Posted on 04/19/2015 6:21:57 AM PDT by cotton1706
Yesterday the Tennessee Senate approved a resolution applying for a convention of states under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, making it the seventh legislative house to pass this resolution in 2015.
The resolution, which was adopted with 26 Senators voting in favor and just five voting against, calls for a convention “for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States that will impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government and limit the terms of office for officials of the federal government.”
Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, states can call a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution if two-thirds of the states (34) pass similar applications. Georgia, Florida, and Alaska ratified this resolution last year, and at least 25 states will consider the Convention of States Project resolution this year.
Many state legislators view this is as a necessary step to restoring federalism in America.
The first legislative bodies to pass the resolution this session were the Houses in Arizona, North Dakota, New Mexico, Iowa, and Arkansas, as well as the Oklahoma Senate. The opposite legislative houses of these states will still need to approve the measure for their applications to become valid. A governor’s signature is not needed.
Convention of States Project, launched late in 2013, has been the primary proponent of this resolution and already has an extensive network in all 50 states with more than 100,000 citizen volunteers.
(Excerpt) Read more at redmillennial.com ...
ping
Bump!
And thank you Mark Levin.
"What 3 hypothetical constitutional amendments are most important to addressing the nation's systemic problems?"
IMO:
1. Repeal the 17A.
2. Grant States collective authority to override Congress, regulations or Scotus.
3. Congressional term limits.
Article V ping!
Repeating here an illustrative example of how the power of Article V can be unlocked by the States to restore federalism:
************************************************
AMENDMENT XXVIII
To redress the balance of powers between the federal government and the States and to restore effective suffrage of State Legislatures to Congress, the following amendment is proposed:
************************************************
Section 1.
A Senator in Congress shall be subject to recall by their respective state legislature or by voter referendum in their respective state.
Section 2.
Term limits for Senators in Congress shall be set by vote in their respective state legislatures but in no case shall be set less than twelve years nor more than eighteen years.
Section 3.
Upon a majority vote in three-fifths of state legislatures, specific federal statutes, federal court decisions and executive directives of any form shall be repealed and made void.
************************************************
If Section 1 above can be replaced with a repeal of the 17th, then that’s even better but it may be a hard sale. Section 1 above gets the job done by making US Senators pay attention to their State Legislators and at the same time requiring both to interact with the state voters.
I would strongly recommend the following must-see video of Mark Levin be watched, consumed and studied:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdZuV8JnvvA
And I would strongly recommend all to urge respective state senators and state representatives, and the people that work for them, to view it.
Yes, that was a great vid from Levin at the AlEC.
I think Levin makes the case for not chasing half-measures.
If the people still elect senators, it is doubtful the state legislators will ever seriously consider recall.
Levin’s video should be watched by every Article V opponent. His logic is tight and IMO unassailable.
State Legislators can get a sense of the will of the People in their state like no other. If people want a recall without having to organize a referendum vote, it can be easier and faster to have the state legislature get it done.
There have been many attempted recalls of US Senators by voters using whatever means at their disposal. But voters are prohibited from recalling a US Senator.
One example was democrat Senator Franck Church who faced a very viable recall campaign in 1967 but escaped because federal courts ruled that political recalls did not apply to US Senators and that the recall against Senator Church violated the US Constitution.
Therefore, an amendment to recall US Senators is in order.
The way it plays out is like this:
* A State Legislature opens a channel of communication with a US Senator from their state.
* Demands are made on the US Senator to support or propose legislation that benefits the state and the people of the state.
* AS OF NOW the US Senator cares not a wit about what state legislators demand. They care only about the image that their campaign marketing managers are able to set in the minds of the voter, about pointing out the negatives of political competitors and about buying off power players in the state they represent. Basically if they contract all the big hitters, they win the ball game.
* AS OF NOW recalls of US Senators are not allowed by federal courts.
* AS OF NOW voters unhappy with a US Senator will first call the office of the US Senator and if there is no sincere response, where do they go? How would they know how many other voters are of the same mind? Will the local press inform them? The answers are mostly in the negative. They do not contact their state legislators because there is nothing the state legislature can do.
* WHEN an amendment is ratified allowing recalls of US Senators, THEN everything changes. Voters can EITHER organize a recall referendum OR call their state legislatures and demand a recall be put in motion. Getting state legislatures involved in recall efforts unites the people of their state with their state legislators. That is a good thing.
Since we know by the next day who has won the Presidential election while when the Constitution was written it took weeks to tabulate the votes, why don’t we change the swear in date to the end of the week after the election instead of January. That would not leave any time for mischief.
Well maybe not the end of the week but certainly not 2 months later.
But can the enabling legislation limit the range of the convention?
I am for every dam one of those items on the list.
With the Trump victory, now is the time to push this through to realization, not get complacent due to the current turn of events. The left never gives up, never stops, they always play the short game, the middle game and the long game. We can solidify our constitutional liberties and rights and those of our children and grandchildren for a long time to come with a convention of the states.
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.