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

Fox News ^ | 14 February 2015

[smokingfrog]

Working together, state legislators and American citizens can restore the checks and balances on federal power that were put in place by our founding fathers to protect our liberty from the abuses in Washington DC.

[Star Traveler]

From what I read, it seems the other way around ... regarding the other side ... :-) ...

[Star Traveler]

That’s why he wrote the warning, saying don’t do it again ... :-) ...

[OneWingedShark]

Now imagine Democratic and Republican conventions meeting in the same hall and trying to agree on constitutional changes.

I know democrats who are concerned about the national debt — it's not unreasonable to think that they would oppose an amendment which corrected that problem.

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.

And?
Any amendment coming from an Article V convention is a proposed amendment, still in need of ratification.

Do you really believe that 38+ States would ratify a totally bad amendment like (e.g.) repealing the Second Amendment?
No, it's far more likely that the States would fail to ratify a good amendment.

[Sola Veritas]

“The states may request a single-subject convention or a general convention open to all subjects.”

First of all, thank you Publius for explaining this is a way that I, a legal layman, could understand.

IF a “general” convention was called, and multiple amendments were proposed. Then must each amendment be individually ratified? If this is the case, then I would not be adverse to a convention. Because, IF each amendment had to be individually considered, then it would keep something “wacky” from slipping through.

[Publius]

Those states involved in the Convention of the States movement are moving preemptively to decide how votes are to be apportioned, how delegates are to be chosen, and the purview of the convention, all based on Mark Levin's book. They are doing it before Congress can stick its nose in and mess up the process.

The Archivist of the United States is the current location for tabulation of applications from the states and also for ratifications, but thanks to Cong. Stivers, the Clerk of the House is now in the loop. This is because the Archivist's procedures do not require him to keep Congress abreast of what is going on until a threshold is reached: two-thirds for a convention, and three-fourths for ratification. Now the House can be kept up to speed as to how close we are to a convention call.

The gray areas are being occupied and defined by the Convention of the States movement. The idea is that by the time Congress is required to set a time, place and purview for the convention that everything will be known.

[Sola Veritas]

One more question. Would a simple majority of the delegates to a convention be required to send the proposed amendment to the states for ratification...or 2/3rds?

[Publius]

Each amendment proposal reported out by a convention is a separate item. Congress has the right to decide whether the states shall ratify by the State Legislature Method or the State Ratifying Convention Method for each amendment proposal. Congress may decide to send one proposed amendment to the legislatures and another to state ratifying conventions. That's Congress' prerogative under Article V.

Even a convention dedicated to a single subject may produce more than one amendment. For example, the Convention of the States movement wishes to address certain topics listed in Mark Levin's book. I could see 4 or 5 proposed amendments being reported to Congress by the convention. Congress would then decide which method the states would use to ratify for each individual amendment.

[OneWingedShark]

IF a “general” convention was called, and multiple amendments were proposed. Then must each amendment be individually ratified?

Exactly so.
Here's two graphics illustrating it.

[Star Traveler]

Well ... you won’t be getting me behind the move. I’ll be working the other side ... :-) ...

Good luck, because I think it would be the luck of a Lotto win to get it done.

[Sola Veritas]

IF a general convention was to be convened, I would like to see the power of the SCOTUS to radically reinterpret the COTUS to be limited.

For instance, anytime the SCOTUS creates a “landmark” ruling that effectively changes the way things have been done previously. I would want their ruling subject to “ratification” by the states as any other constitutional amendment is. I am tried of the SCOTUS being able to rule something as “unconstitutional” (like the soon to come usurpation of a state’s ability to define marriage) and it being called “the law of the land” without it being ratified by each state first. I know this cuts both ways, but limits on the SCOTUS are way overdue.

[Publius]

Article V sets a two-thirds margin for Congress to propose amendments. The American Bar Association, in that report I linked to, points out that the language of Article V is silent as to what margin a convention requires to report out a proposed amendment to Congress for its decision as to how the states will ratify. The ABA notes that during the time of its existence, an Amendments Convention is a sovereign body, and it alone has the right to decide whether a simple majority, a two-thirds majority, or some other fraction, is sufficient to report out an amendment proposal to Congress for disposition.

Note that after Congress decides on how the states will ratify, it will take the three-fourths of the state legislatures (or state ratifying conventions, if Congress so chooses) to ratify a proposed amendment and get it into the Constitution.

[Publius]

A picture is worth 10,000 words. Thanks. Especially my long, pedantic words.

[Publius]

You don’t need a general convention for that. Mark Levin’s book, and the Convention of the States movement, are working for “structural” amendments that would permit Congress, or the states, to overturn Supreme Court decisions. The movement is also looking for a method of giving the states the ability to nullify federal law. This movement is already in motion, and it has gotten 3 states to apply for a convention using Georgia’s language about balancing state and federal authority,

[Cowman]

only after a revolution may a new political society throw off its old organizing document and create another

Isn't that essentially what happened in 1913 with the 16th and 17th amendments?

[Star Traveler]

There are going to be a whole lot of people out there that are going to say, “Now that we’re doing this, this other thing over here needs to be changed, too!”

And that is the beginning of the end of our US Constitution as we know it and have it.

Good luck with that one ... :-) ...

[Publius]

By “revolution”, Blackstone is talking about violence and the shedding of blood. The events of 1775-83 would be a good definition of “revolution”.

[Publius]

By the use of logic and reason, I will eventually convert you to the cause.

[scbison]

3/4 of states would have to ratify anything proposed..

[Da Bilge Troll]

I think the chicken came first.