It is time for a Convention of the States

Absolute Rights Blog ^ | 12/17/2014 | Posted by: Jon Dougherty

[SleeperCatcher]

We have some bad news for American conservatives: The leaders of our party, the once Grand Old Party, are trying to figure out a way to win elections without us, and if or when they do, they will abandon us like yesterday’s trash.

If you have any question about this, you need not look any further than this National Journal story from yesterday, reporting that former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has “announced” on his Facebook page that he is “actively exploring” a presidential bid in 2016. Spoiler alert: Jeb Bush is not your dad’s conservative.

We’re not sure if “actively exploring” a bid is really much different than “considering a run” or “weighing his options.”

But what we are sure of is that Jeb Bush is trying to figure out a way to win the Republican presidential nomination without the conservative base. We are sure that he is the preferred candidate of the GOP establishment, and that is because he is the preferred candidate of the GOP donor class...

And, he’s another Bush.

All of these things are not supported by the Republican Party's conservative base. But that doesn't matter to the GOP leadership and the GOP donor class.

What also doesn't matter to either the Republican leadership or the donors they are beholden to is the fact that, thanks to conservatives, the Republican Party just experienced a wave election, resulting in a record number of GOP congressional lawmakers come January. state legislatures around the country, too.

So, what are conservatives to do when the leaders of their chosen party have become nearly indistinguishable from liberal Democrats? Vote? Write letters and emails? Make phone calls? Stay at home and refuse to participate? Withhold our financial support?

[teeman8r]

i am sure the supporters of the Articles of Confederaion were all in too.

[JOAT]

It's hard to imagine a worse time to tinker with the Constitution.

Given the state of the morons who walk among us and vote, we'd be opening the floodgates for irresponsible, wholesale hope and change.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” So, what are conservatives to do when the leaders of their chosen party have become nearly indistinguishable from liberal Democrats? “

We have had two of these in a row. Now we are old pros : )

[exnavy]

Article V convention.

[chris37]

Oh you mean like the wholesale hope and change that is being done to the constitution every single day right now?

Anyway, just keep voting GOP, because elections matter!

[Din Maker]

After the states propose, debate, and vote upon the proposed amendments, they will be sent to the 50 states for ratification. Three-quarters of the states must agree for any of the proposed amendments to be ratified.

How long would this process take?

[Lee'sGhost]

Not my party. The GOP left me a long time ago. I vote for some of their candidates if they are conservative enough, but I won’t belong to a party that willfully allows anti-Americans to rule our country outside the boundaries of the Constitution.

A pox on them all.

[wita]

Withhold our financial support

Most definitely.

[Lee'sGhost]

Totally wrong. It’s now or never...short of armed rebellion. Next week will be even worse than this week. And so on and so on.

There will never be a better time than now.

[Tucker39]

One question, when you talk about tinkering with the Constitution: Do we have ONE politician in the land who would be quailfied to carry one of the Founding Fathers’ jockstrap?

I have a better idea; let’s ENFORCE the Constitution we already have. If they won’t obey the original one, they’ll spit on anything else you might cobble up in an Article V Convention, too.

[Tucker39]

One question, when you talk about tinkering with the Constitution: Do we have ONE politician in the land who would be quailfied to carry one of the Founding Fathers’ jockstrap?

I have a better idea; let’s ENFORCE the Constitution we already have. If they won’t obey the original one, they’ll spit on anything else you might cobble up in an Article V Convention, too.

[nathanbedford]

There are 99 houses in 50 state legislatures. Any leftist amendment would require only 13 of these legislative bodies from 99 to defeat ratification. In other words, three quarters of the state legislatures must ratify or 38 states. If 13 legislatures fail to ratify the amendment is defeated. Since ratification by legislatures requires both houses to consent, only 13/99 are required. That is very close to 13%.

After the last election Republicans control 69 houses of the 99 state legislative houses. Republicans control 31 of the 50 state legislatures. To stop any unwise or imprudent amendment would require only 13 of these 69 Statehouse is (from different states) or about 19%, fewer than one in five.

The problem will not be to stop left-wing amendments but to pass prudent conservative amendments which restore the Constitution by invoking the Constitution.

If the Congress of the United States elects to have the ratification procedures conducted by conventions rather than legislatures, the method of selecting the delegates to those conventions would be chosen by the legislatures. If only 13 legislative bodies out of 99 object to the method chosen by the other body because it is considered to favor a leftist amendment, there is no ratification forthcoming from that state.

By either procedure the odds of a liberal amendment getting past so many conservative legislative bodies in so many states is both arithmetically and practically remote.

Finally, this is only the last line of defense, there are innumerable steps along the way which make a "runaway convention" virtually impossible and render the need for the states to fail to ratify very likely superfluous.

[nathanbedford]

So far it seems to me that opposition to Article V boils down to about four objections:

1. It won't work -so don't bother trying.

2. It won't work, even if it does work, because "they" will undo it, ignore it, or somehow overrule it, so don't bother trying.

3. It will work, but don't try it because it will work only for the other side.

4. No opinion on whether it will work or will not work, but the Constitution we have is just fine so the solution offered by the Constitution itself in Article V should be ignored in favor of redoubling our efforts and doing more of the same every election cycle because this time we will get different results.

Which category are you in?

[servantboy777]

With the corruption in both parties, I guarantee with all certainty, without a doubt in my lil ol mind, there will never be a convention of the states.

If and when it gets alarmingly close for comfort, you will see the power brokers, corporations and politicians go into full throttle evade mode to head a convention of the states off at the pass.

It ain’t ever gonna happen.

[Starstruck]

It just seems to me that anything that would come out of a Constitutional Convention would eventually be twisted away from it’s original purpose by the Judiciary, just like they have done with the original Constitution.

[The_Republic_Of_Maine]

What is wrong with our current Constitution? What would you change and why?

What I have found is that the vast majority of those wanting a con con are like obama, have never read it nor have any plans to.

[rllngrk33]

Even if we do get to a convention, what will stop the left from hijacking it and making things worse.

[TomGuy]

It's hard to imagine a worse time to tinker with the Constitution.

Given the state of the morons who walk among us and vote, we'd be opening the floodgates for irresponsible, wholesale hope and change.

I have the same apprehensions.

Lib/Leftist blue states will send Lib/Leftist reps and lawyers will be lined up to challenge every aspect of the results.

Per other threads/articles, the Convention is called to address only pre-specified amendments. Has anyone outside the clique seen any of those proposed amendments?

The Convention and the proposed amendments are approved by state legislators. Notice the absence involvement by non-legislative personnel -- i.e., citizens not in elective legislative positions.

We cannot trust the ones we elect, so why are we going to entrust them with an Article V Convention?

Where IS the list of proposed amendments they supposedly will be restricted to considering?

The few suggested amendments I have seen or heard about are too filled with lawyer legalese to be understood. They don't seem to address the basic problems.

[Jacquerie]

What do you refer to?