Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Congress Defies Article V of the U.S. Constitution by Ignoring 748 (or more) Article V Applications
Friends of Article V Convention ^

Posted on 03/05/2010 10:17:22 AM PST by seeker7_dj

When it comes to amending the U.S. Constitution, Congress has shown respectful behavior to one type of action by states: state decisions on ratification of amendments proposed by Congress. But when it comes to states invoking Article V’s option for a convention of state delegates to propose amendments, Congress has, for the entire history of the nation, blatantly and illegally ignored those state applications.

As part of FOAVC’s project to make available all such Article V Convention applications for public scrutiny, it has made an important observation. Congress has failed miserably (most likely by design) at its duty to track and keep a count of all Article V Convention applications (so that they will know when two thirds of the states have met the prerequisite number for a peremptory Article V Convention). Similar to ratification actions, Congress has categorized these as "memorials" from the states. Congress has referred these "memorials" to the House and Senate judiciary committees where they die, and are filed away in a multitude of volumes of printed Congressional Records (which we have painstakingly collected below), making it very difficult to keep an accurate count.

Also, please see the following Congressional Record which clearly demonstrates that the requisite number of states (i.e. two thirds or more) have already requested an Article V Convention, and Congress on has ignored their peremptory duty to call an Article V Convention:

(Excerpt) Read more at foavc.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: article5; articlevconvention; billwalker
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last
All 50 states have at one time or another submitted applications to amend the Constitution. Such applications have consisted of for example Term Limits and a Balanced Budget. Both Houses are ignoring their Constitutional duty, violating Federal Criminal Law, specifically their oath of office by ignoring "We the People".

Here are some other sites in which to reference:

http://www.article5.org/

http://www.foavc.org/

An Article V Application: The States' Tenth Amendment Rights In Action: http://www.nolanchart.com/article7171.html

An Article V Convention: Exposing The Really Bad Alternative Ideas: http://www.nolanchart.com/article7261.html

1 posted on 03/05/2010 10:17:26 AM PST by seeker7_dj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: seeker7_dj

Yes, but they are fixing college football, so why are you complaining? /s


2 posted on 03/05/2010 10:21:26 AM PST by Flightdeck (Go Longhorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seeker7_dj

We don’t need a new constitutional convention. That would be extremely dangerous.

There are no men of our time who would act with the prudence, care, and foresight of our founding fathers.

A free republic would not remain.


3 posted on 03/05/2010 10:26:01 AM PST by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seeker7_dj

do you really want a constitutional convention? can you imagine what the libs would do???

you can’t open up part of the constitution, you have to open it up, especially the second ammendment.

by the time you get done, your plan would have backfired tremendously. you won’t have a state sending delegates who are conservative, btu rather libs, and when they’re through, the constitution will look like Orwell’s animal farm.


4 posted on 03/05/2010 10:26:06 AM PST by camle (keep an open mind and someone will fill it full of something for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

You’re misunderstanding. This is NOT a Constitutional Convention.


5 posted on 03/05/2010 10:29:24 AM PST by seeker7_dj (Things work out best for those who make the best of the way things work out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706
You were saying ...

We don’t need a new constitutional convention. That would be extremely dangerous.

Exactly... whomever would be calling for a Constitutional Convention at this time is basically asking to completely undo the Constitution and remake it in the Democrat's image of what they think it should be...

You can imagine where that will go.

6 posted on 03/05/2010 10:30:38 AM PST by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: seeker7_dj

If it is not a constitutional convention, what is it? There are only two methods of altering the consitution, one originating in the congress and one originating in the states. The one originating in the states is a constitutional convention.


7 posted on 03/05/2010 10:32:21 AM PST by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

“There are no men of our time who would act with the prudence, care, and foresight of our founding fathers.”

Agreed. Or at least none with any visibility.


8 posted on 03/05/2010 10:32:59 AM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: seeker7_dj
a convention of state delegates to propose amendments"

"You’re misunderstanding. This is NOT a Constitutional Convention. "

a convention to propose ammendments to the constitution would be called, what then, if not a constitutional convention?

9 posted on 03/05/2010 10:33:43 AM PST by camle (keep an open mind and someone will fill it full of something for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: seeker7_dj

Congress declares a president-elect Constitutionally validated as natural born without checking his birth certificate or his declared foreign father, and people are worried about Article V? LOL.


10 posted on 03/05/2010 10:37:01 AM PST by Talisker (When you find a turtle on top of a fence post, you can be damn sure it didn't get there on it's own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

You are exactly right

That part of the Constitution , Article V, is totally crazy.

Just like the Second Amendment. Imagine all of those miltia types that shave their heads carrying weapons.

And the worst of all is the 1st Amendment. It could lead to crazy talk in public places like some of the crazies that post here. It might even lead to some racist gun loving red necks forming tea parties.

Lots of bad things in that Constitution. Ignore them all.


11 posted on 03/05/2010 10:37:02 AM PST by old curmudgeon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: seeker7_dj

I believe: The Conservative point of view would lose out in any Constitutional Convention. In part that’s due to their distaste for Government as often reflected on this forum. In part it’s due to lack of organization and cohesion.


12 posted on 03/05/2010 10:37:16 AM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seeker7_dj; Admin Moderator
This was litigated in Walker v. US in 2000. Judge Coughenor threw it out.

The 1992 law that regulates an Article V Convention sets a single-subject standard and lays down rules for the calling and conducting of such a convention.

Before you post such total and utter nonsense on Free Republic, please educate yourself by reading ”A Convention for Proposing Amendments...as Part of This Constitution”, an essay vetted by a constitutional lawyer to make sure I got all the facts straight.

13 posted on 03/05/2010 10:40:06 AM PST by Publius (Come study the Constitution with the FReeper Book Club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: camle

The last convention called “just to propose amendments” started out by the delegates tossing out the old constitution in its entirety and starting all over from scratch. They too, claimed they only wanted to make a few amendments.


14 posted on 03/05/2010 10:41:43 AM PST by FreedomCalls (It's called the "Statue of Liberty" and not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle

if the state ‘delegates’ are appointed by the legislatures of the states, they would have to pass some sort of popularity contest, giving the edge to the media-backed left.

so any convention would be stacked with exactly the sort of vermin we wouldn’t want defining our rights.


15 posted on 03/05/2010 10:42:04 AM PST by camle (keep an open mind and someone will fill it full of something for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

No, the States are not calling for a Constitutional Convention. Read Article V for clarification and comprehension. What do you think it’s called when Congress calls for an Amendment? It’s no different when the States call for it and it’s their right. The founders intended to give the people recourse and Article V gives that power to the people. Read the other sites I posted instead of giving the knee-jerk response.


16 posted on 03/05/2010 10:42:36 AM PST by seeker7_dj (Things work out best for those who make the best of the way things work out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

What if we had the numbers to strip down the constitution and go back to the original? After 2010, I think it really could be done. With suitable modifications guaranteeing universal suffrage, there would still be opportunities to limit the federal government’s scope with airtight language (no “general welfare” clause, a much more limited “interstate commerce” clause) and perhaps add permanent limits on federal taxation and spending.


17 posted on 03/05/2010 10:43:05 AM PST by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: seeker7_dj

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

I don’t know what you’re not understanding. The states or their legislaturs cannot propose amendments. Two thirds of the states can call a convention, which can propose amendments.

I am quite familiar with this. Many states over the past several years have revoked their con-con applications.


18 posted on 03/05/2010 10:48:39 AM PST by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier

Far too dangerous. With the exception of the 17th amendment, the structure of the American government has not changed at all. And we should keep it that way.


19 posted on 03/05/2010 10:51:19 AM PST by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: seeker7_dj

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.

Possibly the U.S. Congress believes it is their right to ask not simply whether or not the required number of submissions by the states, in general, have been received, but, whether or not the required number of submissions of the states have been received, containing the same expressed purpose, in terms of needed amendments, in mind?


20 posted on 03/05/2010 11:00:15 AM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson