Congress Nears 34 Article V Convention Count

nolanchart.com ^ | 8/22/16 | Bill Walker

[cotton1706]

It’s real simple. For months the House Judiciary Committee has been gathering what amounts to an official list of applying states for an Article V Convention call. As of August 20, 2016, the committee’s official list shows 29 applying states. As we explain elsewhere so-called rescissions do not count as no provision in the Constitution allows states to rescind applications. Further, federal law prohibits removal of federal records by federal officials. Therefore the committee has already collected sufficient applications to cause a convention call. Indeed the full public record of state applications shows the states have submitted sufficient applications to cause TEN convention calls. Based on the total number of applications in the public record and fact the committee posts approximately 12 new applications about once a month, the magic “34” applications, or two thirds of the state legislatures needed to cause Congress to call a convention should be reached in two to four weeks regardless whether so-called “recessions” are counted or not.

For example, the public record shows that in 1979 seven states (Colorado, Maryland, New Mexico, North Carolina, Indiana, Washington and Iowa) submitted applications for an Article V Convention.

I would like to thank ArticleV.org for providing us this map of the current applications collected by the committee. The map will be updated on the FOAVC website (http://www.foavc.org) as the House committee posts new applications.

[cotton1706]

http://clerk.house.gov/legislative/memorials.aspx

[cotton1706]

ping

[Celerity]

They destroyed the current one they swore to uphold. Why not make another one that fits their needs ?

Before I support an Article V I need to see them at least attempt to read the current one.

[Publius]

Legal counsel for the Office of the Speaker of the House, in consultation with the Office of the Archivist of the United States, have agreed that the recission of state applications for a Convention of the States is in fact legal. As a result, there are 29 applications on the record for a convention to address a balanced budget amendment.

There are 8 applications on the record, using Georgia's language, for a Convention of the States to address a rebalancing of powers between the states and the federal government.

That's where it stands right now.

[PROCON]

Bump!

[Publius]

I’m not going to ping the group because this article is so full of misinformation. Jacquerie may ping if he wishes.

[thinden]

Careful what you wish for.

At this time in this country, a constitutional convention will merely internalize all the “progressive” socialist/communist/globalist agenda that these recent pols have been advocating.

Potus & congress have been pushing the final reform for decades now.

They want one world rule & l feel b hussain obammy has his sites set on sec gen of un.

We have one chance this november to change this course.

Make it count by voting for TRUMP

[Swirl]

Absolutely not advisable. Kind of like we need more gun control laws!

[Georgia Girl 2]

A really bad idea.

[ak267]

difference between article V and con-con???

[Nailbiter]

be careful what you wish, they are incapable of following current laws why would they follow any new ones

[Publius]

This is the usual boilerplate that I post to these threads. If the links haven't expired, they should explain the Article V process.

***

The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps: Proposal, Disposal, and Ratification.

Proposal:

There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.

• The Congressional Method requires the House and Senate to pass an amendment by a two-thirds majority.
• The Amendments Convention Method requires the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to apply to Congress to call a Convention for Proposing Amendments. Once the two-thirds threshold is reached, Congress is required to set a time and place for the convention.

Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.

Disposal:

Once Congress, or an Amendments Convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:

• State Legislature Method, or the
• State Ratifying Convention Method.

The State Ratifying Convention Method has only been used twice: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.

Ratification:

Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three-quarters of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.

Forbidden Subjects:

Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and one implicitly forbidden subject.

Explicitly forbidden:

• No amendment may be added to the Constitution concerning slavery or capitation taxes until 1808. We’re well past that deadline.
• No amendment may be added to the Constitution to change the principle of equal representation in the Senate unless every state deprived of that right approves. If California wants five senators, every state must have five senators. To permit violation of this principle, every state would have to ratify the amendment, not just three-fourths.

Implicitly forbidden:

• The Constitution of 1787 may not be abrogated and replaced with a new document. Article V only authorizes “a convention for proposing amendments to this Constitution;” therefore, the Constitution of 1787 is locked in place forever. Congress and an Amendments Convention have exactly the same Proposal power; therefore, neither Congress nor an Amendments Convention can start over. Both bodies can only propose amendments.

Reference works:

Frequently Asked Questions About a Convention of the States

Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers

State Initiation of Constitutional Amendments: A Guide for Lawyers and Legislative Drafters

[MarchonDC09122009]

No need for you to read any big bills before passage.
Senator Pelosi advises we pass a bill in order to read it.

I don’t trust any US or state legislator to touch the US Constitution!

RE: “They destroyed the current one they swore to uphold. Why not make another one that fits their needs ?

Before I support an Article V I need to see them at least attempt to read the current one.”

[Pearls Before Swine]

Kind of like we need more gun control laws!

Only common sense ones. /S

[MattinNJ]

10 years too late.

[Amendment10]

Not only do the 16th and 17th Amendments need to disappear, but the states need to consider including expiration dates on constitutional delegations of power to the feds, the states able to renew such powers if necessary.

Fortunately, some of the earliest unconstitutional laws, the ones that created a national bank for example, had time limits on them.

Also, the following excerpt where a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices clarified limits on Congress’s power to appropriate taxes needs to be amended to the Constitution.

“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

Also, arguably one of the biggest flaws in the Constitution imo, giving the Senate the power to confirm justices, needs to be repealed imo, such power given uniquely to the state legislatures.

The 22nd Amendment also needs to be reconsidered because corrupt Congress lets likewise corrupt, last-term presidents get away with doing all kinds of unconstitutonal things.

Also, immigrants need to constitutionally required to acknowledge the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers and associated limited power to appropriate taxes before they can become citizens. In fact, all citizens need to acknowledge these limited powers before being allowed to vote.

Patriots can amend the Constitution to establish term limits for federal office if they want to. But if patriots used their voting muscle to “force” the corrupt feds to surrender 10th Amendment-protected state powers and state revenues that the corrupt feds have stolen from the states back to the states, then the states are probably going to have problems finding people to serve as federal lawmakers anyway imo.

Since the plurality of Congress’s constitutional powers deal with military and defense, electing retired military personnel who still want to serve the country as federal lawmakers and executives would be a good way to honor such people imo.

Also, since Congress cannot be trusted to do the job, state lawmakers need to give themselves the power to the same power to impeach and remove bad apples from the federal government that Congress now has. This should include state lawmakers in 3/4 of the states to remove federal lawmakers from other states.

[Hostage]

> “Before I support an Article V I need to see them at least attempt to read the current one.”

There will never be such an attempt because the States lost their power before the federal government with the passage of the 17th Amendment.

The amendments to be proposed should be written to tilt to restoring the balance of power between the States and the federal government.

Here are illustrations:

************************************************
AMENDMENT XXVIII (State Sufferage)

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:
The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

************************************************

************************************************
AMENDMENT XXIX (Check Federal Government by ‘Thirty-State Quash Authority’)

To redress the balance of powers between the federal government and the States, the following amendment is proposed:

************************************************
Section 1.
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 in any state, territory, or possession of the United States.

Section 2.
State legislatures in agreement with results derived from Section 1 of this amendment shall sign a state quash authority directive delineating the specific federal statutes, federal court decisions or federal executive directives affected, said directive addressed and delivered to the Congress of the United States becoming immediately effective as of the date of delivery.
************************************************

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3423235/posts?page=949#949

Note that these illustrations are written SO THAT THE STATES ARE GIVEN RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY. Amendments should be written so that it is clear that the federal government has no mandate regarding the interpretation or selective enforcement or non-enforcement of these types of amendments.

For example, the flawed 10th Amendment leaves all powers not enumerated in the US Constitution to the States or to the People. However, there is no mechanism left to the states to check the federal government with the 10th Amendment save for the appointment of US Senators by state legislatures which was abolished under the 17th Amendment. As it is, the 10th Amendment jurisdiction is left to the federal judiciary without any voice or role for the States. The result of these compounded flaws has yielded a highly centralized federal government whereby power is attained by an enormous federal government and funded by the Federal Reserve.

[Repeal 16-17]

As we explain elsewhere so-called rescissions do not count as no provision in the Constitution allows states to rescind applications.

Why shouldn't a State being able to rescind a ratification or an application? If a proposed amendment has yet to receive ratifications from three-fourths of the States, a State should be able to rescind its ratification thereof. Less than two-thirds of the States have applied for an Article V Convention, so rescission should be allowed.

As for silence on this matter, see the 10th Amendment.

[Crucial]

Crafting just laws is an absolute necessity. Electing people to uphold those laws is also an absolute necessity.