Tweet: "Some conservatives claim that a convention of states will "restore the Constitution to its former glory" and "defeat leftist tyranny ... "

twitter ^ | Jan 7 | Joseph Ford Cotto

[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.

[unclebankster]

“The 17th Amendment is hereby repealed.”

********************

Guess who owns your state legislature financially?(The same financial elements that own both the House & Senate nationally)

Guess who gets elected in a split state house legislature?

Can you say moderate Democrats & Republicans.

Nope, I prefer being able to vote against Senators Merkley & Wyden, instead of having the democrats in the State legislature ‘rubber stamp’ the process.(Not that it matters in Oregon politics)

[Jacquerie]

John Adams wasn’t a Framer.

You thoroughly misrepresented and reversed Madison in Federalist 55:

“Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.”

Nice try.

[Publius]

Active Article V thread.

[Jacquerie]

Prefer what you want.

The Framers’ federal system kept a lid on the wild ravings and leveling instincts of the popularly elected House.

The 17th Amendment pulled the keystone from the Framers’ Constitution. It is a miracle the US still exists.

[unclebankster]

As of January 7, 2023, there are 22 Republican trifectas, 16 Democratic trifectas, and 12 divided governments where neither party holds trifecta control. - Ballotpedia
*********************
So if we repealed the 17th Amendment we would start out with:

44 Republican Senators
32 Democrat Senators

24 Senators up in the air.

Hmmm....maybe getting rid of 17th Amendment might be a good idea.

[Jacquerie]

BTW, what exactly do you mean by “virtue?”

[unclebankster]

See my post #65

You might be on to something.

Thanks.

[StAnDeliver]

No, a "Convention of States" will fail. An Amendment campaign will never produce the desired result. What we need is a Constitutional Convention.

President Trump makes this his due course for 2024, calls a Constitutional Convention per Article V, promising to hold it anywhere but DC.

The purpose is simple -- to remove all references to '3/5ths' in the current Constitution.

But once unleashed, we subsume every useful Amendment into the New Constitution:

• 2A becomes an enumerated Constitutional right without reference to 'militia'
• 1A is bulwarked to include religious liberty
• Religious liberty itself is advanced past the weak tea of the Establishment Clause
• The Commerce Clause is specifically restrained in the New Constitution to end all of the unconstitutional stare decisis subterfuged by reference to same -- directly calling out Roberts patently-illegal 'save' of Bobocare as the "showcase" to be avoided going forward

Antifa protestors who attempt to surround the Convention in Dallas or Indy or whatever Heartland city (and note that it would be ultimately foresightful to tie this to the city likely to become the New Capitol after the Chinese erase DC), are arrested on the spot and gulag'd. Nothing shall come between the people and their New Constitution.

People who are raised on the fake idea of MSM supremacy have attempted to push back on this idea of a New Constitutional Convention based on their false assumptions; but given the correct pro forma and planning, New Constitutionalists would not only provide the course correction the United States desperately needs, but also perform their legitimate duties as a perimeter cordon to Conventioneers, and any incursions would be dealt with identically as a threat to CIC.

[Robert DeLong]

Good questions, BTW.

So, the U.S. has 50 states. Two thirds would require 17 states to start a convention of states.

Would only those states that start the COS be allowed to participate, or would it allow any the states that wish to participate even if they had remained silent when it came to the creation of the COS? Would all 50 states be required to participate?

Three quarters would have to ratify.

Now, is that three quarters of 50, or three quarters of those participating? It's not really clear, because Article V never addresses these questions, as you can see below.

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.

I still see it as a possible Pandora's box though. 🙂

[DesertRhino]

We would wind up with some nightmare like the Texas Constitution, 86936 words and 517 amendments (literally)

The US Constitution has 4543 words and 27 amendments.

Levin is an idiot on this. The problem is the sick culture. A constitutional convention as an end run around it will do nothing for us.

[Who is John Galt?]

How can simply proposing an amendment to the constitution "obliterate free speech and whatever remains of free assembly"?
The states would never ratify such a hideous thing.

Exactly! I've always been amazed by the number of paranoid conservatives who panic over 'leftists hijacking the convention' (and the number of such posts on this thread is mind-boggling). Apparently they are completely unaware of the Article V requirement that any proposed amendment (including amendments produced by a convention) must be ratified by 3/4 of the States, in order to become law! The lefties probably laugh themselves silly, every time they see the abject, pearl-clutching terror...

;>)

[Publius]

This is the usual boilerplate I append to these threads for those who don't understand the Article V process. I've had this information vetted by a professor of constitutional law.

***

THE ARTICLE V AMENDATORY PROCESS

The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps:

1. Proposal;
2. Direction;
3. 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 of each house.
• The amendments convention method requires the legislatures of two thirds of the states to pass resolutions directing Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments. These resolutions are called applications. 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, except that a convention is limited to proposing amendments specified in the application and there is no such limit on Congress.

Direction:

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 once: to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition. A similar procedure was used to ratify the Constitution itself.

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 fourths of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.

Forbidden Subjects:

Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and two implicitly forbidden subjects.

Explicitly forbidden:

1. No amendment may be added to the Constitution concerning the slave trade or direct taxes until 1808. We’re well past that deadline.
2. 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:

1. 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;” so the Constitution of 1787 is locked in place.
2. A convention for proposing amendments is limited to the topics authorized by state applications.

Reference work:

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

[Publius]

Current count:

For a Convention of the States dedicated to Georgia’s application language, which would re-balance citizens’ rights and state powers versus federal power, the count is 19 down, 15 to go.

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin

For a Convention of the States dedicated to a balanced budget amendment only, the count is 30 down, 4 to go.

[fr_freak]

Start here:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

John Adams

[DesertRhino]

“So you believe the Framers purposely left a hand grenade in their fabulous work to purposely blow it up?”

No, they provided for change for people similar to them to make if needed. For them, nothing had essentially changed since Roman times. Technology was only slightly better, the food was basically the same, etc. Nothing had ever traveled by land faster than a horse and it wasn’t obvious that it ever would. People in general were literate and religious.

The founders failing, so to speak, was that they simply could not conceive that the American people would have a militant atheist government, would be teaching their kids to chop off their penises, would slaughter babies, even born alive babies, and sell that body parts. That they would live under the most invasive domestic spying regimen in human history, and would incur more debt than in all of human history combined, would fete homosexuality, etc. It was just too much for them to safeguard against. And hell, HAD they known, they would have known such a depraved people could not be constrained by words on paper anyway.

It wasn’t a hand grenade for men even remotely like themselves or men likely to be imaginable.

[M_Continuum]

Yup

[conservative98]

Early on Mark opposed this process and was writing a book against it. Then he was like wait a minute, why am I against this? Then he reveresed course and wrote a book strongly in support of it. This was 9 years ago.

You have to really study it and understand the entire purpose. You wouldn’t have a “runaway convention” because it requires 3/4 of the states to propose an amendment and 3/4 of the legislatures to ratify. So, you wouldn’t have a runaway convention or anything like that as we have today: a runaway Congress, a runaway Supreme Court and a runaway bureaucracy and president.

Mark had a good segment on it at the end of yesterday’s show. If Congress turns oppressive, if the federal government is oppressive, what is recourse other than violence? We have to have a way for this to be addressed and the recourse was, the states would get together as they often did, as they did to give birth to the nation and propose these amendments and you still need three-fourths of them to approve them. Ultimately change is not going out of Washington. You should listen to it.

[Political Junkie Too]

The states get the choice as to how to ratify.

Congress chooses how to ratify each proposed amendment.

-PJ

[Jacquerie]

<>Levin is an idiot on this.<>

I won't type the response that first came to my mind.

He wrote a book about amending the Constitution via a COS.

Perhaps you've heard of it.

Levin’s amendments would divest the Washington DC Uniparty of its unconstitutionally assumed authority. If enacted, they would super-federalize our government, meaning enhanced participation of the states in lawmaking and supervision of our government:

Repeal the 17th Amendment. State legislatures may remove sitting senators by two-thirds vote.

Upon three-fifths vote in each house, congress may override a majority opinion of the scotus. Upon three-fifths vote of the state legislatures, the states may override a majority opinion of the scotus.

Proposed executive branch regulations would be subject to a joint congressional committee for review and approval. Enactment of the regulation requires committee approval within six months of submission. No enactment without committee approval.

Commercial activity subject to regulation by congress does not extend to activity within a state. This amendment would overturn the scotus 1942 Wickard v. Filburn.

Two-thirds of state legislatures may directly amend the constitution.

An amendment empowering the states to check congress. Three-fifths of the state legislatures may override a federal statute or executive branch regulation.

Mark Levin's Liberty Amendments.

[Who is John Galt?]

Thank you! There's been an amazing amount of nonsense posted on this thread, and perhaps your summary will help clarify the matter...

;^)