Coburn: Convention of States Needed Because Washington Will Never Fix Itself

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. The states may request a single-subject convention or a general convention open to all subjects. 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 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. To permit the drafting of a new constitution, this provision in Article V would first have to be repealed; it would be a two-step process.

I have two reference works for those interested.

The first is from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative pro-business group. This document has been sent to every state legislator in the country.

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

The second is a 1973 report from the American Bar Association attempting to identify gray areas in the amendatory process to include an Amendments Convention. It represents the view of the ruling class of 40 years ago. While I dislike some of their conclusions, they have laid out the precedents that may justify those conclusions. What I respect is the comprehensive job they did in locating all the gray areas. They went so far as to identify a gray area that didn't pop up until the Equal Rights Amendment crashed and burned a decade later. Even if you find yourself in disagreement with their vision, it's worth reading to see the view of the ruling class toward the process.

Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee

41 posted on 03/06/2015 8:41:35 AM PST by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)

Will an A 5 convention reverse Amnesty, Obamacare, Common Core or even Gay Marriage or is it just a diversion to keep us from forming a third political party?????

An A5 Convention will circumvent the need for another party by limiting the scope of federal power.

If it did nothing but strictly redefine the Commerce Clause, it would be worth the effort.

42 posted on 03/06/2015 8:41:53 AM PST by papertyger (I didn't leave my party: my party betrayed me.)

I'm unclear about what the plans are for this convention. All I've been hearing is Convention without any fundamentals of which actions are to be taken to reign in the Feds.

See "http://www.conventionofstates.com" for answers.

43 posted on 03/06/2015 8:50:35 AM PST by papertyger (I didn't leave my party: my party betrayed me.)

To: Jim Robinson

I’m in.

Glad you're in full support of this Jim. As I see it, it's our last shot at peaceful resolution of the crisis we're in.

As Jacquerie says, Article V,if not now, when?

44 posted on 03/06/2015 9:50:57 AM PST by Art in Idaho (Conservatism is the only Hope for Western Civilization.)

Bears repeating:

The states will bind their delegates with detailed commissions which define and limit their authority. Delegates (not representatives) from the states will be serious men and women who will know the gravity of their task, and they will rise to the occasion. There is no higher honor among statesmen than that of lawgiver.

They will be in convention to reform government, which is composed of the formal institutions and procedures that constitute the framework of legal authority. That means the structure of the government must restored to one of federalism, and I think the delegates will do just that.

Oh, and since Obama is a full-fledged tyrant, there is absolutely nothing to lose. We The People have a God and Constitutionally given right to frame our government. History will not look well upon an enslaved people who had the right power to restore freedom and did nothing about it.

Well said Jacquerie. The actual strict mechanics and procedures of the convention itself are key to its success. If the mandate is to allow only the proposal of amendments to the constitution, absolutely nothing else, I don't see how it can go 'out of control' as some fear. If any state delegate veers from that, they will be in trouble with their respective state, and, as I understand it, maybe even subject to fines or criminal charges. Great care and planning will be needed to set up the convention beforehand with very narrow limited goals, that to propose singular constitutional amendments. Period. Term limits would be a good start and a good 'test' case to see if it can be ratified by 38 states and become part of the US Constitution.

45 posted on 03/06/2015 10:27:54 AM PST by Art in Idaho (Conservatism is the only Hope for Western Civilization.)

[Two dozen other states are also considering that option.] I wonder which ones?

30 states have either passed or filed Convention of States applications!