Did Michigan just trigger 'constitutional convention'? Bid gains steam

FoxNews.com ^ | 4-2-2014 | Barnini Chakraborty

[servo1969]

WASHINGTON – Momentum is building behind what would be an unprecedented effort to amend the U.S. Constitution, through a little-known provision that gives states rather than Congress the power to initiate changes.

At issue is what's known as a "constitutional convention," a scenario tucked into Article V of the U.S. Constitution. At its core, Article V provides two ways for amendments to be proposed. The first – which has been used for all 27 amendment to date – requires two-thirds of both the House and Senate to approve a resolution, before sending it to the states for ratification. The Founding Fathers, though, devised an alternative way which says if two-thirds of state legislatures demand a meeting, Congress “shall call a convention for proposing amendments.”

The idea has gained popularity among constitutional scholars in recent years -- but got a big boost last week when Michigan lawmakers endorsed it.

Michigan matters, because by some counts it was the 34th state to do so. That makes two-thirds.

[Publius]

Read Post #16.

[Red Badger]

Since 99% of Federal Law hangs its hat on the Commerce Clause, what would be good wording for an amendment to it?

Congress shall make no law regarding interstate commerce.

[PapaNew]

I did look at that but it skates right over the issue simply stating that Congress must call the convention. I didn't see anything specifically addressing this issue of unreasonable Congressional delay which I hope doesn't come up, but that people should be ready for.

Maybe you can explain your solution in 25 words or less...

[Publius]

Go back to this earlier long post.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

On the fence, too.

Once you open a CC, you can be at the mercy of the commie-rationalists (”it’s for the children!”) and all of America gets “skrod”.

[C210N]

Every thread that pops up on Article-V, and there seem to be more and more, sometimes a few a day, the same or similar dialog comes up - those for it against those that oppose it. Typically, those that oppose call it by a derogatory “con-con”.

Those that oppose can be vehement on the opposition, but weak on other remedies.

As a proponent, if there is no way to get an Art-V convention because it is opposed from every angle, from the left and the right, then we might as well “pass go” and go directly to the shooting part.

However, for my sake, my kids sake, and their kids sake unborn, I’m not ready for that. Seems to me the Art-V COS must be tried. IF it fails, then the Tree of Liberty will need to be watered, but we are not there, and those that are for a COS will and are working hard to make it work, and make it work POSITIVELY for a successful and federally-limiting activity.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Well as I read Article V, Congress would be acting unconstitutionally as there are no other conditions to calling a convention after 2/3rd's of the states have applied. I hope Congress doesn't unreasonably delay. We should be patient, but we should be prepared if Congress unreasonably delays.

Two-thirds of the states have called for some sort of convention, but not on the same topic. (Michigan's resolution, which this article is about, calls only for a convention to propose a balanced-budget amendment. Most of the other states have called for conventions on other topics.) It is widely assumed that Congress has a duty to call a convention only when two-thirds of the states either all call for a convention on the same topic, or all call for a convention without limiting the topic.

[Uri’el-2012]

Did Michigan just trigger 'constitutional convention'?

I think that the term "constitutional convention"
is both misleading and incorrect.

What is being discussed is known as
a "Convention of states" under Article V.

[Publius]

Correct. It's known as the Single Subject Standard, which has a time-honored basis in contract law. Congress has never legislated it because it might give a litigant (i.e., a state) the opportunity to open up something that Congress wants to tightly control.

Likewise, there is the Contemporaneousness Standard, which Congress has also decided not to codify into law, but handle on its own arbitrary basis. That requires petitions for an Amendments Convention to be generated within a certain time frame.

[Repeal The 17th]

Seem to be lots of Article V COS items in the news of late.
Not sure yet if it is a blip or a trend.
Encouraging to me, though.
More and more people are being exposed to, and learning about the process.
When is the Indianapolis meeting, is it in June?
Maybe that will get some media coverage...

[cripplecreek]

Personally I think we could stand to fix the 17th amendment to put senators back under the control of the state legislatures.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

Agreed but, it would take a CC to accomplish that and, as I said,

when you open a CC all the bleeding heart watermelons come out to dance.

[PapaNew]

Well, the post you referenced says that Congress would be in the right. But I disagree. If Congress acts unconstitutionally, as they have for years, they are not in the right. It goes down to the basic fabric of our country - an agreement by the states for a central government that will abide by the Constitution. The central government has broken that agreement and that trust. They are not, or would not, be in the right.

Also, the post says if Congress drags their feet, go to SCOTUS. But the SCOTUS process can take a long time unless they took certiorari right away.

If not, I say proceed. What do we have to lose? When SCOTUS gets around to it, they can either ratify or order restraint on the proceedings. Either way, the states should proceed, IMO, and nullify a SCOTUS retraining order.

[Repeal The 17th]

“... On the fence ...”
-
I am all in, and ready for somebody to go ahead and deal the cards.

Please be careful reading articles when the reporters use the phrase:
“constitutional convention”.

This is NOT that!
http://conventionofstates.com

[NTHockey]

I want an amendment that allows states to impeach any elected official who does not honor the Constitution or refuses to enforce the law.

[PapaNew]

It is widely assumed that Congress has a duty to call a convention only when two-thirds of the states either all call for a convention on the same topic, or all call for a convention without limiting the topic.

Well, that's interesting. Do you have any citings to this "assumption"?

I'm only in favor of the "Convention of States" project which defines specific subjects limited basically to cutting government. I'm against an unlimited topic convention.

http://www.conventionofstates.com/learn-convention-states-0

Once the right convention is launched, I'd turn down the "balanced budget" thing for ceilings on spending. The deficit is not the problem - spending is. Our $4 trillion government needs to be slashed by at least 80% (=$800 billion). That's big enough, probably too big still, but it's a start.

[GraceG]

[ OK, now if 2/3rd’s have called a convention, what would motivate Congress to call a convention that has the stated purpose of taking away power and money from those very Congressmen? What if instead, Congress drags its heals hoping for a change in the next election of state legislatures?

Well as I read Article V, Congress would be acting unconstitutionally as there are no other conditions to calling a convention after 2/3rd’s of the states have applied. I hope Congress doesn’t unreasonably delay. We should be patient, but we should be prepared if Congress unreasonably delays.

I say after a reasonable time, after good-faith efforts to deal with Congress, if still no call from Congress, the states should go ahead with the convention. After all, what’s the next strep anyway? If the convention fails, the next step is state nullification. If Congress refuses to call the convention, this could be the first step in state nullification anyway. ]

NAILED IT!

[exnavy]

Give me liberty bump!

[Mr. K]

It does not say “ASK congress to call” it says “cangress shall call”

Not a request, but instructions to do it.

CALL BOEHNER AND INSIST THAT BOZO FINALLY DO SOMETHING

http://www.speaker.gov/contact

[Edward Teach]

Obligatory Simpsons clip:

http://vimeo.com/24701987