Parliamentarian Ref: Constitutional Convention analysis: Constitutional Convention Question's: Am I wrong on my analysis? Is my analysis truly what could happen?
What I (Stanwooddave) have said before, and in the past: “Watch out, for what you wish, regarding a Constitutional Convention, if you don’t know already, but if a Constitutional Convention were to take place, there is/are no limits to what can be put/brought before the Constitutional Convention.“
Example, do away with the 2nd Amendment, if the votes are there, say goodbye to a very cherished 2nd Amendment.
A response that was given: Never happen. This is the argument used to discourage a CC {Constitutional Convention}. The reality is a CC would be very limited in scope and would address only a few key issues. Second, the red states and the people that live there far out number the blue states and the kooky left that has hijacked our country and stolen our liberty. ++++++++++++++++++++++++
First off let me be perfectly clear, what ever statement's and or questions I ask/present, are only for educational purposes only, so as to be able to learn, and or share idea's.
Assume for the sake of argument, a Constitutional Convention is called, lets use Obama's 57 state's, and we'll say in the Great State of Neverhappeninmylifetime.
I would imagine that for sake of argument, their would be say 2 (two) State Representatives, 2 (two) State Senator's, as well as 2 (two) U.S. Congressional Representatives, and 2 (two) U.S. Senator's. I pick these critter's only because you know were a CC to happen, everyone wants to look SO IMPORTANT.
Simple math: if only 4 (four) people representing each state, total is (4 x 50) 200 or(4 x 57) 228. If on the other hand, 8 (eight) people representing each state, total is (8 x 50) 400.
Either way, thats a lot of people. I would argue that at said Constitutional Convention, Robert's Rule's of Order would be used, and or something akin to this.
You put forth the proposition that "The reality is a CC would be very limited in scope and would address only a few key issues." I agree, that a "limited scope" Constitutional Convention, could happen, and "only for those issue's agreed to in advance."
Now here is where I'm (Stanwooddave) as dumb as a box of rock's. In an agreed to, in advance, limited in scope, Constitutional Convention, why can't someone make a motion (under Robert's Rule's of Order, or whatever else {Rule's of Order} they so choose) to add "X" "Y" or "Z," to test the water's, and if say the presiding person of the Constitutional Convention, decides to go off the track's sort of speak, (See last paragraph) what's to stop the momentum if it should get leg's????
Please tell me something akin to an earth shattering revelation, like "As soon as the person or person(s) makes the motion to go off the track's, said person or person(s) would immediately be brought out back of the building and shot."
Please tell me more then, "Well it was all agreed to, to convene a limited in scope, Constitutional Convention"
Nothing in my statement(s) and or question(s) should be seen as any kind of attack, they are really, simply for my selfish educational benefit, nothing more, nothing less. ++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes I know that when a motion is made, that someone has to “second said motion,” then a vote of the motion yeas & nay’s, for the purpose of this discussion, the yeas won, i.e., to go off the track's of the agreed to in advance, limited in scope, Constitution Convention.
What is to stop said happening? ++++++++++++++++++++++++
Please also, do take into consideration that $$money$$ / dollar's can buy a lot of people, it's just the difference in price, for each person.
An offer of proof: [William Andrews] Clark's long-standing dream of becoming a United States Senator resulted in scandal in 1899 when it was revealed that he bribed members of the Montana State Legislature in return for their votes. At the time, U.S. Senators were chosen by their respective state legislators; the corruption of his election contributed to the passage of the 17th Amendment. The U.S. Senate refused to seat Clark because of the 1899 bribery scheme, but a later senate campaign was successful, and he served a single term from 1901 until 1907. In responding to criticism of his bribery of the Montana legislature, [William Andrews] Clark is reported to have said, "I never bought a man who wasn't for sale."
For God’s sake, fix the apostrophes in the title and your sig! Those errors are jarring and destroy the credibility of your writing.
I will try to answer from the knowledge that I have picked up so far and this is just my understanding of the process.
A CC is certainly not without risk but that must be weighed against the risk of staying our current course and doing nothing.
So lets take the hypothetical that the libs from California propose a change (amendment) that would do away with the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. This however would be very difficult when you consider the majority of the states and thus delegates would be from red states but for the sake or discussion lets say they do.
This process of a Constitutional convention serves only to PROPOSE an amendment. The safeguard is these amendments would then have to be ratified by the states just like ANY other amendment. Left wing ideas rarely have even the slightest chance of passage when given a direct vote of the people. So the chances of the left being able to overturn the second amendment or implement any change that would give more power to government is very very slim. This is why the left fear amendments to the Constitution. The left knows they can't win these battles and we can.
The left does not have the coverage to win on a level playing field. They simply don't have the numbers and NEVER have had them. This is why they have always sought to stack the courts with leftist judges. Statists know they will never have the votes to take liberty from the people. The left is only beating us and running the country because the have spent decades taking over key political positions, the media, the courts and the schools, but the reality is that their numbers are few. They can't beat us in a fair election. This is THE reason the democrats are so resistant to a balanced budget amendment. They know the CAN'T win if the states get to vote.
The good news is our Constitution gives the states the power to correct the course of the country and regain liberty when the federal government has become corrupt or refuses to control itself. The bad news is I think we have a narrow window of time to get this done.
I recommend this paper by the Goldwater institute to learn more about amending the Constitution by convention. It's a fairly short 3 part series. Here is a link to the introduction.
http://goldwaterinstitute.org/article/amending-constitution-convention-complete-view-founders-plan-part-1-series