Posted on 06/13/2015 5:46:48 AM PDT by cotton1706
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Two legislators propose that Ohio join in a call for the states to meet and amend the U.S. Constitution to rein in federal authority and spending power.
Republican Rep. Christina Hagan of Stark County and Democratic Rep. Bill Patmon of Cleveland, introduced a resolution calling for a convention of states, as outlined in Article V of the Constitution, that would allow state delegations to meet. Their resolution calls specifically for debate on federal spending, the range of power and jurisdiction of the federal government and limited terms for federal officers.
"The intent of the resolution is to get us moving in the direction of a national convention," Hagan said. That convention would become the "tool for reining in government, or at least starting the conversation."
At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, delegates included language in Article V that gives the states the ability to call a convention to discuss amendments.
But no convention of states has even been called.
Since the Constitution became effective in 1789, all of the nearly 40 amendments submitted to the states were a result of action by Congress.
That may be a result of the states being hesitant to throw the doors open to the amending process, suggests Paul Beck, a political scientist at Ohio State University.
"What they have going against them is the widespread belief in this country on the right and on the left that the constitution that we have now is a pretty good thing," Beck said.
(Excerpt) Read more at cleveland.com ...
Ohio finally joins!!
ping
I have a dumb question: Since the Constitution already limits FedGub to a fraction of the monster it has become today — why would an amended Constitution make a difference?
“.. — why would an amended Constitution make a difference?”
Yes, it is a joke. They can make all the amendments they want, but if the Feds (Congress primarily) do not ENFORCE the Constitution, it is meaningless. That is what we have now. Obama, for example, should have been thrown out of the WH a long time ago for his anti-Constitutional crimes and abuse of power in general. This, along with his stooges who have carried out his abusive orders in many areas.
Hard to say, overall. Maybe there is some value in making the Constitution more stringent but the process would open up the opportunity for the radical, anti-American left to mess things up. Mixed emotions on this one.
Your question has merit. Unfortunately the last attempt by the states to reign it in did not go well for those states who decided to leave rather than use the constitutional avenues apparently open to them. Anything that does not end up in a second CW is the best way to try to get things done.
“I have a dumb question: Since the Constitution already limits FedGub to a fraction of the monster it has become today — why would an amended Constitution make a difference?”
Easy answer, with STRUCTURAL changes that cannot be just be ignored. Since the 17th amendment, no senator has been chosen by a state legislature. Since the 22nd amendment, no president has been elected more than twice (though granted both the Clintons and the Bushes are trying to get around that with the wife and the brother).
And amendment limiting the terms of congress (or even better, an amendment allowing the states to do so, or to instituted recalls) could not be ignored.
An amendment limiting the time judges spend on the judiciary could not be ignored.
An amendment requiring that all executive agency regulation be voted on in congress before such regulations take effect, could not be ignored.
An amendment allowing the states or the congress (or both) to overrule a judicial opinion could not be ignored.
The founders struggled in their time to create “a more perfect union” and they gave the people and the states the means to perfect it even further, through the amendment process.
Hear! Hear!
BenLurkin raises the best question of this debate.
The short answer is: It won’t. Until the States reclaim their full authority under the existing Constitution, which is a component of the existing Constitution, there is likely not going to be major change.
Sadly, no one appears ready to lead the Nation out of the darkness of social progressivism and back to the light of social and economic freedom (well, maybe Ted Cruz...).
More sadly, the current population, dumbed down by three generations of FedGov meddling in education and entitlements, will be the biggest stumbling block to recovery. It will not be a pretty sight...
The premise that another Constitutional Convention is the answer may well be national quicksand.
Just sayin’
Excellent post!
The big one to take on is the commerce clause. I don't know the legalese, but it should be explicitly made a negative power so that the federal government can only use it to stop state laws restricting commerce rather than a positive power they can use to regulate anything that might have a tiny effect on interstate commerce.
Would be such a dangerous time to make amendments, wouldn’t it? I mean, with the monsters that are in place where they are? They’ll amend things to their advantage. I feel like we’ve completely lost control.
Two Amendments that could impact that:
First: Repeal the 17th. GO back to Senators being selected by the States, not by popular vote.
Second: Term limits: One term for the President (6 years), two terms for Senators, Three terms for Representatives.
Neither of those would have immediate impact. But in the long term they would serve to transfer some power away from Washington. It took over 150 years to get to where we are today (I am starting with Lincoln in 1860), if we do not reverse the trend it will only get worse.
Your question is based on the premise that our trusted servants in the federal government practice an "all or nothing" philosophy, where they either follow all of the constitution, or none of it. But that is not the case--your premise is false to begin with. Actually, only certain parts are ignored by certain limbs of branches of fedgov, and we all are frustrated with that.
The new amendments proposed are such that they would not be able to ignore them. Term limits, for example--our fed overlords would not be able to ignore or screw with. Not without bloodshed. That, for me, would be the point where the tree of liberty gets watered well, and I suspect I am not alone.
Levin's Liberty Amendments was published almost two years ago. Do yourself a favor and read the first chapter at Amazon.
“On January 6, 2015 Congress began the process of counting applications submitted by the states with the passage of a House rule in the House of Representatives. The rule calls for publication of all applications for a convention “made in pursuance of Article V” as well as state rescissions. Notably the rule does not describe rescissions as being “in pursuance” of Article V, which means they might not be valid.”
“Questions have been raised as to whether a state legislature that has applied for a convention may later rescind that application. If the rescissions of those 12 remaining states between 1988 and 2010—setting aside Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and New Hampshire—are not valid then the threshold of 34 states required by Article V was met with the Michigan Legislature’s application of March 26, 2014, for a convention on the subject of a Balanced Budget Amendment and Congress, under Article V, would be constitutionally obligated to call a convention.
“Article V of the Constitution provides no guidance on whether a state may rescind its application for a constitutional convention. It does not specify an enforcement mechanism if two-thirds of the states should apply and Congress refuses to call one. It does not set forth the manner by which a constitutional convention is to be summoned or how delegates would be chosen, or whether the states would have one vote or would be entitled to vote in proportion to their population. The last time that clarifying legislation was introduced in Congress was on January 15, 1991, when U.S. Senator Orrin G. Hatch offered the bill S. 214, which received no further consideration than to be referred on that date to the U.S. Senate’s Committee on the Judiciary.”
For example, let's remove the explanatory clause at the beginning of the second amendment ( “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...”) which courts and legislators try to claim is a restrictive clause. Prune it so it can't be a source of confusion.Oh, don't worry. The first and 2nd amendment will be on the agenda for day one. They will try to "prune" them to the point they'll need a stump grinder to eliminate any confusion for the courts.
Be careful what you wish for.
Because if you really care about the constitution then you engage all the avenues prescribed in it to correct these issues or else any steps beyond that are illegitimate.
Ohio Ping!
Two legislators propose that Ohio join in a call for the states to meet and amend the U.S. Constitution to rein in federal authority and spending power.
Republican Rep. Christina Hagan of Stark County and Democratic Rep. Bill Patmon of Cleveland, introduced a resolution calling for a convention of states, as outlined in Article V of the Constitution,....
Jesus how many damn times does the amendment process have to be explained so we don’t have post about “runaway conventions”?
"What they have going against them is the widespread belief in this country on the right and on the left that the constitution that we have now is a pretty good thing,"
RED FLAGS-RED FLAGS-RED FLAGS-RED FLAGS-RED FLAGS-RED FLAGS.
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.