Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

State-Led Push to Force Constitutional Convention Gains Steam With High-Profile Republican Support
Fox News ^ | 14 February 2015

Posted on 02/14/2015 11:21:12 AM PST by Publius

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-216 next last
To: Publius

When they call a con con we will lose our guns. What kind of morons think this is good? For heavens sake, they couldn’t even get rid of boener and we trust them with a con con? It doesn’t even take a single brain cell to figure this out. The Libs want a con con and we are playing right into their hands... You can kiss religion guns and speech goodbye.


21 posted on 02/14/2015 11:53:18 AM PST by momincombatboots (Back to West by G-d Virginia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius

This is good. I believe this is a no lose situation. Either we improve the constitution or we end up with a way to peacefully dissolve the union.


22 posted on 02/14/2015 11:53:30 AM PST by Maelstorm (America wasn't founded with the battle cry of "Give me Liberty or cut me a government check!".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DownInFlames
Back to the Declaration of Independence.

Yeeeeeeess.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

23 posted on 02/14/2015 11:54:24 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (Life and death are but temporary states. But Freedom endures forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Publius; All

24 posted on 02/14/2015 11:56:14 AM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heart
No, they can't. The states send delegates with specific instructions as to what they can and cannot propose. The entire Constitution is not up for grabs.

Today the federal government observes the United States Constitution to the letter. Unfortunately, it's the Living Constitution, the Constitution symbolized as a Tree, the Constitution that evolves and changes even when its words don't change, the Constitution of Penumbras and Emanations, that it observes. The Constitution of Original Intent has fallen by the wayside. Only the states can pick this standard off the ground and carry it forward.

25 posted on 02/14/2015 11:56:48 AM PST by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: momincombatboots

Post #18 please. Your hysteria is unwarranted.


26 posted on 02/14/2015 11:57:59 AM PST by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heart

No, any amendments proposed by a convention must be approved by 3/4 of the states before becoming effective. Most people forget that. I know lawyers who aren’t aware of it.


27 posted on 02/14/2015 12:03:59 PM PST by Thud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Publius

I disagree. If a convention decides to adopt a whole new Constitution and 3/4 of the states agree, it could happen. Emphasize, “could”. A convention might also declare me to be Queen of the May. There’s a big difference between “might” and “will”.


28 posted on 02/14/2015 12:06:34 PM PST by Thud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
"Speaking to us from across the years, the Father of the U.S. Constitution, James Madison, wrote this warning on November 2, 1788, against calling another general constitutional convention."

Makes you wonder why the framers proposed to include this option then, huh?

29 posted on 02/14/2015 12:08:10 PM PST by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Publius

Is Article V in Our Future?
http://www.eagleforum.org/publications/column/article-v-future.html

The only power the states have under Article V is the opportunity to submit an “application” (petition) humbly beseeching Congress to call a convention. Hundreds of such applications have been submitted over the years, with widely different purposes and wording, many applications were later rescinded, and some purport to make the application valid for only a particular amendment such as a federal balanced budget or congressional term limits.

Article V states that Congress “shall” call a convention on the application of two-thirds of state legislatures (34), but how will Congress count valid applications? We don’t know, and so far Congress has ignored them anyway.

If Congress ever decides to act, Article V gives Congress exclusive power to issue the “Call” for a convention to propose “amendments” (note the plural). The Call is the governing document which determines all the basic rules such as where and when a convention will be held, who is eligible to be a delegate (will current office-holders be eligible?), how delegates will be apportioned, how expenses will be paid, and who will be the chairman.

Article V also gives Congress the power to determine whether the three-fourths of the states required for ratification of amendments can ratify by the state legislature’s action or by state conventions.

The most important question to which there is no answer is how will convention delegates be apportioned? Will each state have one vote (no matter how many delegates it sends), which was the rule in the 1787 Philadelphia convention, or will the convention be apportioned according to population (like Congress or the Electoral College)?

Nothing in Article V gives the states any power to make this fundamental decision. If apportionment is by population, the big states will control the outcome.

Article V doesn’t give any power to the states to propose constitutional amendments, or to decide which amendments will be considered by the convention. Article V doesn’t give any power to the courts to correct what does or does not happen.

Now imagine Democratic and Republican conventions meeting in the same hall and trying to agree on constitutional changes. Imagine the gridlock in drafting a constitutional plank by caucuses led by Sarah Palin and Al Sharpton.

Everything else about how an Article V Convention would function, including its agenda, is anybody’s guess. Advocates of an Article V convention can hope and predict, but they cannot assure us that any of their plans will come true.

If we follow the model of the 1787 Convention, will the deliberations be secret? Are you kidding? Nothing is secret any more. What are the plans to deal with protesters: the gun-control lobby, the gay lobby, the abortion lobby, the green lobby, plus experienced protestors trained by Obama’s Organizing for Action, at what would surely be the biggest media event of the year, if not of the century.


30 posted on 02/14/2015 12:09:46 PM PST by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Da Bilge Troll

It looks like it was put in there ... and then ... they saw what a disaster it was, but the deed was done.


31 posted on 02/14/2015 12:11:09 PM PST by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: momincombatboots
"When they call a con con we will lose our guns."

One more liberal justice on the Supreme Court and we will lose our guns. What recourse will we have then?

32 posted on 02/14/2015 12:11:30 PM PST by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Thud
If the states do not apply for a convention to write a whole new Constitution, then that convention cannot write a whole new Constitution. It's a matter of contract law. The states are the principals, and the convention is the agent of the states. An agent cannot go beyond his agency agreement with his principals, and the language in the state's application for a convention constitutes the purview of the agency agreement.

According to "Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law", only after a revolution may a new political society throw off its old organizing document and create another.

33 posted on 02/14/2015 12:12:10 PM PST by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Publius

Article V bump! Take it back!


34 posted on 02/14/2015 12:13:32 PM PST by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

While Schlefly and the Birch Society have their hearts in the right place, neither of them know what they’re talking about.


35 posted on 02/14/2015 12:13:54 PM PST by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
"It looks like it was put in there ... and then ... they saw what a disaster it was, but the deed was done."

No, Madison ended up voting for it.

36 posted on 02/14/2015 12:14:14 PM PST by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Thud

Article V also gives Congress the power to determine whether the three-fourths of the states required for ratification of amendments can ratify by the state legislature’s action or by state conventions.

— — —

From Post #30 ...

Too much in the way of political machinations for me to be messing with it.


37 posted on 02/14/2015 12:16:20 PM PST by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

Those who oppose the Con Con because they think the liberals will hijack it are wrong.

If they thought they could do that they would be the first ones screaming for it.

The fact that liberals are against it makes me all the more sure it is a good idea.


38 posted on 02/14/2015 12:16:48 PM PST by Mr. K (Palin/Cruz 2016 (for 16 years of conservative bliss))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

Will McConnell and Boehner and Sen Grahamnesty be in charge of a Con Con? You know, these reliable conservatives.


39 posted on 02/14/2015 12:19:41 PM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Only if the legislatures of their states appoint them to represent them at the Amendments Convention.

But there is a school of thought that Article II, Section 6, would apply to a convention. Just as sitting federal officeholders cannot be presidential electors, neither can they be appointed to represent their state at a convention. But that's not 100% sure. The American Bar Association disagrees. Check my two links in that long, pedantic post I put out earlier in this thread.

40 posted on 02/14/2015 12:23:03 PM PST by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-216 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson