Posted on 04/16/2015 6:00:55 AM PDT by cotton1706
A resolution enlisting Nebraska in a call for a convention of the states to propose constitutional limits on the power of the federal government remained stuck in committee Wednesday.
An effort to dislodge LR35, introduced by Sen. Laura Ebke of Crete, failed on a 3-1 vote, with three members of the Government, Military and Affairs Committee who participated in the executive session declining to vote.
Five votes are required to send the proposal to the floor of the Legislature for debate.
The convention of the states would be limited to proposing constitutional amendments to impose fiscal restraints, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and require term limits.
Any proposed constitutional amendments would require ratification by three-fourths of the states.
Ebke, a Republican who is state chairwoman of the Republican Liberty Caucus, told the committee during a public hearing on the proposal in February that she originally had been reluctant to support a convention of the states because of her fear of "a crazy runaway convention."
But she said the limited role of the proposed convention -- already approved by Florida, Georgia and Alaska -- is crafted in a way to prevent that.
Mark Meckler, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, testified at the hearing, arguing that state legislators are "the last line of defense for liberty."
Wednesday's refusal to move the resolution forward presumably sealed its fate for the reminder of the 2015 legislative session, but it will remain in the committee.
(Excerpt) Read more at journalstar.com ...
Keep in mind that Nebraska has only one legislative body, so if the Assembly passes it, that's actually a state passing it.
ping
Gutless...
Where the hell did this stupid “Runaway convention” idea start in the first place?
3/4 have to ratify. How the hell is that runaway?
What goes on nationally should have no bearing on this effort. The feds are broken regardless of there being a marxist muslim in power, or Ted Cruz.
That said, this is the time to get Art V on solid footing... the national mood is one of alarm. The national mood when in a Cruz mode might switch to one of repairs, fire dousing and the like. Borrowing the "not waste a crisis" meme from the alynskites, need to get momentum to the Art V, especially from all the 'R' states... momentum needed to carry the day in the not-so 'R' states, and after the won.
John Birch probably.
“Where the hell did this stupid “Runaway convention” idea start in the first place?”
But there’s no hysteria over a “Runaway Supreme Court” or “Runaway Congress” or “Runaway Executive”
It’s ok for them to amend the Constitution at will, and illegally, but God forbid the states use their actual power to do it.
Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that we actually get a Con-Con.
What makes anyone think the FedGov would actually abide by anything that comes out of it and gets ratified?........................
Lets see. No Convention, civil war.
Convention, fedgov abides, peace.
Convention, fedgov doesn’t abide, civil war.
Where’s the negative?
Not quite a crazy idea. If there is a state’s convention to amend the constitution, all bets are off. The second amendment can disappear, as well as any others that our friends on the left may want to wave their magic wand over and be rid of. Having 38 state legislatures agree on one thing is a tough proposition, so the idea of constitutional convention being a needed fix is just as “crazy” as it being a Pandora’s Box to some nutty progressive crap becoming part of our constitution. But the possibility of both is still there.
My own take is: Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it.
Whats the difference between the states submitting an amendment and congress doing the same?
Why is the state so much scarier? I thought we were Federalists.
You’re a federalist, right? You can’t advocate and deny it at the same time.
“What makes anyone think the FedGov would actually abide by anything that comes out of it and gets ratified?”
Same old question, over and over.
If the states ratified a term limits amendment, for example (either actually limiting terms or allowing states to limit them), how would the Federal Government NOT abide by it.?
If the states ratified an amendment repealing the 17th amendment or the 16th amendment, how would the Federal government NOT abide by it?
If the states ratified an amendment limiting the service of Supreme Court Justices, or allowing states to overrule Supreme Court opinions, how would the Federal Government NOT abide by it.
These are structural amendments (like the 17th or 22nd Amendments). No legislature has appointed ANY senator since 1913, and no president has tried to run for a third term since 1952.
There are many changes that can be made that can actually limit the power of the Federal government that they could not just ignore.
I don’t think you could accurately call it a civil war,
as even the war between the states was not a civil war,
but a failed 2nd war of Independence.
The south didn’t want to take over the central gov’t,
but be free of it.
This is the same motivation behind this present movement.
I’m sure you know that an ArtV convention “circumvents” Congress and the president.
With an ArtV and 3/4 of the states, the Congress and President have no say.
Nothing scary about it, agreed.
And the idea that Congress will propose/pass and the president will sign any amendments that limit the power of the offices they’re elected to? Seriously...
We often accuse the left of not taking into consideration human behavior when they make new laws and rules. They assume that everyone in the electorate will abide by those laws without question.
The right does the same thing by assuming that the humans in control of the government will abide by the laws and rules made by the right.
Case in point: The current administration picks and chooses which laws they want to uphold and ignores any others.
Never underestimate the left’s desire to take full control of the country and destroy any and all opposition...............
Then you agree with the notion that civil war is inevitable in all cases.
It’s always a possibility, in any country, no matter how strong the central government is, or thinks it is.........
You’re right. The only sensible thing is to wet our pants and cry.
I would think this was a serious question but it gets answered every time it gets asked and it still keeps getting asked.
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.