Posted on 02/14/2015 11:21:12 AM PST by Publius
Despotism, cronyism and avarice will pay no attention to all the logic one can bring to bear on the subject ... as we can already see in action by our present assembly of politicians and much of the voting public.
The kind of honor and reason and respectability that existed at the formation of this country does not exist today in the public or with our legislators.
And ... THAT ... is all I need to know about any such thing being suggested here ... :-) ...
But by using the term "only after" he suggests that revolution is required for fundamental change of government. My point is that our government was fundamentally changed without one in 1913 when the machinery of government was changed by expanding the federal powers at the expense of state powers.
the 16th and 17th amendments essentially nullified states rights and the proposed convention of the states is intended to undo that
Still a longshot, but heading in the right direction. Thank you Mark Levin.
“Those who oppose a con con be cause they think the liberals will hijack it are wrong.”
Those who think it would be a con con are wrong. The Article 5 convention is not a Constitutional Convention. The Constitution cannot be rewritten. It can only be amended. The only way a new Constitution would come about would be after tossing the entire government and starting over from scratch. That would have to be done by force.
In reality, if history and the current polarized political landscape is a guide, it would be hard to get anything done in an Article 5 convention because of gridlock between the sides.
And, once an amendment is proposed, it can be a good one or a very bad one. Who knows what party will control enough state legislatures by the time a good one or bad one comes before it for consideration? You might get a change you really don’t want.
i
Well spoken, I concur.
Solution #1: A King and a Theocracy
Who would be our royal family? Bush? Clinton? Rockefeller? Kennedy?
What would be our state religion? Catholicism? Mormonism? Some branch of the Lutheran or Southern Baptist faiths? Should we allow religious toleration, or should everyone be forced to convert?
Solution #2: A Military Dictatorship
That's the Roman solution. How would we determine the succession when our emperor dies or is overthrown? That was the biggest problem with the Roman Empire. What rights will we still allow the people to possess?
Solution #3: The Dissolution of the Union
As Lincoln pointed out in his first inaugural address, the proper method would be to amend the Constitution to allow it. Any other method would be an insurrection, and we learned during the Civil War just how far the federal entity would go to preserve the Union, even against the wishes of its people.
If we are no longer capable of self-government, what choices do you see?
I think our present U.S. Constitution is just fine, actually.
In looking at the last few amendments, going back to the middle of the last century, I can’t see anything real fundamental that has changed with the U.S. Constitution. If the Constitution hasn’t gone through any radical changes in the last 65 years or so, then where are these problems we’re having right now coming from?
Basically, if it’s not the Constitution (and like I said, nothing major has changed with it in that time period) ... Then it’s coming from “the people” themselves. “The people” are the real problem, and no Constitution can cure them. The people have to cure themselves ... and that will take some time and effort.
SO ... do we go with #1, 2, or 3 ... nope. We go with the same US Constitution which hasn’t fundamentally changed, and we work on changing “the people”.
The problem is with the people.
It or we are already doomed. In a convention of states, the actual new amendment Is what they’re supposed to be voting on. The way it’s sounding now is they are going to make this a constitutional convention.
In case you haven't noticed we're living in what Levin calls a post-Constitutional period....or a living hell.
Only neo jerk obamabots like yourself can't see that.
We're down to two choices that could stem the forces of all out tyranny.
1) Convention of the states or
2) Gun-play, guillotines, and lampposts.
The latter being the most likely outcome.
The Associated Press drone who wrote this article didn’t understand the correct term of reference. As a result, a lot of people are being scared.
If “the people” aren’t different ... old Constitution or new Constitution ... it won’t make any difference.
This isn't surprising because federalism was discredited by the Civil War. By the end of the war, there were Radical Republicans in Congress who believed that the states should be abolished and the nation consolidated into military districts. Fortunately, those men didn't have major input into the 14th Amendment, which started much of this mischief.
TR believed that the Constitution permitted the federal government to do anything not explicitly forbidden. This was carried forward by Wilson, FDR and those who followed.
"Curing" the people will take generation, and you don't have generations. You don't even have two more years. Thanks to federal overreach, the states are angry, have turned conservative, and are itching for a chance to put the federal leviathan back in the prison Madison designed for it. An Amendments Convention will be our last chance.
Will the Left be present at a convention? Yes. An Amendments Convention will be a snapshot of America at that time and place. Will the Left be strong enough to call the shots? No. I could even see an Amendments Convention failing to report out a single amendment proposal. But that's not important. Once Congress and the political parties see that the states and the people have found a way around them using something the Framers left in the Constitution, they will be on notice that there is only so far they can go before the states rein them in. That would be a salutary development.
Consider:
In November of 1788 the Articles of Confederation, such as they were, were still in force.
Two states, NC and RI, had rejected the constitution.
Nearly half the population of most states had disapproved of the constitution. Ratification had been a close run thing.
More than a few Anti-Federals sought to murder the newborn constitution. Count Patrick Henry and George Mason among them.
New York sent a circular letter to the other states, which demanded a second general convention.
The triumph of the constitution was conditional, for the new government wouldn't meet until March of 1789. Even then, it was a government on paper and would require years to set up and get the various departments going.
What Madison referred to were determined efforts by known enemies of the union. They called for another general, not Article V convention with destruction as their goal.
“Once they open to a constitutional convention, they can change anything in the Constitution they want.”
ding ding ding winner!
Post #33, please. You’re wrong.
I have heard, somewhat off the cuff, that 41 states have passed a resolution.
That’s way more than needed.
Yes, repeal the 16th and 17th and then limit the House authority to raising taxes via represenative apportionment. In other words, each Senator and each Representative has an assigned “tax cost”. That cost is then passed on to each state. States with more representatives will have higher bills. The states can then figure out how to raise the taxes to pay for their portions.
The states apply for a convention. They do not petition.
The fact that congress has not called a convention to propose amendments reflects the general decay of Washington to do its duty. It is not a reflection on the US Constitution or the states. Alexander Hamilton, not known for tight interpretation, wrote in Federalist 85 that congress has no discretion in the matter once 2/3 apply.
“The Call” is not a governing document. That is a Schlafly assertion and nothing else.
See Federalist 43, regarding the designed relative ease of convening the states (2/3) as opposed to actually ratifying proposed amendments (3/4).
The bottom line is that the constitution belongs to the sovereign people. It is their right to convene federally. Fears of wild meetings, of fanatics like Sharpton are designed to shut down proceedings before they occur. They presuppose the states, some with governments that go back almost 400 years, are incapable of doing their duty. Such accusations are silly.
Nothing could be further from the truth. What became Article V underwent extensive revision.
Article V recognize a basic right of the people, which was denied to American colonists under the Brit constitution. Still, the idea of an amending process in constitutions was peculiar to America. Several state constitutions and the Articles of Confederation contained them.
The meat of the following is taken from James Madison notes at the federal convention.
Article XIII of the Confederation: “Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.” It was this unanimous consent requirement that was largely to blame for rendering the Article unamendable, which in turn lead to the federal convention.
Realism and experience substituted for idealism at the convention, to wit:
May 29th 1787. Resolution 13 of the Virginia Plan reflected this realism: “Resolved that provision ought to be made for the amendment of the Articles of Union whensoever it shall seem necessary, and that the assent of the National Legislature ought not to be required thereto.”
Consider how far we had come in only eleven years since declaring our independence. The development of this unique American proviso, that the people had the right to legally and peacefully go outside their government to secure their rights was staggeringly radical.
From the start, the amending process didn’t require unanimous State consent. Second, the amendment proposal submitted by the governor of the largest state would preclude participation of the new government in the process.
Not surprisingly, there was tension between those who wished to isolate the amendment proposal process to either the States or Congress.
This tension was evident on June 11th, when delegates considered Resolution 13. George Mason was certain the new plan would in time be found defective. If chance and violence were to be avoided, provision for amendments in an easy, regular way was imperative. It would be improper to require the consent of the national legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account.
Delegates unanimously agreed to providing amendments, but postponed the decision on assent of the national legislature.
June 29th. The amendment provision was now numbered Resolution 17. It read: ”Resolved that provision ought to be made for the amendment of the articles of union whensoever it shall seem necessary.” For now, the question of which entities may propose amendments went unanswered.
Judge Oliver Ellsworth brought up the amendment process during the stalemate on representation in the Senate. Both Ellsworth and James Madison cautioned delegates to continue to thrash out an acceptable solution. Experience in the states had shown that it was extremely difficult to correct well known defects in their constitutions. The duty of the federal convention was to do their best, to design the best government the people would accept, and not rely on drastic changes after the government was put into effect. What emerged from extensive committee work on August 6th as Article XIX read as: “On application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States in the Union, for an amendment, of this constitution, the legislature of the United States shall call a convention for that purpose."
“An amendment,” and “for that purpose,” are singular and imply that amendment conventions were strictly limited to one amendment.
Article XIX passed the convention on August 30th. It provided no amendatory input from Congress, and left the states to draft the amendment at the convention. Congress’ purpose was ministerial, to call a convention upon application of two thirds of the state legislatures. Also of note is the absence of a ratification process.
After motions from James Wilson, Roger Sherman, and James Madison, Article XIX was modified once again and passed unanimously as: "The Legislature of the U. S. whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem necessary, or on the application of two thirds of the Legislatures of the several States, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part thereof, when the same shall have been ratified by three fourths at least of the Legislatures of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Legislature of the U S:"
In this version, Congress chooses the method of ratification. Of far greater importance, singular use of “an amendment” was dropped, and replaced with “amendments” which could only originate from Congress. This of course turned the starting resolution of May 29th on its head, for the Virginia Plan specifically denied involvement, let alone assent of Congress, to amendments. On September 12th, the Committee of Style submitted its report. The amendment provision was finally referred to as Article V:
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem necessary, or on the application of two thirds of the Legislatures of the several States shall propose amendments to this Constitution, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part thereof, when the same shall have been ratified by three fourths at least of the Legislatures 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 1808 shall in any manner affect the 1 & 4 clauses in the 9. section of article 1."
This version, like the last, required all amendments to be proposed by Congress.
On September 15th, George Mason went ballistic. An oppressive Congress would prevent the people from making, or even proposing amendments. This was utterly subversive to the fundamental rights and liberties of the people. The convention acceded to Mason’s objection on the last day of debate, September 15th.
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.