Posted on 03/22/2010 6:49:38 PM PDT by Irisshlass
38 States have legislation drawn up, a couple States have already passed it to block the forced healthcare upon their states. It takes 38 states to pass a Constitutional Ammendment. And it seems that this is the key to stop these socialist communists from taking over our country once and for all.
My point was to the character and calibur of the delegates we might expect. Yes, many states forbid state officeholders from holding convention seats, but not all. What 1992 federal law are you referring to? If it’s the authorizing resolution for the 27th Amendment, then it only applies to that amendment.
When Congress lost its court case trying to force the Archivist to toss the 27th Amendment out of the Constitution, it sat down and codified the things the court had said that Congress had failed to codify. Congress also added the contents of a bill written by Everett Dirksen in 1965 setting up the ground rules for a Convention for Proposing Amendments, and Orren Hatch was the man who got that added to the bill. Congress passed it in 1992.
Not so. To wit:
"The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures."
From post #3 by Star Traveler
Yes, we’ll we’ve never used that process before.
The Framers put it there precisely for a future time like this. We need to gather together and follow their clear direction in this matter.
I don’t know what law you’re referring to...do you have the code title?
Do you have the US Code number of the 1992 law where Congress regulated the housekeeping of the amendaory process? I haven’t been able to find it va the usual search functions. I probably don’t know what the correct search parameters are.
I figured... Bush over Kerry, 31 states, count those
19 Kerry States:
Easiest: PA, MI, NH,
Next: DE, WA, CO, VT, MN, VT, IL
Tough: MA, NH, ME, MD, RI, NJ, CT, NY, WI, OR, CA, HI
But now I just read the article below, so MI and WA could be counted with 31 + PA + MI + NH + WA = 35. So, three of: DE, CO, VT, MN, IL
So... if there were a pro-original COTUS amendment to protect us from ObamaCare that would be acceptable to, say, Colorado and Vermont — then I think it could pass. The thing is, those with the passion to author an amendment must realize the limits set by the 38th State.
From the link below, the fact that Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Washington are motivated — that is a powerful indication that the Amendment path could definitely work.
I’m also thinking that a couple “blue” New England states have a surprising “don’t tread on me” ethos that might be ready to rise to this occasion.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62L4GC20100322
The article lists eleven AGs who will file a collective lawsuit for states including Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Utah and Washington.
And the rules have stopped Obama since when?
The principle is straight-forward. The authority belongs to the convening authority. In the states, that is usually a vote of the people. At the federal level, that is the state legislatures. If the convening authority requires a limited convention, it will be limited, and that limit can be enforced.
The legal myth you state comes from the one error in Bowen's "Miracle in Philadelphia." She wrote that the Convention was called "for the purpose of revising the Articles of Convention." That is false. Each state gave the authority to their own "Commissioners," whom we now call Delegates. All except the three from New York and the three from Massachusetts were given unlimited power to propose changes,
Those authorities are in print in Flexner's now ten-volume set. As Casey Stengle said, "You could look it up."
Congressman Billybob
This question was definitively answered by Congress itself in 1992.
Congressman Billybob
This question was definitively answered by Congress itself in 1992.
Now there's the statement that I find to be in conflict with Chief Justice Warren Burger's statement...
I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don't like its agenda.
And very specifically, in regards to what you're saying and others are saying ...
Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey.
I would agree with Chief Justice Warren Burger...
What’s your point?
Ummmm..., it was this... in Post #132 ...
Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey.
If you bother to read the actions that Congress OFFICIALLY took in order to accept the ratification of the 27th Amendment, the Madison Amendment which was originally written as one of the twelve items of the Bill of Rights, you will see that the state of the law is what I say, and not what Burger said in that unfortunate (private) letter.
I was on the staff of the Bicentennial Commission when this all occurred. I saw it from the inside. If you want to believe a private letter over the enacted law, that is your problem. But your conclusion remains incorrect.
John / Billybob
So what?
If you want to believe a private letter over the enacted law, that is your problem. But your conclusion remains incorrect.
When the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court says that he's spoken about this many times in the past and speaks about it again, in this letter -- I do not think he abandons his Supreme Court knowledge and the "thinking processes" that he has, which enabled him to make decisions -- sets that all aside -- and pretends to be the "village idiot" making a "personal pronouncement"...
If you believe that, I can tell right now I don't need to consider your opinion in the least.
Sorry, I'll take the experience of the Chief Justice, Warren Burger, of the United States Supreme Court... over a "faux expert" any time... :-)
So, when he says...
Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey.
And you say, that Congress can limit them... I've got to laugh... :-)
So what?
That's the essence of the problem...
Do your d*mned homework and you will find these official actions. Against that you post a letter written by a then-private citizen as a personal favor to Phyllis, who was then a member of the Bicentennial Commission.
If facts and law have no effect on your conclusions, you are own your own. I don't argue with fools.
John / Billybob
The so-called “limitations” didn’t work in the past and they’re not going to work in the present, either... sorry... I don’t go to the “casino” and gamble with the Constitution...
Do what you’re gonna do through the conventional route (i.e., what’s been done in the past) of a Constitutional Amendment put out by Congress and ratified by the states and then you’ll see me on board for a good amendment to that effect.
Otherwise, you can count me in the group that will consistently and always oppose a Constitutional Convention... that’s just the way it is...
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.