[Publius]

This document has been posted as a reference for FReepers.

Along with this document, there is another document from the American Legislative Exchange Council, written by Robert Natelson, titled Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers. This document may be downloaded from the ALEC website in PDF format.

The Natelson document is by my estimation about 90% correct. In the endnotes for Natelson’s document, I found no mention of the ABA Report, and I suspect that is the source of the 10% that I believe he got wrong.

For those who wish to argue about the purview of an Amendments Convention – I credit Judge Andrew Napolitano for setting me straight on nomenclature – both documents are critical for forming an argument.

[Publius]

Ping. Posted for FReeper reference.

[Steely Tom]

The document you posted is 12,930 words in length.

I don’t suppose there’s any chance you could bottom-line it for us, is there?

[Jim Robinson]

Great work! Thank you very much!!

[Jacquerie]

A most excellent post.

[kitchen]

Thanks! This will be distributed to all my lists.

[I_be_tc]

later

[longtermmemmory]

THe ABA is a VOLUNTARY advocacy/lobbying group.

No judge should be allowed to be a member of the ABA.

most lawyers are NOT members.

[The Cajun]

Bookmark.

[dynachrome]

Long article related to your novel with the “con-con” story.

[EdReform]

Bookmark

[RedMDer]

Bookmark

[MWestMom]

Thank you.

[Jim Robinson]

"While the Constitutional Convention of 1787 may have exceeded the purpose of its call in framing the Constitution, it does not follow that a convention convened under Article V and subject to the Constitution can lawfully assume such authority. In the first place, the Convention of 1787 took place during an extraordinary period and at a time when the states were independent and there was no effective national government. Thomas Cooley described it as “a revolutionary proceeding, and could be justified only by the circumstances which had brought the Union to the brink of dissolution.” Moreover, the Convention of 1787 did not ignore Congress. The draft Constitution was submitted to Congress, consented to by Congress, and transmitted by Congress to the states for ratification by popularly-elected conventions."

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.

[newheart]

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.

[jaz.357]

Darn, That was a long read.

But I thought you meant "ABBA".

Sorry.

[Graewoulf]

Excellent! This will come in handy if our cowardly RINOs in Congress do not soon Impeach Benghazi Coward B. Hussein Obama.

[stevie_d_64]

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...

[Macbeth]

After reading this excerpt from the ABA Report I realized Publius overlooked many parts of the ABA Report. Most likely he could not reproduce them in the Freeper format as they contain graphs, footnotes and so forth. So, I am now posting the ENTIRE report taken from the original Walker v United States brief which is where Publius got his copy.

Because there is a rebuttal to the report which was also in the brief, I am also including that for all to read. The bottom line here is this: The ABA report advocates “same subject” with Congress in full control of the process meaning it decides whether a convention is held at all and it determines agenda, voting and so forth.

The problem is there are many flaws in the ABA report which I pointed out. The most glaring is the report repudiates itself. The graphs I refer to show BY THE ABA’S OWN RESEARCH THAT AS OF 1971 THE STATES HAD SUBMITTED ENOUGH APPLICATIONS ON AT LEAST TWO AMENDMENT SUBJECTS TO CAUSE CONGRESS TO CALL A CONVENTION.

Therefore even under this bogus standard, Congress has been required to call for decades. The report then attempts to weazel out of this by saying the report is an “overview” and that Congress has the final determination. Now either Congress has to call or it doesn’t based on this “idea.” The difference now is the actual applications can now be read at www.foavc.org. So, look for yourself, read the applications and decide. By the way the numbers have done nothing but increase. If you believe same subject fine. The states have satisfied it. If you hold numeric count. Fine. The states have long satisfied it.

Point is: No call.

I’m also including, as there are a few footnotes linking to it a link to the entire brief in case anyone wishes to read the references footnotes.

The links are:

www.foavc.org/reference/ABAReport.pdf

www.foavc.org/reference/OverlengthBrief.pdf