Posted on 01/07/2023 2:11:16 PM PST by RandFan
@JosephFordCotto
Some conservatives claim that a convention of states will "restore the Constitution to its former glory" and "defeat leftist tyranny." In reality, if there were any such convention, leftists would commandeer it, obliterating free speech and whatever remains of free assembly.
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
What happens after the fighting is over?
Adams was a president, a founder and one of the framers of the Declaration and the writer of the Massachusetts State Constitution.
I didn’t “thoroughly misrepresent and reverse Madison in Federalist 55”. What I typed conveys the same meaning as what you typed.
<>If “Free government is beyond the reach of elections” today, then there is no way we could have a free, open, and HONEST Convention of the States.<>
No so.
Elections are popularly based. The 17A ruined the Senate, Congress and Scotus.
Delegates to a COS are appointed by state legislatures and limited in their authority.
An Article V COS, as the Electoral College, is one of the two remaining federal institutions. The Framers purposely set their system up this way.
when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof
As I read that it takes 2/3 of the Congress, or 2/3, (34) of the state legislatures to convene a COS to vote on a Constitutional Amendment.
It becomes ratified and becomes an amendment when 3/4 of the states agree to the amendment. So I take that to mean 38 state legislatures have to agree to the amendment in both avenues available.
Thus 34 to convene COS, but 38 state legislatures to pass, for the amendment to become a part of the Constitution.
Doesn’t matter if nothings done.
Yes.
Hint: The original mandate of the convention of states was not to write a new Constitution.
Of course.
Runaway conventions are a thing. There was a runaway convention in 1787, but you can't be guaranteed that a runaway convention will act in the public interest like it did in 1787.
And what you apparently forget, is that the proposed Constitution produced by that convention was not imposed on the States. As Article VII notes, the proposed Constitution was established only between those States electing to ratify it, and did not become effective until it was ratified by nine of the 13 States. States that did not ratify were not subject to the new Constitution; Rhode Island existed as an independent State for almost two years after the new compact was initially established between the first nine States to ratify. And three States (New York, Rhode Island and Virginia) reserved the right to secede, in writing, when they eventually did ratify the agreement.
It is worth noting that, because the existing Articles of Confederation actually required unanimous agreement of the States to amend that compact, the establishment of the new Constitution between the first nine States to ratify amounted to the secession of those States from the union formed under the Articles of Confederation. If such an event were to occur today, many conservatives might view it as an immense blessing...
;>)
“limited in their authority”
The Constitution is, of course, limited in its authority. But it is trampled every single day by the Uniparty. I don’t think ANYTHING in government is limited by anything. It has completely slipped the leashes and bounds of control. I am convinced that delegates to a COS would not abide by their directives from their states. That is precisely what happened when delegates met to revise the Articles of Confederation. They had no authority to throw away the Articles and start anew.
Why bother then? If you think our system is that fragile then fight or leave.
We are in Ochlocracy now and it’s far too late.
It’s time for Ceasar.
Actions outside of commissions are void.
They had no authority to throw away the Articles and start anew - and the Constitution they proposed was in no way binding on any State that did not specifically accede to it. If it had not been ratified by at least nine States, the Constitution would have been nothing but a scrap of paper; and any State that did not ratify was not subject to its terms.
From what would the product of a modern convention derive its legitimate legal authority? If it complied with Article V requirements (ratification by 3/4 of the States), such authority could be traced back through the Constitution, to the sovereign people of the States. If the product of a modern convention ignored the requirements of the Constitution, it could obtain legitimacy and authority only by the approval of the people, acting in their States. A convention in and of itself lacks any legitimate power or legal authority to impose its will on the States.
;^)
Caesar, or Sulla, would be catching a break.
Much more likely Pinochet, or you-know-who.
Had a good look at your State Legislature lately?
Yeah, ok. I guess we’re done. Have a good one.
Will the membership of the State delegations be apportioned by population?
<>Had a good look at your State Legislature lately?<>
Yeah.
Per Governor DeSantis, Florida is where woke goes to die.
<>Will the membership of the State delegations be apportioned by population?<>
Good question.
Each state gets one vote.
It’s been 3/4s of all the states for all the other amendments, so the precedent been set!
9/13 (3/4s) did it originally. Rhode Island didn’t even send delegates to the Constitutional Convention. New Hampshire was so slow in selecting and sending a delegate he didn’t show up until it was almost over.
All eventually signed!
You’re right I remembered that wrong.
And if such a set of ‘amendments or amendment’ are proposed that created create a ‘new constitution’ the states still have to ratify it. So, you think 38 states will betray the current Constitution?
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.