Posted on 04/05/2015 7:35:49 AM PDT by cotton1706
Conservative state legislators frustrated with the gridlock in Washington are increasingly turning to a plan to call a convention to consider a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution — an event that would be unprecedented in American history and one that could, some opponents predict, lead to complete political chaos.
Legislators in 27 states have passed applications for a convention to pass a balanced budget amendment. Proponents of a balanced budget requirement are planning to push for new applications in nine other states where Republicans control both chambers of the legislature.
If those applications pass in seven of the nine targeted states, it would bring the number of applications up to 34, meeting the two-thirds requirement under Article V of the Constitution to force Congress to call a convention.
What happens next is anyone’s guess.
“There really isn’t much of a precedent. We’ll be charting new waters,” said Utah Senate President Wayne Niederhauser, a Republican and a supporter of a constitutional convention. Utah became the 26th state to issue an application last month. North and South Dakota have also approved applications this year.
The problem is that while the Constitution allows amendments to be adopted and sent to the states by a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate, or by a national convention called by two-thirds of the states, the founding document is silent on how such a convention would operate. How many delegates each state would receive, the rules under which a convention would operate and who would set the agenda would be left up to Congress — all of those would be open questions.
(Excerpt) Read more at standard.net ...
“If we were closer to following the Constitution in the first place, I would encourage this convention.”
What’s your reasoning here? Sounds irrational.
Who is going to enforce the Gov to abide by the “new”amendments?
Well, if you're talking about the "financial crisis" of 2008, you're talking about a massive fraud. Fraud always involves deception. What was telling was the response of both political parties to that disaster - they gave the scamsters more money! Do you remember how they actually "forced" the poor banks to take more of our money? That's real power - they created a disaster, received even more money and then explained that we should feel guilty for "forcing" them take more money. Yes, that's power and nothing has changed since then.
Changing the laws is a fool's errand until we actually get back to being closer to a government of laws, not men.
President Cruz along with somebody along the lines of Attorney General Janice Rogers Brown or Attorney General Roy Moore.
Garbage hasn’t been taken out in quite some time.
You may be right, but this country has never seen the kind of revolution that I think you're talking about. What we call the American Revolution was really more of War for Independence from Britain. The purpose of that War for Independence was not to overturn the economic power structure of this country. Except for the Royalists who had to leave, the economic heavyweights before the war were the same economic heavyweights after the war.
I think what a lot of people are talking about now is more like the French Revolution. And, I'm not sure folks are ready for anything quite like that.
Not in the least.
The cheaters and the liars will quiet down once they’re told what to do by adults. This isn’t because I’m saying it—it’s the very nature of cheating and lying.
It is OK my FRiend. I believe that if we are going to call a CoS then we should do something positive to address systemic issues that got us in this place to begin with. I do not think it is difficult to articulate the reasons for repeal of the 17th amendment and I think those reasons would gather significant support. Have a great Easter!
I think we should execute the first CoS as a prototype. And I think repeal of the 17th amendment would provide the greatest benifit to the nation while allowing the demonstration of responsible governance to assuage the people’s worry about using the Article V process. Have a great Easter FReeper.
But it’s still an Article V Convention, right?
Anybody who calls an Article V Convention a “Constitutional Convention” should be corrected.
Not if it prohibits tax increases.
Technically correct. I prefer Judge Andrew Napolitano’s term “Amendments Convention”.
Many bits of misinformation.
As for the idea of an Article V Convention for a balanced budget amendment, I think it could serve to demonstrate how an Article V Convention works and thus serve to defuse much of the FUD currently circulated by statists.
“Duke, you need to educate yourself on the process. Congress has absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to say about the running of the Convention. This is a Convention of the STATES. Congress is NOT INVOLVED beyond setting the date and location.”
Perhaps you’re correct but the Constitution is itself silent on such things as how the convention shall be run, how those who attend shall be selected, or what the powers of the convention shall be. Expect numerous court cases.
Nope, the courts have no jurisdiction. This is a matter for the States alone.
I’ll give you this much; some folks may try, we’re a litigious society after all.
But all such attempts will fail, it’s really simple. Neither State nor Federal courts have the slightest jurisdiction over an Article V Convention. They have no law to apply, and all precedent serves to do is deny them jurisdiction. The courts are neutered in this matter, they can’t affect the process no matter how much they might wish to do so.
I think that there could be some states which would assert that the Convention had no standing and would boycott it, but they would merely be making themselves even more irrelevant that they already are. The constitutionality of an Article V Convention is beyond question. The process is also beyond question.
The only thing that might be questioned is the “one state - one vote” principle, but that too, is set in stone by precedent, and by the very ratification process itself as established by the Constitution.
“...and the judicial branch has sold out their principles for Washington cocktail party invitations.”
It is far more sinister than you suspect.
If it doesn't start, who is to say what happens?
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.