Posted on 02/21/2021 1:09:03 PM PST by RandFan
Mark Meckler, the new interim CEO of Parler, currently supports a Convention of States that could give George Soros and other interests the power to rewrite the Constitution. Meckler, who was appointed as interim CEO of Parler following the removal of founder John Matze, currently runs the Convention of States Project, a supposed “grassroots” organization pushing for a convention under Article V of the Constitution.
The project describes itself as a “national effort to call a convention under Article V of the United States Constitution, restricted to proposing amendments that will impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit its power and jurisdiction, and impose term limits on its officials and members of Congress,” which initially sounds appealing.
However, a report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities argued that such a restriction on an Article V convention would be impossible, with states unable to control what a convention could and could not discuss, and nobody else having clear constitutional control over the convention.
Former Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote in 1988 that “there is no way to effectively limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda.”
Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia echoed this sentiment in 2014. “I certainly would not want a constitutional convention,” said Scalia. “Whoa! Who knows what would come out of it?”
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalfile.com ...
A convention of states is very different than a Constitutional Convention.
The states are overwhelmingly Conservative.
Please catch up on the thread, read post #173, and tell me again what hope COS will provide.
I will only support a COS that will only convene to dissolve the federation. And then, only to prevent the bloodshed that would occur at a result of any secessionist movement.
“A constitutional convention could turn into a nightmare”
Agreed. But that is not what this is. Convention Of States is NOT a “constitutional convention.” Not even close.
We have people here spouting nonsense.
Great! So how did ‘approval of all the legislatures’ get twisted into ‘9 of 13’ is good to replace?
“...but what if they lower the threshold again? Say, only 10 states need to ratify, or say once approved by states representing 50% of the total population?”
Can’t happen. That would require (at least) an amendment ratified by 38 states. You tell me which states would go for that.
Who says you need 38 states when delegates can change ‘approval of all the legislatures’ to merely ‘9 of 13’?
I can’t, but that doesn’t mean I will willingly accept a COS when anything can come out of that.
“I don’t read every article but I know enough to not make ignorant posts on those I don’t read”
Perhaps you might want to count the number of posts that presented similar posts to mine. I guess your calling them ignorant as well? Or perhaps you just have a habit yourself of making ignorant comments? Have a great night!
“This is just someone’s silly opinions, lies, and distortion of the facts.”
Yes. And the FR Retard Patrol echo chamber. The article is pure nonsense. Just read the 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.”
That’s it, all of it. Someone tell me how Soros could hijack that. I’ll wait.
And Parler is excellent.
I am not willing to take that chance.
Politicians have already proven their infidelity on being able to keep to keep to written guidance.
“Who says you need 38 states when delegates can change ‘approval of all the legislatures’ to merely ‘9 of 13’?”
Have you read Article 5?
“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.”
3/ is 38 states. That ain’t hard. I have no idea to what you are referring. Care to explain?
“I will only support a COS that will only convene to dissolve the federation. And then, only to prevent the bloodshed that would occur at a result of any secessionist movement.”
Umm... can’t happen. Here is Article 5:
“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.”
The ONLY thing that can come out of a COS are proposed amendments that still must be ratified by 38(!) states. Nothing else. Perhaps you are confusing COS with Constitutional Convention, which is NOT being proposed?
What amendments would pass?
Term Limits.
What would prevent a Convention of States from deciding that they need a new constitution? Some piece of paper that says this is their only agenda?
Why would the delegates think they have to have ratification from 38 states?
Who will stop them from implementing a Parlimentary Government if they chose to create one?
You?
Me?
We would be run under the tank treads so fast we wouldn’t know what to do.
I have read many accounts of the Constitutional convention, The Articles of Confederation, the Federalist Papers, Max Farrand etc.; and I don't recall any major disagreements amongst the founders as to the inclusion of Art V.
I have also read accounts on Justice Scalia's turn- around on "constitutional conventions". He opposed them when he felt the time was wrong politically. Well, I believe we have now entered another time in which court packing, ending filibusters, election fraud etc. may call for strong measures.
Post script: To what or to whom did the "duh" in your post refer?
Votes would be by state.
Conservatives control 60% of the states.
The states agreed to nine.
My ‘duh’ reference was to liberals thought process for removing 2A.
Since you have read so much: how did the Framers decide that they could ratify the new constitution with only 9 states when the then-current constitution (i.e. The Articles) specifically stated that changes had to be approved by ‘all the states’?
Thank you so much! I really didn’t know that.
With these crazy times, anything is possible.
We just have to get Dementia Joe out. And one wonders what Kamala has been doing.
Nancy Pelosi is way past her “sell by” date.
Trump or nothing, IMO.
There is no way that the majority of states will go along with this.
All 13 states agreed? How did all 13 states agree when Rhode Island did not have any delegates at the convention?
How did all 13 states agree when Rhode Island didn’t ratify the constitution until 1790?
The Articles required all states to approve....
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.