what to do in this situation. Arguing the framers themselves didn't know what they were doing seems ultimately risky to me.
LOL your a smart cookie and I don’t want to take you on, you would squash me like a bug...:O) Amendments can be added to our constitution with having a constitutional convention...I will know duck and hide....
error, should read amendments can be added (with out) having a CC
you’re a good sport granny. no need to duck. remember i’m a conservative, not a liberal.
the point Levin and others are trying to make in order to maybe convince people with your view opposing a convention of the states, is that Washington D.C. cannot and will not solve any of the looming disasters approaching us. both parties have demonstrated the lemming like propensity to take us all over the cliff without so much as a blink.
the reps and dems don’t have the will or the capability of solving any of this. thus, we are just waiting for the crash at this point.
the only chance for us is to bypass D.C. and take it directly to the states and the soverign people.
take care and God bless, granny.
For the most part, legislators in the states are much like the various municipality and county lobby organizations. They’re in favor of more tax hikes without votes, more fees and higher fees, closer government ties with business, fewer private property rights, more police powers, fewer constitutional rights of all, more immunities for government employees, environmentalism, etc.
The real solution is stopping the trend of moral bankruptcy. Maybe the default process will facilitate that.
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.