State-Led Push to Force Constitutional Convention Gains Steam With High-Profile Republican Support

Fox News ^ | 14 February 2015

[OneWingedShark]

Look for democrats to put forth amendments to alter the amendments they are presently attacking, specifically the first & second.

And any such amendment would need ratification; do you think 2/4 of all the state legislatures would repeal the 1st and 2nd?
Heck, that'd be a surefire way to kick off CWII.

[GopherIt]

>>*Congress does have power in this process
*Provisions of Article 5 can be repealed
*The ABA has identified gray areas in the process=I.E. some things are open to interpretation.

I do not think it is ignorant to at least “worry” about possible abuse.<<

First, an apology for snark yesterday. You’re clearly drilling through these issues with deliberate purpose.
And to Star Traveler, thanks for posting a series of polemics, some disinformation indeed, in one place, that characterize some of the calmer discussion from that side. Yesterday, I had just re-read Phylis Schaffly’s diatribe in Town Hall wherein she cites her figment called The Call that cedes all power to congress then invites feverish imaginations of all the horrors that will derive from the COS process. Complete with calumny for all who might suggest such a thing. This is irksome, coming from someone I’ve admired for decades.
And the central issue (ConCon vs. COS) does seem to center on control; how much control does Congress have, vs. the States. It seems odd that those, like EF and JBS, who bravely tout 10th Amendment arguments, or nullification, or secession - which have never gone anywhere - so vehemently deny that States might assert, seize, and enforce their power to amend the Constitution in the manner proposed. Albeit a handful, the state reps, and candidates for office, I’ve discussed this with are jealous of State (TX) power, and are supportive of the COS program.
Your concerns are well taken and sensible.

[Cold Heart]

Not repeal, alter to make them more “reasonable”. Democrats have been talking about doing exactly that for years.

I would love to see the amendments putting more control on the federal government. I just don’t want to loose anything in the process.

[OneWingedShark]

Not repeal, alter to make them more “reasonable”. Democrats have been talking about doing exactly that for years.

Again, do you think that 38 States will ratify that?
All it takes is 13 states to say, screw this to ice any amendment proposal, whether in ratifying conventions or in their legislatures.

[Thud]

This is quite true, BUT:

"If politicians can ignore the language of one Constitution, then they can ignore the language of another. People who break rules don’t start obeying them just because you write some new ones.

State legislators could be given a really potent motivation to enact proposed Constitutional amendments if each one has, among other clauses, one which prohibits any present or past Congressmen, Senators and federal judges from holding any appointment or elective federal office starting 4-6 years after the Amendment's effective date. State legislators would be the logical people to be elected or appointed to fill all those suddenly vacant federal offices.

There's always more than one way to win.

[Thud]

A convention to propose amendments could certainly exceed its powers and propose a whole new Constitution. The latter would still require ratification by 3/4 of the states, and those had better have at least 2/3 of the country's poppulation and wealth to force their choice on the dissenting states.

As a practical matter, though, the chance of that happening lies somewhere between the chance of you turning inside out and exploding, and that of civilization being destroyed by a Carrington Event.

Lots of things are theoretically possible. That something is possible doesn't mean it is worth worrying about.

[Cold Heart]

I didn’t think there was any way ever, an American hating muslim marxist would be elected to president. I have no idea what the states would find palatable. I certainly haven’t been impressed with what Oregon has been doing or the way it’s headed.

[John Valentine]

A convention to propose amendments could certainly exceed its powers and propose a whole new Constitution.

So could the University of California at Santa Barbara, and it did. You saw where that one went...

Or maybe not. It disappeared into well deserved obscurity within days.

I must assume that a Convention of the States would approach its work with serious intent and limited purpose, as franchised. I doubt it would want to be remembered as a bunch of utopians drunk on moonbeams.

[John Valentine]

Referring to an Article V Convention (or a Convention of the States) a “Constitutional Convention” might be forgiven as an exercise in ignorance. This might be true of the New York Times, for example. It might also derive from indolence or sloth. When it happens on Free Republic, it is almost certainly an intentional effort to taint the conversation, and is essentially dishonest and inexcusable.

Whatever the reason for such imprecise speech, and whoever the speaker, such sloppiness diminishes the dialog. It inhibits understanding and frustrates communication. It diverts time and energy.

I wish its practitioners would knock it off and instead of trying to derail honest dialog would instead opt to actually join it.

I note in your referenced post the following:

“’Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.’

Is this a typo? Appears to say Article 5 gives Congress power to propose amendments. Others have stated only states can do so in an article 5.”

I find it astounding that you are posting on this thread, yet you have apparently never even read Article V, but instead ask another poster to do your reading for you.

Are you serious? I doubt it. In fact I think you are most non-serious, and are probably a paid disruptor from some progressive boiler room.

[OneWingedShark]

I didn’t think there was any way ever, an American hating muslim marxist would be elected to president. I have no idea what the states would find palatable. I certainly haven’t been impressed with what Oregon has been doing or the way it’s headed.

Well, as far as reelecting him, I'll give the populous a pass: by being offered Romney they were told to choose between Obamney and Obamney. (That is, they're politically the same person: no major policy difference between the two.)

A lot of people are waking up to the sheer trouble that an over-powering overbearing government is: from the school-lunches, to the fiasco w/ borders and immigration, to debt, to the corruption/lawlessness rampant in the federal government (e.g. IRS and NSA).

That there's been no official action against Obama is quite likely doe to the fact that a large portion of the 111th (IIRC) Congress certified that he was legitimate; if that came out as untrue it would unravel huge portions of the political landscape. (IOW, Obama's very likely sitting on a I'll take you with me trump-card.)

[precisionshootist]

"State-Led Push to Force Constitutional Convention What jackwad wrote the headline ?"

I understand your concern but can we get over this fear of saying "Constitutional Convention" because that's what article V is talking about. A Con Con is for the purpose of creating a new constitution OR MAKING CHANGES TO AN EXISTING ONE.

We will be doing the later but it's still a Constitutional Convention.

If 34 states get together for the sole purpose of passing just one amendment, that's a Constitutional Convention.

If we don't get over this fear of real language it will ultimately be used against us.

[Thud]

IMO Publius has its exactly right - a convention would propose a limited number of amendments to the states. I add that, once enough states propose a convention Congress would itself propose a few amendments to try to keep the convention from convening.

Once a Convention is in progress, I expect Congress will again try to pre-empt the Convention by enacting some more amendments on whatever issues the Convention seems most likely to address. Congress is deathly afraid a Convention would impose really strict Congressional term limits.

IMO term limits are way overrated. They need to be rather loose, but universal in application to prevent people from burrowing into the federal government. One way to do that is a simple sixteen year limit on service in ANY federal elective or appointive position. The feds do have comparative rank positions covering multiple agencies and even the military used for various purposse, so it's easy to limit the appointment position time limit to the equivalent of flag-rank military officers, and exempt the military.

[Publius]

This is what happened in 1912. Enough states requested an Amendments Convention to force Congress to call one for consideration of the direct election of senators. Congress passed its own amendment, now known as the 17th.

You're probably thinking, "But didn't Congress have to call a convention anyway?" Several states had Discharge Clauses in their applications stating that if Congress addressed this issue, their application would be considered discharged. When Congress passed sent the 17th on to the states, enough states had Discharge Clauses to bring the number of applications below the two-thirds threshold. That's how Congress legally dodged our first Amendments Convention.

[Uri’el-2012]

Please read Article V for correct wording.

[precisionshootist]

I have read it many times. Although I'm fine with the term "Convention of States" an article V convention has never to my knowledge been referred as such. The two methods for amending the constitution have traditionally been known as first through congress or second by constitutional convention.

Myself I could care less if we call it a PTA meeting as long as we get it done. My concern is the term "convention of states" could ultimately hurt the credibility of the effort if it becomes known and understood that their is really no difference at all between the two terms and in fact constitutional convention is more correct.

I remember myself, even back in early elementary school (back when schools were still honest education) the "other" method for amending the constitution was by "Constitutional Convention" and this of course was coming from teachers who are much older than I am today. These teachers also knew this method as a "Con Con" and it's many of these people who's support is needed. To many, the term Convention of States may have a spin like feel that may create a feeling of distrust to the true intent of the effort.

I don't want to sound like I'm making a big deal about this because like I said, I don't care myself what we call it as long as we get it done. I just was trying to point out if someone refers to an Article V convention as a Constitutional Convention there is no need to overreact. Simply state the facts and don't even react to the difference in terms. They both are the same and mean the same thing to many many people. What we don't want is them distorting the truth about the process itself.

[precisionshootist]

"IMO term limits are way overrated. "

I agree also. I used to be a big term limit supporter but if you look at actual cases of local gov. where term limits were passed with the intent of curtailing government it hasn't really worked.

I think the reason term limits don't work is they don't address the real problem and that is WHY would anyone want to stay in office in perpetuity in the first place. The answer is POWER. Pass amendments that strictly limit the power of the fed gov to the constitution as written and suddenly the politicians will term limit themselves because it's not much fun when you can't lord over people and do whatever you want. When you actually have to serve the will of the people it seems more like work that you soon want to retire from.