Posted on 12/11/2008 5:28:28 AM PST by GWMcClintock
This is the most urgent, most important action alert the American Policy Center has ever issued! The Ohio state legislature is expected to vote as early as Dec. 10th, to call for a Constitutional Convention (Con Con). If Ohio calls for a Con Con only one more state need do so and Congress will have no choice but to convene a Convention, throwing our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights up for grabs. Ohio's vote today poses a grave threat to the U.S. Constitution. Please immediately call the Ohio lawmakers listed below. ACT FAST - time is of the essence!
(Excerpt) Read more at christianworldviewnetwork.com ...
We may be able to take LA, AL, NV, NM, GA, and OK with us maybe a few others.
Ping.
You said — “It is my understanding as the article points out that they are under NO requirement to only address the balanced budget amendment, they can re-write the US Constitution.”
Well, first of all, the “call” for a Constitutional Convention has been put forth *only* with wording for purposes of a balanced budget (for the Federal Government).
And so..., if such a gathering of all the states (it’s not Congress, by the way, but only from the States), including the ones who *called* for this “balanced budget” — saw other amendments “on the table” by others, those states who *voted* precisely for this balanced budget amendment would most likely reject it (according to their *own language* that *their own state* put forth to get there).
But, if one or two or three amendments came forth, each amendment would require a vote by 3/4 of the states to ratify.
—
When you asked what amendment that might be, I’m not sure what you’re asking. Are you referring to Article 5 of the Constitution? That’s the one that specifies that 3/4 of the states must ratify any amendment — whether it comes from the Congress or a Constitutional Convention...
the request for convention from Ohio has been put in play. it states specifically
>>RESOLVED, That, if the convention called by the Congress is not limited in subject to the amendment proposed in this resolution, any delegates, representatives, or participants from the State of Ohio asked to participate in the convention are permitted to debate and vote only on the proposed amendment contained within this resolution or an equivalent amendment; and be it further<<
I *think* that means that Ohio has limited it’s delegates to what they can vote on. Now it would depend on what the other delegates vote on and do since Ohio has tied it’s own hands.
You asked — “I wonder if you could get 3/4 of the states to approve that? Because if you did, then it would be so much easier to come back and get 51 senators to trash the whole doucment the following year.”
No, I don’t see 3/4 of the states approving that, because they’ve had such a time approving other amendments by 3/4 of the states. It’s not easy to get that done, unless something is overwhelmingly demanded by our population. This sort of thing wouldn’t be overwhelmingly demanded, for sure.
Besides that — you have to remember that if it gets to 34 states — that *each of these 34 states* will have specifically worded their request for a Constitutional Convention in terms of a balanced budget amendment. That’s something that the populations of each of these states *demanded* for it to be put forth in this context of a Constitutional Convention.
In other words, if these states had not *limited* the scope of the amendment, they would have never gotten it passed in those states. That pretty much means that you would have about 34 states that would *immediately* oppose expanding this to any other amendment — just by the fact of how they worded their requests in the first place. It would be hard to get the remaining states to override those 34 states.
And then..., of course it *still* has to be ratified (whatever amendment or amendments come out of it) by 3/4 of the states...
“When you asked what amendment that might be, I’m not sure what you’re asking. Are you referring to Article 5 of the Constitution? That’s the one that specifies that 3/4 of the states must ratify any amendment — whether it comes from the Congress or a Constitutional Convention”
Thanks for your answer.
Rights that limit government are negative rights. I read that the term “negative rights” was misconstrued by Rush. Of course, that doesn’t change the fact that Dems see “negative rights” as a bad thing. :-(
You said — “If you think the loony left is going to hold a Constitutional Convention and only address this one proposal, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you.”
Well, you have to remember that you would be going into a Constitutional Convention with 34 states that have *already* and *expressly* said in their states’ requests that they are limiting this to a balanced budget amendment. So, by *their own wording* and their own state’s approval (by the voting population of that state) — they have limited it.
Now, that would mean that 34 states would be going into a Constitutional Convention *already limiting themselves* by their very own requests that were put forth (by the approval of the people in those states).
And since the amendment process has to be approved by the states (and not Congress), they won’t be able to get out any other amendments other than what they went in to do.
However, even if another amendment were to come out of it, it’s already D.O.A. — because it takes 3/4 of the states to ratify any such “new amendment”. And how are they going to get 3/4 of the states in the United States to approve an amendment that *no one* is asking for — knowing that they went in there for only one purpose (the balanced budget amendment)?
It’s very difficult to get 3/4 of the states to approve any amendment, at all...
Thanks for the ping. I happen to agree that the failure of the Supreme Court to do the right thing could mean an end to our constitutional republic. This article basically confirms that thought, and it’s one of the scariest FReeping articles to be posted in a while.
A communications major, like Doug in my new book!
It would be a CW2 trigger for sure.
Yeah. Politicians are critically worried about balancing the budget.
Hopefully the book will be out around March 2009, before the entire economy goes Argentina/Zimbabwe, riots break out, and martial law is declared.
I’m only half joking.
Are you sure one revolution was enough?
BULL FEATHERS !!!
You posted this junk - do you believe it? I don't.
Quite a coinky-dink.
There’s a much longer excerpt from “Foreign Enemies and Traitors” on my website, plus the first 100 or so pages of my other books. Feel free to pass them along.
An older article addressing the issue...
The Balanced Budget Amendment: A Limited Constitutional Convention
http://www.publicpurpose.com/bba.htm
Addresses the concerns that one would have a “runaway constitutional convention”....
It would be interesting to know if the OTHER states delegates are bound to one issue of just a balanced budget or not.
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.