[SgtBob]

Yesterday, while lurking the FReepdom, I came upon a thread titled "34 States Call for a Constitutional Convention", authored by some bimbo from Newmax.

The article she wrote bore nothing in common to the title, but the some in the FReepdom were spinnin' like a bunch of whirligigs. They seemed to not know, or not care, of the difference between a Constitutional Convention, and an Article V Convention of the States.

Now, I ain't the sharpest spoon in the drawer, so somebody sharpen me up, where needed.

An Article V Convention of the States is a way for the People to circumvent the wrongs thrust upon us by the Centralized Government.

The only role Congress is allowed is administrative. The State Legislators send Delegates to act as proxy for the People of the individual States.

All Amendments must pass with 3/4 majority. That way commonsense might prevail....the left-wing nut jobs can't pass the "Eat Yer Own Garbage to Prevent Landfill Expansion" Amendment.

If I'm way off base, let me know...it might help other FReeper know the difference between a Constitutional Convention, and an Article V Convention of the States.

Flame on....Grammar Nazis, too.

[Billthedrill]

A pingy-dingy...

[exnavy]

Sounds like you got’er figured out sarge.

[rarestia]

Article V convention has a specific, stated purpose. No other agenda is permitted except that which is proposed for the A5C.

A ConCon can become a free-for-all, from what I’ve heard, where Lefties can poison otherwise Constitutionally conservative amendments and vice-versa.

This is all based on years of reading on both FR and other print sources, but I believe this is a sound summation.

[BenLurkin]

Make the Tenth Amendment the FIRST.

[Publius]

My usual boilerplate... ---

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 petition 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. So if California wants five senators, every state must have five senators. To permit this principle to be violated, this provision in Article V would first have to be amended; it would be a two-step process.

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

[Billthedrill]

I think, to stall for time while the heavies show up, that the major concern, even of people who do know something about it, is that an Article V Convention could take on a dimension that incorporates features far outside its designed scope. Whether that is actually possible is an item of considerable controversy.

We have to recall what happened to the convention that was supposed only to amend the Articles of Confederation. Mason fled in disgust when he realized what those lunatics Hamilton and Madison actually had in mind... ;-)

[ronnyquest]

We DO NOT need a constitutional convention! That is a sure-fire way to lose what little we have. We need to abide by and enforce what we have. It works.

[Repeal The 17th]

For those who say:
"... this is dangerous ..."
"... this is a terrible idea ..."
"... liberal States might send extremists as delegates ..."
"... other important things might be changed ..."
"... they will attack the Bill of Rights ..."
"... the right to free speech or right to bear arms could be taken away ..."
"... they might try to re-write the entire Constitution ..."
-
An Article V Convention of States has no authority to re-write or even to amend the Constitution.
-
An Article V Convention of States is simply a formal gathering of delegates from
at least 34 states (two-thirds), to discuss, debate, and "propose amendments" to the Constitution.
-
The State resolutions currently circulating call for an Article V Convention of States using the same language.
"...for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution which:
- Impose fiscal restraints on the Federal Government;
- Limit the power and jurisdiction of the Federal Government; and
- Limit the terms of office for federal officials and members of Congress."
-
When/if the two-thirds threshold is met, each State would send delegates to gather in the convention.
The delegates would be selected by the various State legislatures.
The delegates would discuss, debate, and "propose amendments" to the Constitution.
The convention would operate on a one State = one vote system; with each State carrying the same weight.
-
Any proposal not within the stated purpose of the Convention of States
(fiscal restraints; limits on power and jurisdiction; limits on terms of office)
would be unauthorized, rejected, and not approved by the Convention of States.
-
Any proposal that emerged as a "proposed amendment" by the Convention of States
would require ratification by 38 states (three-fourths), the same as with any other proposed amendment.
-
An Article V Convention of States has no authority to re-write or even to amend the Constitution.
-
Read more at: http://www.conventionofstates.com
-

[Genoa]

The between/and construction doesn’t require a comma.

[Gay State Conservative]

It's far too late for a Constitutional Convention.It's time for secession.They can have Detroit and Oakland...we'll take Charlotte and Omaha.They can make Mexico one of their states and we'll kick every illegal Mexican (and every other illegal) out.They can recognize 12 different “genders”,we'll recognize two...which are determined,by the Creator,at birth.

[Siegfried X]

This could lead to massive spending, budgets deficits many times larger than now. The amendment could read something like:

The Federal government shall provide to the states all the money which they request.

The states would have a magical money machine. Just have the Feds print more money.

[Repeal 16-17]

Along with the fact that an Article V Convention is for proposing amendments, while a constitutional convention is for proposing a new constitution, another thing to keep in mind is that anything an Article V Convention would propose would then be submitted to the States for ratification. The Convention would have the same authority for proposing amendments as does the Congress.

If the Convention proposed anything the States disliked, then the States could reject the proposed amendment and so the proposal would not become part of the Constitution. The last two amendments proposed by the Congress (Equal Rights Amendment and District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment) were rejected by the States, so the States are certainly not rubber stamps regarding proposed amendments.

Finally, there's no way the Convention would be able to impose amendments or a new constitution. Any such attempt would be viewed as illegitimate and would destroy the Convention's credibility. Any thought that the federal government, the States, or the People would acquiesce in such an act is laughable.

[TomGuy]

Many comments in this related thread:

Sarah Palin: Elect Candidates who Support “Convention of States”

[mabarker1]

Yer plenty sharp Sarge, now back in yer scabbard afer Ya poke out your eye;)

[Sasparilla]

Con Con? No thanks.

[GraceG]

Well the congress critters could actually get together and propose an amendment to nullify the states being able to propose amendments.....

Heck they just might if not enough of the states get serious about an article V convention to propose NEW amendments to take their power back from FedGov...

[Amendment10]

There's basically two stages with all new constitutional amendments; corrections welcome. The first stage produces a proposed amendment. Either Congress can propose an amendment, or a convention of the states can propose an amendment.

Once a proposed amendment is drafted then it is up to the 3/4 Article V state majority to either ratify it or ignore the proposed amendment. And if the states choose to ignore the proposed amendment then the drafting stage, either with Congress or the convention of states, was a waste of time imo.

Note that regardless of the signatures of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention on the final draft of the Constituiton, the delegates still had to go back to their states to sell the new Constitution. So even with the original Constitution, the states could have chosen to ignore it instead of ratifying it.

United States Constitution

[Nuc 1.1]

Looks good to me and yer gram mer ain’t tooo bad neither.