Posted on 11/13/2015 2:57:32 AM PST by Fhios
I read earlier today that part of the Campus million student march and one of their "demands" is a change in the constitution to benefit black people.
Two years ago I thought the Article V process was going too slow. Now I'm thinking that unless the Scope of the Article V convention is specific I.E changes to the 17th amendment regarding the election of Senators for Congress, then I rather not go forward at all.
What happens if say NY passes the Article V but includes demands for revisions to say the 2nd amendment, or VA or IL demanding changes to the 1st amendment?
If all the states are not on the same page and targeted within scope, then I just as soon as pass on the Article V.
In no way shape or form do I want even the potential for a full blown constitutional convention, not with our current party apparatus. We'll just get bulldozed over by the progressive and media. Are any of the Candidates specifically on board?
However with more individual States having conservative governors and conservative locks on their bicameral house's, an Article V can be done and can be limited? I think Kentucky is the only unicameral state.
If the Article V is limited in scope, it will be in a protective shell. It cannot be influenced from outside, and the scope cannot be changed from within, even by unanimous consent. I want the conventioneers, and their source legislatures, whoever they may be to sign off on that. Hell, even that doesn't sound safe at this point in time.
My question is: Is the Article V proposals coming from the States being limited in Scope? Or are conservatives going in 'at risk' to being coopted and sabotaged from outside and within?
Please read up on Article V more clearly.
If you think Kentucky is unicameral and Nebraska is not, then you need to seriously brush up on your facts, figures, and critical thinking.
An Article V convention cannot submit amendments for ratification without a yes vote from 34 states present.
So, if NY demanded repeal of the second amendment (to use your example), 33 other states would have to concur (and then 38 state legislatures would have to ratify).
Not possible.
You presume unwarranted honor on the part of the signatories, sir/madam.
They're politicians.
Yea, I should have looked it up. Just off the bullseye.
Give me the URL for the official Article V page?
Well, my point was I don’t want it even allowed to be a consideration. Scope and Context focused on the objective, otherwise everything outside that scope and context becomes a potential tool of distraction, misdirection or obstruction.
That’s how the leftists operate.
The Article V convention chairman must be someone we trust, who will not allow shenanigans or coopting attempts.
I propose Mark Levin for chairman.
Are you sure that these protesters are demanding that change, can you get any info please. Thank-you!
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
It is my understanding that the provision is included for a Convention of States but has not actually ever been conducted. Amendments have been enacted via the Congressional Route.
I've read where about 400 Calls to Convention (applications) have been made but none had the same topic where the 34 necessary applications agreed. That by itself could be deemed a regulating process I guess, but it doesn't seem to me that the original scope would have to be tightly controlled once the states convene. There is no precedent to go on here.
To my mind a process which has never actually been exercised is an unknown.
SECOND it in regards to Mark Levin!
I don't know if this is the official page, but it is the leading one calling for an Article V convention.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
It is my understanding that the provision is included for a Convention of States but has not actually ever been conducted. Amendments have been enacted via the Congressional Route.
I've read where about 400 Calls to Convention (applications) have been made but none had the same topic where the 34 necessary applications agreed. That by itself could be deemed a regulating process I guess, but it doesn't seem to me that the original scope would have to be tightly controlled once the states convene. There is no precedent to go on here.
To my mind a process which has never actually been exercised is an unknown.
At the Constitutional Convention I think it was Franklin who said, "For God's sake, be careful who are those men."
My opposition to this convention is simple: where will you find 34 states where you can control "those men?" Let me take my state of OH. Kasich, DeWine, Taft (to some degree), Portman, Boehner et al absolutely control the state. Whether a vote of the legislature or a committee, they would never permit the repeal of the 17th. They MIGHT oppose a repeal of the 2nd, but would support a pro illegal alien measure or a climate change measure and would NOT keep such silly stuff from being introduced.
What about a convention? Who do you suppose structures HOW the convention is assembled/elected/structured?
No one has yet convinced me that even a few states---let alone 34---would structure the "state" response in a way beneficial to us.
Hello? We don’t need a convention because the laws we ALREADY have are not being followed.
Zero has a phone and a pen, remember?
Since nobody obeys our Constitution now, by what stroke of magic do you think all these other procedural steps would be followed; or the “new” constitution obeyed?
Article V was intended to be utilized by honest, honorable, pro-constitution people. I doubt whether 50% of those salivating for an Article V convention meet that criteria.
Just keep cool, elect Trump & Cruz, and let 16 years of following the REAL Constitution get us back on the track that worked well for two centuries.
There is no such thing as the “official” Article V page. There are a host of groups interested in an Article V Convention, COS, Convention of States, and ASL, Assembly of State Legislatures, and I contend this is not the way to restore the Constitution to it’s rightful place. Only the Sovereign States have the power to do so, and unfortunately there is no will, as long as Washington is holding the purse strings.
There would not be one encompassing amendment that says "The Constitution is repealed and replaced with this..."
Each change would be proposed as a standalone amendment, and the states must ratify each proposed amendment individually, not as a single "Article V" package.
-PJ
Exactly. This convention talk and sponsored efforts are all based on reading of Article V - one SENTENCE (a long one, but one nonetheless).
There are only requirements to convene, not conduct thereof save the final ‘approval’ by the required number of legislatures.
To my mind, there are several states which I would definitely not want to be in one: California and New York to name a couple. There’s no telling the untold havoc they could create.
You have a poor understanding of the Article V Convention of States.
Anything that is proposed by one state will go nowhere.
Once the Article V Convention proposes an amendment, the ratification process is identical to the ratification process for amendments proposed by Congress.
In order to believe that we could lose the Second Amendment, you have to believe that the most conservative thirteen states in the U.S. will vote to get rid of the Second Amendment.
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.