But I thought you meant "ABBA".
Sorry.
Posted on 04/02/2013 3:09:27 PM PDT by Publius
I submit that we are again at an extraordinary period, and a time when the states are very near total domination rather than independent and there is no effective national government. The unconstitutionally overreaching national government is bankrupt and is self-destructing before our very eyes.
This also applies to the current situation: “a revolutionary proceeding, and could be justified only by the circumstances which had brought the Union to the brink of dissolution.”
We are indeed nearing the brink of dissolution of the Union. The nation was last so divided just prior to the proceedings of 1861.
Interesting document. Are we to assume that you would support the notion of convening a constitutional convention? Although the old doc might be in need of some sprucing up, I imagine that convening a convention for that purpose in these bi-polar and hyper-political times would result in opening Pandora’s box.
In just about every way I can think of, honestly!
Do you think it would be a good idea for the American Bar Association to convene a Constitutional Convention? Does that sound like something that would be helpful?
The American Bar Association cannot convene an Amendments Convention. Only the states can call for such a convention by petitioning Congress. Please read Article V of the Constitution.
Do you wish to alert us to the fact that the Members of the "House of Delegates" of the ABA were thinking about such an undertaking, more than forty years ago?
Forty years ago, we came close to having an Amendments Convention over an attempt by the states to overturn the Supreme Court's "One Man/One Vote" decision. When all the gray areas were identified -- to include whether "One Man/One Vote" even applied to an Amendments Convention -- the ABA decided to research the issue and write a report that could be referenced by Congress in crafting legislation to standardize and regulate the process.
I posted this as a reference guide that could be used in addition to the Natelson paper at ALEC. The ABA and Natelson take different sides on certain issues, and it's helpful to read both sets of arguments.
Back in 1970, momentum was building for the passage of the ERA, or "Equal Rights Amendment" to the Constitution. I suspect that this analysis by the ABA had something to do with that effort, which (as you probably recall) sputtered on into the early '80s. Does the ERA dynamic have something to do with your thinking here?
The ERA had nothing whatsoever to do with it. That was an amendment proposed by Congress; therefore there was no need for a convention to address the issue. The ERA died a well deserved death in 1982.
Perhaps you just like to puzzle and mystify. That's fine, of course.
Did you see either of the two posts this weekend about the seminar on holding an Amendments Convention? If not, then I understand your mystification.
bookmark for later reading
No I did not see them.
Thanks for taking time to explain.
But I thought you meant "ABBA".
Sorry.
First, I prefer to use Judge Napolitano's term "Amendments Convention". The term "Article V Convention" would also be a better term.
Second, if the states request an Amendments Convention to address a specific topic, the convention is restricted to that topic by the Principle of Agency. The ABA Report goes into some detail on this. However, if the states request a general convention open to all possible amendment topics, then such an convention could be held.
When you get down to it, it's up to the states to define the purview of an Amendments Convention.
If I were going to start a drive to get the states to request an Amendments Convention, I would ask the states to petition Congress for a convention to repeal the 16th Amendment. There is absolutely no chance of any such amendment ever getting the two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, so the only way to get that amendment out there for the states to ratify would be to either have an Amendments Convention do it, or have the threat of such a convention place a gun to the head of Congress. When the rules of order are set for a convention, and when a convention does its business, proposes an amendment and goes home without doing damage to the Constitution, people (and the political parties) will see that there is a way for the states to propose amendments without Congress blocking them. Congress will become much more compliant after that.
Very long, very interesting read.
Jim, Thanks so much for the ping to this post. Appreciate it.
Publius, Thanks for this post. Very interesting read we have copied to file so we can pick away at it over time until we have a thorough understanding. (”We” being Mrs. RQSR, and myself.)
Appreciate your efforts.
Great research, Publius! ................................................................... FRegards
Excellent! This will come in handy if our cowardly RINOs in Congress do not soon Impeach Benghazi Coward B. Hussein Obama.
Wow! Kudos and thank you, dear Publius!
bttt
“No I did not see them.”
Here’s the first one:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3002421/posts
It would be up to the participants to make sure the scope of the convention remained limited to specific amendments.
This is why attendance by concerned citizens is important!
An earlier post - by moi - about and Article V conference at the Univ. of Central Florida late in April.
Thank you both.
Man, a lot of water has gone under the bridge since Walker v United States. Two years of editing that monster brief. Just to correct the record. It was Walker v Members of Congress that was denied cert. But not before the federal government admitted officially what the terms and conditions of a convention call were, that is what was accurate as to fact and law.
In sum:
(1) that under Article V of the United States Constitution, Congress is required to call an Article V Convention if two-thirds of the state legislatures apply for one;
(2) that the Article V Convention call is based on a numeric count of applying states;
(3) that all 50 states have submitted 567 applications for such a convention and therefore a convention call is now obligatory on Congress; [This number has since been revised. It now stands as 49 states, 748 applications]
(4) that an Article V Convention call is peremptory on Congress;
(5) that the political subject matter of an amendment application is irrelevant and does not effect Congress’ obligation to call an Article V Convention;
(6) that the refusal of the members of Congress to obey the law of the Constitution and immediately call a convention is a violation of their oath of office as well as a violation of federal criminal law and;
(7) that by joining a lawsuit to advocate in open public court they can ignore, veto, disobey or otherwise thwart a convention call, the members of Congress violated federal criminal law.
Anyway I’m to see all is well with you. I’ll simply mention this for those who want to read the actual applications of the states. You can read them at www.foavc.org
Everything I have been exposed to about a Constitutional Convention gives me pause...It could easily go against conservative virtues, dismiss original intents, and those are just a couple of concerns I have...
To sum it up, my opinion is to be careful what you wish for...
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.