State Lawmakers Nationwide Look to Shift Power Away from D.C.

sunshine state news ^ | December 11, 2014 | KATHRYN WATSON WATCHDOG.ORG

[dontreadthis]

A movement is afoot from state lawmakers who believe the federal government has amassed far too much power, to the detriment of state authority and autonomy.

They’re embarking on a massive undertaking -- crafting a set of guidelines for considering amendments to the U.S. Constitution in order to shift more power back to the states.

Just blocks from the White House, U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., state lawmakers representing different political stripes and 28 states from Alaska to Florida this week brainstormed suggestions for going about an Article V convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Their specific causes are many, ranging from campaign finance reform after the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, to EPA regulation overreach, to the need for a balanced federal budget amendment. Those differences will need refining eventually. Still, lawmakers rallied around one thing at a gathering of the Assembly of State Legislatures in Washington, D.C. -- the need to reign in Washington.

“I want to make sure that my grandchildren have a vibrant Constitution that protects their freedom,” said Scott Lingamfelter, a Republican delegate from Virginia who is pushing a resolution for a convention in that state.

[Hostage]

Excellent! I gave up years ago trying to get through to national talk radio hosts as I never could connect no matter how hard I tried.

I hope you told her about the COS Project and the fine people associated with it.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Endless amending of the Constitution will not solve America’s problems.

Over the last 70 or so years the Federal govt has managed to seduce the states into an addiction for federal funds. That is how they keep the states in line. The Feds live in constant fear that the states will wake up and take back their sovereignty.

If the state of Texas or Georgia tells the EPA that they are not shutting down targeted power plants in their state what can the Fed really do about it? The answer is not much other than cut off federal funding. So then the state says “ fine we will just keep the gasoline, alchohol and tobacco taxes that we collect and call it even steven” If even 10-15 states did that the Federal Govt would be brought into line in about 30 days.

All this endless chatter about an Article V convention just muddies the water.

You worry too much about what the courts will or won’t do. First a Federal judge has no jurisdiction over a sovereign state so all these lefty activist rulings about state laws on immigration and voter ID etc. need to be ignored.

I predict one brave state maybe Utah will stand up first and then you will see a floodgate open and the states will start to go their own way as they should on may issues.
this will happen long before even one amendment to the Constitution gets ratified.

[Jane Long]

^5

Way to go!

[Jacquerie]

Actually, I picked up from her opening monologue and from the caller immediately before me. Both pointed out that events this past month alone prove that DC will not reform itself. I suspect because I offered a solution, she let me go on for a longer time.

Give her a shout to plug COS, 1-855-40L-AURA.

[servantboy777]

Went out to that thing called google and began a lil research in regards to Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

Sounds like a HUGE hurdle to even get a convention called and an even HUGE-r-r hurdle to get an amendment through.

As you say, 34 states have applied...so now what?

[cotton1706]

Good for you!!

[IronJack]

Good way to socialize the idea. I live in a vassal state so support is minimal but it’s growing.

[Baynative]

Good for you. It’s efforts like this that are needed to show support for our representatives willing to make the effort to stand for our republic.

[Jacquerie]

<>As you say, 34 states have applied...so now what?<>

Lean on your state rep and senator, call radio talk shows, online newspapers still print letters to the editor.

Levin got a good reception at the ALEC meeting last week, That would be a good segue when you speak with your state rep.

As long as national attention remains on politics rather than reform of our government, our slide into tyranny will continue.

[1010RD]

It’s a great idea, but first we need to make the Internet permanently tax free. If state governments get hold of it, they’ll tax it to death.

Great job. You can see the power of an idea, FRiend.

[Jacquerie]

If you support the constitution, then Article V deserves your backing, and that means congress is required to call a convention.

From the column:

Jason Holsman, a Democratic Missouri state senator and co-president of ASL, said 36 states have already made requests to Congress, more than the 34-state threshold. But Congress isn’t exactly tracking that.

“Congress isn’t doing their job of counting their calls,” Holsman told Watchdog.org.

States’ requests for an Article V convention differ, Holsman said, and Congress has every incentive not to grant those requests.

[MortMan]

Daycare? Or daycare subsidies?

Private enterprise daycare certainly doesn’t bother me.

Government daycare (including the schools these days) bugs the stuffing out of me.

[Sacajaweau]

I liked the old way. My neighbor hired me to watch her child when she was a toddler. I didn't make much money but the child spent those couple years with my toddlers, learned and played with them all day long, five days a week. It wasn't about schooling....it was about developing beyond the crib....making friends...learning to play together.

All were well adjusted....smart little kids....who all went on to college and good jobs.

Of course...here comes the government...after their tax money....turning it into an industry. It's all cr**.

[MortMan]

I consider the “old way” daycare, and private industry at its best.

The merits of home-based daycare versus institutional daycare are clearly in favor of home-based, IMO.

But government money (and interference) in home-based daycare arrangements are non-starters.

[Art in Idaho]

I just got off the phone with the Laura Ingraham show, where I made a quick case for Article V and re-federalization of Washington. She was very receptive.

Way to go Jacquerie! Maybe she can be a champion for the cause. I hope she starts talking about it. Waiting for the talkers/TV people to start mentioning it more.

[goodnesswins]

I heard your call...way to go!

[CPT Clay]

Love It!!!

[Publius]

This is the usual stuff I post to these threads. Some of your questions will be answered here.

***

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.

• The Congressional Method requires the House and Senate to pass an amendment by a two-thirds majority.
• The Amendments Convention Method requires the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to petition Congress to call a Convention for Proposing Amendments. The states may request a single-subject convention or a general convention open to all subjects. Once the two-thirds threshold is reached, Congress is required to set a time and place for the convention.

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:

• State Legislature Method, or the
• State Ratifying Convention Method.

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:

• No amendment may be added to the Constitution concerning slavery or capitation taxes until 1808. We’re past that deadline.
• No amendment may be added to the Constitution to change the principle of equal representation in the Senate unless every state deprived of that right approves. If California wants five senators, every state must have five senators. To permit violation of this principle, every state would have to ratify the amendment, not just three-fourths.

Implicitly forbidden:

• The Constitution of 1787 may not be abrogated and replaced with a new document. Article V only authorizes “a convention for proposing amendments to this Constitution”; therefore, the Constitution of 1787 is locked in place forever. Congress and an Amendments Convention have exactly the same Proposal power; therefore, neither Congress nor an Amendments Convention can start over. Both bodies can only propose amendments. To permit the drafting of a new constitution, this provision in Article V would first have to be repealed; it would be a two-step process.

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

[Nuc 1.1]

WELL DONE!!