Posted on 04/11/2014 1:32:11 PM PDT by JeepersFreepers
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.”
“Based on several reports and opinions, Michigan might be the 34th state to issue such a call and therefore presents the constitutionally-required number of states to begin the process of achieving a balanced budget amendment,” Hunter wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Article V ping.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, 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, also as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Nothing in Article Five permits a rewrite of the Constitution. It just allows a Convention to directly propose Amendments to the states instead of using the Congress to propose them.
Imagine the tsunami of pork (federal spending) that would flow to the states afterwards (not to mention the vacuuming of “impact fees” and property taxes from the population). Regulations would be enormously expanded. Members of Congress suck pork out to the states. State legislators hike fees and pass more regulations.
There’s no good side in contemporary politics. They’re all radical socialists. The economic collapse will proceed without a huge expansion of the manufacturing base, which won’t happen without repeals of thousands of regulations at every level of government (especially local).
You’re the fool. If the nation would ditch the constitution at a constitutional convention of all places, then the nation is lost anyway. We are not risking anything.
Er, that's precisely what they said about the meeting called to propose changes in the Articles of Confederation. I personally think the Constitution is an improvement, but once the can of worms is opened, EVERYTHING is on the block.
The bottom line is, once such a body meets, NO ONE can control it and it comes down to might makes right. And just as the Federalists controlled the propaganda organs of the 1700s, the group who controls the media will win the battle.
I think you’re wrong on both counts, but given the current state of the media, it is absolute folly to open such a can of worms. States will ratify stuff you never dreamed (see “gay rights”).
No conventions, Civil War is the best option.
Why such IGNORANT headlines at Fox ?
Who do you think will CERTIFY these conventions as legitimate? Do you really think the House will do this? It will be, ultimately, the Attorney General. Hillary's Attorney General.
Guess nobody learned anything from the convention to amend the Articles of Confederation.
There IS a time for such a convention of states, and that is when CONSERVATIVES control the presidency and 3/4 of the states. Until then, you will get Eric Holder deciding who is "legitimate."
It takes 38 states to ratify anything. Judges won’t get their say-so in it.
The article is right. Although it takes less than a minute to read Article V, the relatively few provisions in Article V are little-known -- but they shouldn't be. Every high school student should be required to know the simple options for amending the Constitution in Article V before being allowed to graduate.
In Federalist #40, James Madison states why the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was not a runaway convention.
An Amendments Convention is required by longstanding principles of contract law to stick to the purpose of its calling, which in this case is to address the issue of a balanced budget. Whatever comes out of an Amendments Convention will require the state legislatures -- or state ratifying conventions, if Congress so chooses -- of 38 states to approve.
I have some boilerplate that I post to these threads.
---
The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps: Proposal, Disposal, and Ratification.
Proposal:
There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.
Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.
Disposal:
Once Congress, or an Amendments Convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:
The State Ratifying Convention Method has only been used twice: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.
Ratification:
Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three-quarters of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.
Forbidden Subjects:
Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and one implicitly forbidden subject.
Explicitly forbidden:
Implicitly forbidden:
I have two reference works for those interested.
The first is from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative pro-business group. This document has been sent to every state legislator in the country.
Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers
The second is a 1973 report from the American Bar Association attempting to identify gray areas in the amendatory process to include an Amendments Convention. It represents the view of the ruling class of 40 years ago. While I dislike some of their conclusions, they have laid out the precedents that may justify those conclusions. What I respect is the comprehensive job they did in locating all the gray areas. They went so far as to identify a gray area that didn't pop up until the Equal Rights Amendment crashed and burned a decade later. Even if you find yourself in disagreement with their vision, it's worth reading to see the view of the ruling class toward the process.
Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee
Once you have a Convention they can pass whatever they like, regardless of what the intention of those who authorized it was. It’s a very bad idea.
There is no such regional demarcation in the US. Even the old "red/blue" doesn't work, because states such as OH and MO voted for Obama. And even in regional bulwarks against liberalism---North Carolina and Florida---you now have heavy Dem turnout.
A rebellion by TX and, say, ND would be crushed in a heartbeat.
A civil war is a pipe dream.
I'm telling you that ultimately it comes down to who votes. And when propaganda is overwhelmingly in the hands of the libs, such a convention would spin out of control so fast you'd beg for a do-over.
And by the way, I like Madison and think the Constitution was the right call. But come on: he clearly did not like the Articles and was a good propagandists and of course he would say in the Federalist it was not a "runaway convention."
If you think the USA is going to change without blood then you know nothing of history. The defenders of the status quo are worse than Democrats, worse than RINO’s. And you are one of them, I hope you like your pissant life. Cowards like you can’t even consider or stomach a Convention or a secession or a Civil War. If you are what passes for a Conservative then the game is over.
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.