Over 400 Applications – Where the Call to Convention?

ArticleVBlog ^ | February 23rd 2016 | Rodney Dodsworth

[Jacquerie]

Once congress receives applications from 2/3 of the states, it is duty bound to call a convention.

Over 400 applications have been submitted. Where is the call to convention?

Check out Federalist #85. Alexander Hamilton: By the fifth article of the Constitution, the congress will be obliged “on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the states to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall . . . ” The words of this article are peremptory. Congress SHALL call a convention. Nothing is left to the discretion of Congress. Consequently, all the arguments about the disinclination to change vanish.

In a January 2nd 1789 letter to George Eve (Madison Writings pages 428-429), James Madison wrote, "It is to be observed however that the question concerning a General Convention, will not belong to the federal Legislature. If 2/3 of the States apply for one, Congress can not refuse to call it: if not, the other mode of amendments must be pursued."

Oh.

[Jacquerie]

For Article V opponents, don't worry. Our existing Congress will never do its Article V duty. But don't forget that We the People did our duty when we reelected President Trump.

[Jacquerie]

Article V ping!

[Dutch Boy]

Sadly, I believe you are correct. If there was 50 state support, congress would just ignore it, the courts would agree with them and anyone that tried to complain would instantly become domestic terrorists and jailed. Look at how they ignore any rule they think is in the way.

[TrumpisRight]

Just plain “WOW”! That is indeed an interesting FACT.

[Jacquerie]

And the author of Federalist 85, Alexander Hamilton, is routinely trashed at Free Republic for supposed anti-republican, if not totalitarian views. Hamilton obviously supports the fundamental civil right of society: self-government.

[beancounter13]

Of course they WILL call a convention ... just as soon as SCOTUS rules that under the 14th Amendment every American is entitled to Equal Representation at said convention.

That means that the delegates to the convention will be even more politically diverse than the House of Representatives.

Since when has the House of Representatives concerned itself with state boundaries?

With a delegation so diverse, do you really believe states will even matter?

With all the different diversity, will it even become a question of Red vs. Blue?

Does anyone following the logic really think this is a good idea?

[Pez149]

It’s been a long time coming..
It’s time to reel in the federal government and regain control of our Nation.....

[Valpal1]

Do those 400 applications include applications from two thirds of the state legislatures?

[Robert A Cook PE]

And THAT, dear friend, is what I fear.

Not the “intent” of the Constitutional Convention, but the “actual effect” of the VOTES at the Constitutional Convention.

“They” repealed Prohibition, right?

So, what stops the socially democratic communists from repealing the 1st, 2 nd, and 10th Amendments?

[beancounter13]

More importantly, what is to stop them from ‘repealing’ the entire constitution and replacing it with something new?

That is, after all, EXACTLY what happened the last time a bunch of people got together to ‘fix’ the constitution in 1787.

We already know the liberals dislike the Electoral College, the Senate, the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments.

They will want to add some language that will allow them to levy a ‘Wealth Tax’ which is not currently constitutional since it is a non-proportional, direct tax that is not authorized by the 16th Amendment. This is the amendment that had to be ratified to allow for the Income Tax.

Then, I am sure they will want to ‘clean-up’ all that old racist language pertaining to The Southern Institution because it is not enough that it is no longer valid. They will want it cancelled completely.

Thus, ‘they’ will determine that we just need to start from scratch.

Please prove me wrong....

[Basket_of_Deplorables]

“what is to stop them from ‘repealing’ the entire constitution and replacing it with something new?”

Where in Article V do you see provision for that? Or anywhere else in the constitution???

Article V, U.S. Constitution
* * * * * * * * * *

Article V

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.

“Please prove me wrong....”

We do, time and again. But you either ignore it, or create a straw man and attack it.

You are flat out wrong on this.

[unread]

"what is to stop them from ‘repealing’ the entire constitution and replacing it with something new?"

Like what.? social communizem..??? (snort)

[beancounter13]

So you think that proves me wrong?

Where in the Articles of Confederation does it say that the Articles can be voided by a vote and ratification of a mere 9 states?

Hint: it doesn’t. In fact, it explicitly states that it cannot be replaced except by unanimous consent of all 13 states.

How did that get changed when Rhode Island was not even at the Convention?

Hint: at a convention dealing with the Constitution, Anything Goes.

[beancounter13]

Personally, I think the most likely outcome will be a European-style parliamentary system. No Senate; states would only be for administrative purposes.

The Presidency, if kept, would be ceremonial only. The real power would be held by the Prime Minister.

Wouldn’t it be fun to have Nancy Pelosi running everything?

[beancounter13]

To those who question why I believe a European-style Parliamentary System will be the final outcome of a convention, I leave the words of Thomas Jefferson:

I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries; as long as they are chiefly agricultural; and this will be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part of America. when they get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe.

[Nateman]

What do we have left to lose? The ballot box no longer counts actual votes. Congress has a bill RIGHT NOW that will nationalize the vote and keep them in power in perpetuity. Civil war will likely break out when they come for the guns. Once the RATs get 2/3's of Congress they can create amendments all day and won't have to depend on their lawless judges to doing the dirty work anymore. This is our last chance to avoid bloodshed.

For the Doomsayers out there here is a leftist webpage worried about what WE will do to THEM at a convention.

[Glad2bnuts]

400 requests, when there are 50 states? The article is misleading. There have not been 34 requests from as many legislatures filed.

[Glad2bnuts]

So we do nothing and we lose without an effort.

[unread]

"when they get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe.

An excellent quote, Thomas Jefferson was definitely a wise man.. But he didn't say we had to give up and give in to the Godless horde.. The founders gave us the means to correct the problem they seem to have known would happen..

We can do this the easy way, or the hard way.. We have nearly everything necessary to fix it. And we are both legally and morally within our rights to do so.. The only thing lacking is something the founders had that we don't. The stones... :(

[beancounter13]

Perhaps the founders devised a way for us to fix the issues. However, I think we have entirely different perspectives on how a COS would actually evolve.

The founders did not give us the 14th Amendment which makes all of us ‘subject to’ the jurisdiction of the federal government. The founders did not give us a Supreme Court of unelected persons who would be allowed to overrule anything and everything that they do not like.

States rights went away over 150 years ago. We fought a war over that, and states rights lost. The only way states rights can return is by fighting another war.

Everyone screaming about Article V seems to think that each state would attend, each state would be given a set number of votes, and each state would then get to ratify the outcome of the convention. I have already pointed out that the SCOTUS would get involved, demand that each state be represented by the number of delegates balanced according to their respective populations and balanced by demographic group within those populations. If anything, SCOTUS might demand a heavier weighting for the younger age groups since they represent ‘the future’.

Article V proponents are engaged in wishful thinking, and I do not believe in fairy tales.