But the basic premise of your response to that thread earlier today is fallacious. So first, I’d like you to read this entire thread, including responses, paying particular attention to Congressman Billybob’s explications of critical points of law. I had John (Billybob) vet this essay because I wanted to be sure I stated everything correctly.
Then I want you to take some time for a beer, promise to never use the term “constitutional convention” again and think about rewriting some of your books.
(Pause for a beer.)
This whole thing is about the fact that around 25 years ago some states asked for a Convention for Proposing Amendments (shorthand = “Article V Convention”) to address the issue of a constitutional amendment that would require a balanced budget. This effort stalled at 32 states, but it appears that we may be close to a 34th state requesting an Article V Convention. For the sake of argument, let’s say that a 34th state finally requests such a convention.
After a lot of grumbling, Congress sets the time and place of the Article V Convention, perhaps “three months hence at the Corn Palace in Mitchell, South Dakota”. Following that, all 50 states hold special elections for the position of Convention Delegate. Each congressional district elects one delegate, and each state elects two delegates at large. In all, there are 535 delegates.
Here in the 1st District of Washington, I file. My district is ultra-liberal, so with 50 liberals filing and with me as the sole conservative, I manage to win a trip to Mitchell. (My impassioned 60 second speech at the so-called “debate” made me a “lock”.)
There being no room at the local hotels, I board with a farm family. Getting up at 4 AM every day to help slop the cows and milk the chickens -– you can see I never set foot on a farm –- I finish with my chores and drive into Mitchell.
At the first session, Vice President Biden chairs the convention until we elect a retired state appeals court judge from Alabama as Convention President. We set up our rules of order and start earning our pay.
In the midst of amendment proposals to address a balanced budget, a delegate from Illinois introduces a whole variety of amendment proposals extraneous to the mandate of the convention. In an impassioned speech he states that President Obama wants a general revision of the Constitution “to reflect modern America” and that it is “our solemn duty to address any and all issues brought forward.” The committee handling amendment proposals rules all his proposals out of order. He appeals to the Convention President and gets a stern lecture on the legal principle of agency as all his proposals are again ruled out of order.
With the US Supreme Court in session to handle questions from the convention floor, the delegate from Illinois files an appeal to the Court. In a short but tartly worded opinion, the delegate from Illinois gets his head handed to him. If he wants an Article V Convention that is open to all possible subjects, he needs to go out and campaign among the state legislatures to get them to petition Congress for one. Two states petitioned for such an “open” convention in 1789, so all he has to do is convince 32 more states to go along with him. (Justice Scalia is seen to be laughing up his sleeve as the opinion is delivered.)
When it comes my turn to speak, I make a long, impassioned speech pointing out that a balanced budget amendment makes no sense if we have a fiat currency that can be inflated at the whim of Congress or the Federal Reserve. In my typical erudite way, I go over our history with fiat currencies, the gold standard, and the Supreme Court’s 1937 decision invalidating the Gold Clauses under a specific threat from FDR. Once the rest of the convention rouses itself from its stupor, I’m ignored.
After a few months, the convention approves a wordy amendment quoting such terms as “GDP”, “deficit spending” and “depression” that makes the proposed amendment meaningless. I vote against it. Then the convention adjourns, I go home to the Seattle suburbs and write a book about the whole experience.
Congress asks the states to ratify via the Legislative Option. During the next seven years, only ten states ratify it. The whole thing turns out to be a big waste of time.
But once people see than an Article V Convention is nothing to fear, they realize they’ve found a way around congressional intransigence. So three years later, when 34 states petition for an Article V Convention to repeal the 16th Amendment, everyone knows what to do.
And I run again.
And this time they listen to me.
In your lovely, polite world, they hold a lovely polite and meaningless convention in South Dakota that amounts to nothing.
In mine, a mob holds a convention during a time of fear an anger in a large urban center, Philadelphia.
I think my version is more likely to happen than yours.
hi there publius, i had some questions for you.
i helped walker get his suit to the supreme court after the ninth circuit agreed with the district court ruling. i was also a founder with walker and former state chief justice thomas brennan of http://www.foavc.org
within the past year that group has done an audit of the congressional record to discover that there have been times where the required number of states have applied, and congress simply ignored: http://foa5c.org/file.php/1/Amendments/071_cg_r_03369_1929_HL.JPG
link to the entire database to date: http://foavc.org/file.php/1/Amendments
my questions are:
1) do you think there is a statute of limitation on that violation of the constitution?
2) what if the 1992 law made by congress to limit a convention is unconstitutional?
i agree will all your points, except you and billybob thinking that the congress, and the executive (vp in this case), and the courts can put their fingerprints on the people’s sovereign power to alter or abolish.
3) is it possible that you and billybob are wrong about this, and that the Article V Convention has been and still is mandated and pending?
oops, sorry. i was able to find your other thread from 2006, and was refreshed on the stance you and billybob take on the 1992 law. thinking this over, and based on many years of blogging and talking about this, perhaps holding the 1992 law up to the anti-conventionists is the best way to get a convention. i agree with you that perhaps at this point, just as a first time out, it’s better to calm fears, and allow the restraints. we agree, what’s more important now is that the kid learns how to ride the bike, if they need training wheels, so be it. let’s just get them on the bike first.
