Posted on 07/31/2013 6:56:57 AM PDT by sheikdetailfeather
I am agreeing with you and my sarcasm got lost in writing
I am surprised seasoned Freepers can be scared of Mark Levin
Also, last week people were as usual making fun of the French for not doing something or other. But we are more cowardly than they are judging by their willingness to demonstrate
I wish I could answer your question but Mark said he will be going through all of this on his radio show in the upcoming weeks and I have ordered an advance copy of his book on Amazon to be able to have it when he discusses this. I don’t know any more than you. His book will be released 8-13-13.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Liberty-Amendments-Restoring-American/dp/1451606273
Sure about that? I really doubt it.
CALLED IT :
Mark Levin `s Cryptic Reference to 30 U.S. Governors (Con-Con ! ? )
November 08 2012 | Me Again
Posted on November 8, 2012 1:58:12 PM AST by Para-Ord.45
So, listening to The Great One, Mark Levin last night in regards to the election. He stated his ideas haven`t quite congealed yet but would comment sometime in the future while mentioning the GOP now had 30 Governors across the nation.
Upon hearing this I could come to no other conclusion as to what he was refering to:
“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, ...”
But the process requires that the Convention’s proposed amendments are later ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.
Was Mark Levin thinking this? If so, is he at wits end as to how rescue what`s left of the Constitutional Republic
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2957070/posts
ARTICLE 5:
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.
Yep!!!
Won`t work,
” ...he at wits end as to how rescue what`s left of the Constitutional Republic “
Jimmy, brokenclock, Carter, “ The USA is no longer a functioning democracy.”
I see that the (Republicrat Party selected) state legislatures will call for the convention and will vote on the final ratification but which human beings will be sent to the convention to sit in the room and propose the amendments and work on their language? Do you think you will receive an invitation?
So, my local Republican state rep. with dreams of some day playing with the big boys will determine his ratification vote completely on his own, right? He won't be influenced at all by the RNC or Boehner or Tiberi, right?
If this were to happen, the same people who are currently sneaking in amnesty, funding Obama care, refusing to even calculate the growing debt, allowing the Supreme Court to write law, funding Planned Parenthood, etc.... would be the ones that would draft the amendments and direct the state legislators how to vote on them.
They are currently in the position to do so because we the people put them there.
The Constitution is fine. The people are broken.
Why do you think I or anyone should be obliged to answer your question? You have Google, use it.
Delegates to state conventions can either be voted by popular election or can be appointed by state legislatures.
It says clearly that state legislatures shall apply for a convention to propose amendments. Obviously state legislatures control the game in the amendments phase.
When it comes to the ratification phase, Congress can select either state legislatures or state conventions. The reasoning here is that some issues have popular grassroots passions and would be more suited for state conventions. For the conventions path, delegates could be chosen by special election.
The bottom line is that conservatives control a large majority of the statehouses. In fact, the 2010 tsunami of Tea Party grassroots swept statehouses far more than Congress.
Do a little research on the net and you will find out how delegates are selected or elected, how statehouses are organized to apply etc.
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is an organization that provides meetings and communications among state legislatures. They schedule various topics that are attended by representatives of state legislatures.
ALEC can be used to measure sentiments for an Article 5 project.
Otherwise, state legislatures can choose how they want to proceed. They can simply make an application to Congress. Once 34 state applications are received, Congress must clear the way for a convention by states to propose amendments.
However, once 34 state applications are received, or a substantial number that appears will reach 34 in total, Congress can take over and vote 2/3s in the House and 2/3s in the Senate to control the amendment process. DON’T LET CONGRESS HIJACK THE STATES CONVENTION! The states can continue without Congress once there are 34 applications. All Congress can do is select whether state legislatures or state conventions will do the ratification.
My point in asking these questions is to demonstrate that there are no answers. Nothing in the process is entirely agreed upon or set in stone. If it were to happen,the entire procedure would be debated by the power brokers of the two parties in the federal government and each individual state and then argued in court before partial judges. Those who would determine how it would move forward are the same people who are currently screwing us at every turn and interpreting the Constitution to mean whatever fits their agenda.
The Constitution itself is an incredible document and serves as a recipe for liberty. The problem is that the vast majority of diners don't care if they are served liberty or bulls**t.
“It is not a constitutional convention (CC).”
Oh, my bad. I should read an article some time.
There’s already precedent.
Read starting on page 8:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42592.pdf
NARA and OFR are implicitly involved:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/
***THE PROCESS HAS PRECEDENTS***
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Constitution
Madison outlined his plan in letters that (1) State legislatures each send delegates, not the Articles Congress. (2) Convention reaches agreement with signatures from every state. (3) The Articles Congress approves forwarding it to the state legislatures. (4) The state legislatures independently call one-time conventions to ratify, selecting delegates by each state’s various rules of suffrage. The Convention was to be “merely advisory” to the people voting in each state.
Step 4 in the preceding in CAPS:
THE STATE LEGISLATURES INDEPENDENTLY CALL ONE-TIME CONVENTIONS TO RATIFY, SELECTING DELEGATES BY EACH STATE’S ***RULES OF SUFFRAGE***.
In other words the voters choose delegates to the states convention UNLESS Congress has selected state legislatures to vote to ratify.
I have found materials in the past quite easily and I found the above linked materials in less than 5 minutes using an internet search. What’s your excuse?
The reason I am challenging you on this is because there is no excuse for you not to able to find the process for state conventions in proposing and ratifying amendments to the US Constitution.
-— It is not a constitutional convention (CC). It is a states convention that proposes amendments in accordance with the Constitution to the already existing Constitution. It takes 2/3s of states to propose an amendment. That’s 34 states. Then it takes 3/4s of states to ratify the amendment, that’s 38 states.
There is no risk of states conventions becoming a full blown CC that will run amok. ——
This will have to be repeated continually.
Anyway, COUNT ME IN.
MAKE THEM RESPOND TO OUR AGENDA.
It’s a forgivable mistake because so many mischaracterize the process as rewriting the entire US Constitution and refer to it as a Constitutional Convention. And I am sure many others will continue to call it a CC, even those who are prominent in media and politics.
But it is correctly labeled as a convention to propose amendments.
I suppose absurdly that a state or a faction inside a state could propose an amendment to repeal nearly all the US Constitution except for the amendments that such a faction would propose, such as a communist manifesto amendment or some other absurdity. But this absurdity example would have zero chance of ever getting the time of day of anyone serious.
The phrase CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION scares some people whereas LIMITED CONVENTION TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS is more comforting.
None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention.
As I said in my last post, I understand that the ratification (the last step) will be done by either state legislatures or conventions. However, there is no doubt in my mind that they will do exactly what their parties tell them to do.
The part that is not clear is what, exactly, would be up for ratification.
The way I understand it..
1.) The state legislatures apply for an amendment convention. - Do they all have to have the same amendment subject? How specific does the subject need to be? Do they all have to have the exact same language?
For example lets say Ohio's application says the amendment is to limit spending. Kentucky's is to limit debt. Florida's is to protect future generations from unfunded liabilities.
Another scenario...
Ohio's is to abolish the IRS. Kentucy's is to repeal the 16th amendment. Florida's is to enact the fair tax.
Are these the same thing? Who determines whether they are or aren't?
2.) Congress calls for the convention. - see my above questions regarding whether Congress is actually compelled to do it or if they may say "No, these applications aren't right".
3.) There is a national convention where the final language of the amendment is hashed out and approved. - Who is sent to this convention? Can the convention propose more amendments than what were originally applied for? How different can the final wording of the Amendment be from what was on the applications?
I may be wrong in my understanding of this step as I can not find much information on the actual process of the convention itself. That may be because there has never been one.
4.) Then is the ratification process by the partisan state legislatures.
It is great the fas.org is thinking about this and offering their inputs. I may agree with all of it, but it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Do you think Barbara Boxer or Elijah Cummings agrees with Mr. Neale's assessment of the Article V process?
Let me ask you, what is easier to understand, more direct and clear cut....Article V or the 10th Amendment? How about the 2nd Amendment?
If there are dozens of different ways to get around the 10th and 2nd Amendments how many more ways will there be to subvert Article V?
From page 14 of the fas.org paper...
Beyond its simple mandate, the Constitution is mute on the details of enabling procedure, which would necessarily involve a broad range of actions within the legislatures, while also posing significant questions of procedure in the states.
I wonder who would be asked to answer these difficult questions? Who do you think is more likely, the law firm of Obama, Boehner and Roberts or Mr. Levin?
> “As far as I know, there is not a precedent. There has never been an Article V Amendment convention. From the second paragraph in your second link...”
> “None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention.”
There were 30+ states that applied for a convention regarding the 17th Amendment. The states were just about there when Congress decided to take it over and propose it themselves.
That’s why I say do not allow Congress to hijack the convention process because then they will control the amendment language.
There have also been other amendments such as the balanced budget amendment that came close to the number needed for establishing a convention. Throughout US history there have been hundreds of applications and a only a few have approached a level of seriousness that could go the distance.
The reason it is serious now is because of so many red state under control of conservative legislatures that can circumvent Congress. For example, 38 states have laws or amendments defining traditional marriage. That’s enough to ratify a marriage amendment.
> “1.) The state legislatures apply for an amendment convention. - Do they all have to have the same amendment subject? “
No, they don’t need to have the same amendments ab initio. The states merely apply for a convention to propose amendments. Once there is established convention status, delegates are appointed by the state legislatures to propose amendments. The state legislatures then vote on which amendments they wish to sponsor.
> “2.) Congress calls for the convention. - see my above questions regarding whether Congress is actually compelled to do it or if they may say “No, these applications aren’t right”.”
You didn’t read how OFR and NARA faclitate the process.
Congress must ‘memorialize’ the convention and it will be through NARA/OFR independent of Congress.
The whole purpose of including state legislatures in Article 5 is to circumvent Congress when the voters are frustrated. When a serious convention process is initiated, watch Congress get involved and say “Ok Ok we see you’re serious, we’ll take it from here”. But the states are not required to let Congress have the ball. Don’t let Congress take it over because then they control the amendment language.
> “3.) There is a national convention where the final language of the amendment is hashed out and approved. - Who is sent to this convention? Can the convention propose more amendments than what were originally applied for? How different can the final wording of the Amendment be from what was on the applications?”
There is not necessarily a national convention. There may be state legislature committees that reconcile language but the rules of drafting and approving proposals are obviously left to the state legislature coordinators who are likely selected state legislators or hired consultants. Whatever the final language, the final amendment proposal is given to the Director of the OFR who then certifies that 34 states have adopted the amendment proposal. OFR seeks an order from Congress whether the amendment proposals shall be ratified via state legislatures or via state conventions. OFR then presents the amendment to each state governor for presentation to the respective legislature or to the Secretary of State for a special election of delegates to a state convention.
It’s really not complicated and is very much in line or similar with the type of business that states do every year in terms of legislation or coordinating legislation with neighboring states in the sense of choosing delegates and commissioning persons to coordinate language.
The reason we haven’t seen it before is because Congress has stepped in at the last moment to offer to take it through Congress instead of a convention process.
Another reason is because the greed factor has never been higher in Washington, whereas once elected members of Congress put the needs of the country ahead of all else, it has become a ‘what’s in it for me’ mindset that engulfs Washington. In other words, in previous generations there was a level of trust to let Congress do the job of proposing amendments.
Yet another factor is that Congress has had carte blanche via the Federal Reserve to get whatever funds they deem necessary independent of the taxpayer, i.e. the taxpaying public has been marginalized so that the ruling class need not pay attention to the country class. Whereas in previous generations the voters mattered more and there wasn’t so much of an issue that Congress ignored the voters as they do now. Do we see people rioting in the streets demanding immigration reform? Did we see them riot over Obamacare or gun control? Yet these acts or sentiments by Congress were or are being stuffed down the throats of voters.
I don't think that is accurate. That may have been the intent but it is far from settled law. From what I have read it has been determined that the states can not simply apply for a general convention without a specific amendment subject. If that were the case we would have had one by now seeing that every state except Hawaii has applied for one.
Also, congress has implemented time restrictions on how long a period of time between state applications is acceptable. Who is to say they won't make up other restrictions?
The whole purpose of including state legislatures in Article 5 is to circumvent Congress when the voters are frustrated.
I understand the purpose. The problem is that the oligarchy does not care about the purpose.
There is not necessarily a national convention.
I did not see anything in the links you provided that outlines what happens between the time Congress calls the convention and the amendments are ratified. Can you please tell me where you are getting this information? It seems that you are confusing the state amendment convention process, which happens often to amend state constitutions, with the federal amendment convention process which has never happened. My understanding is that this convention would be similar to the Philadelphia Convention except they would only be authorized to draft amendments to the existing constitution. The issue of whether they can either draft one specific amendment based on the application or any amendment they choose is a matter to be decided in the future (probably by John Roberts).
Don't feel obligated to look anything up for me. I just want to know where you are getting your information. Please understand, I think the framers of the constitution were wise to put this option in. I think this would be a great thing to happen. Unfortunately, I am a realist and understand that the ship has sailed. It is too late. If this were attempted in the 1930's there may have been a chance. At this point the people are too apathetic, the media is too biased and the politicians are too crooked. The last two are a product of the first.
> “I did not see anything in the links you provided that outlines what happens between the time Congress calls the convention and the amendments are ratified. Can you please tell me where you are getting this information?”
7 Years as set by precedent.
Beginning with the proposed Eighteenth Amendment, Congress has customarily included a provision requiring ratification within seven years from the time of the submission to the States. The Supreme Court in Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939), declared that the question of the reasonableness of the time within which a sufficient number of States must act is a political question to be determined by the Congress.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/pdf/GPO-CONAN-1992-8.pdf
Took me less than 5 minutes to find it. What is your problem?
> “It seems that you are confusing the state amendment convention process, which happens often to amend state constitutions, with the federal amendment convention process which has never happened.
Untrue, there is no confusion. The federal amendment convention process has been very close to launching, even recently. There is experience in this. Here’s one passage from North Dakota in 2011:
House Concurrent Resolutions 47
CHAPTER 554
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 3048
(Representatives Thoreson, Boehning, Hatlestad, Koppelman, Schatz)
A concurrent resolution urging Congress to call a convention for the sole purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to avoid a “runaway convention”.
WHEREAS, experience has shown that the safeguards in the United States Constitution, as currently interpreted, may not be sufficiently clear to limit a Constitutional Convention to the specific subject for which that convention was called and thereby avoid a “runaway convention” where other matters may be considered; and
WHEREAS, James Madison, who is known as the “Father of the Constitution”, believed that Article V of the Constitution gave and should give this protection; and WHEREAS, those who framed and adopted the Constitution included a provision by which state legislatures may require Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments as a way to amend the United States Constitution; and
WHEREAS, the North Dakota Legislative Assembly accordingly makes application to Congress for the calling of a convention for proposing an amendment to the Constitution imposing certain rules of fiscal discipline, providing for legislative transparency, and preventing unfunded mandates by the federal government;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF NORTH DAKOTA, THE SENATE CONCURRING
THEREIN:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the North Dakota Legislative Assembly makes the following application:
Section 1. The North Dakota legislative assembly makes an application to the Congress of the United States pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the United States to call an Article V Amendment Convention for the sole purpose of voting to propose or voting not to propose the following specific amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
“Article_____. The Congress, on Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, which all contain an identical Amendment, shall call a Convention solely to decide whether to propose that specific Amendment to the States, which if proposed shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified pursuant to Article V.”
Section 2. For the purpose of determining whether the required two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states have applied for a convention, this application may
be counted and considered valid only in conjunction with qualifying applications of other states that contain the identical text of the specific amendment contained in this
Chapter 55448 House Concurrent Resolutions application and whose application requires that the sole purpose of the convention is to decide whether to propose, or not to propose this specific amendment.
Section 3. This concurrent resolution is revoked and withdrawn, nullified, and superseded to the same effect as if it had never been passed, and retroactive to the date of passage, if it is used to conduct a convention that votes to propose any amendment other than the specific text of the amendment contained in Section 1.
Section 4. Each delegate selected to represent North Dakota at a convention that Congress calls under this resolution shall take an oath, enforceable under this state’s law, to abide by and act according to the limits imposed by this resolution on the purpose of the convention.
Section 5. Any delegate selected to represent North Dakota at a convention that Congress calls under this resolution does not have authority to consider or approve any other amendment but the one contained in this application. Any vote taken in violation of this limitation is null and void, and any delegate who so votes does not have any authority to represent this state on any matter at the convention.
Section 6. This application is valid if two-thirds of the states make a qualifying application within seven years of its referral for ratification to the states by Congress
under the provisions of Article V.
Section 7. This application is null and void if Congress, within 90 days of receipt of qualifying applications from two-thirds of the states, proposes and refers the ratification by the several states under the procedures outlined in Article V of the Constitution, the same exact text of the amendment contained in this application.
Section 8. That the secretary of state forward copies of this application within 30 days of its passage to the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives,
the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, the President of the United States Senate, the Secretary of the United States Senate, every member of the North
Dakota Congressional Delegation, and the presiding officers of each house of the legislatures of the several states.
Filed April 14, 2011
http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/62-2011/session-laws/documents/HCR.pdf#CHAPTER554 Scroll down to the bottom.
Again it took me less than 5 minutes. Perhaps you should take some instruction for online research sources? Or you could forgo the internet or other data networks and write to your state legislature directly for answers.
> “My understanding is that this convention would be similar to the Philadelphia Convention except they would only be authorized to draft amendments to the existing constitution. The issue of whether they can either draft one specific amendment based on the application or any amendment they choose is a matter to be decided in the future (probably by John Roberts).””
Your understanding is muddled.
> “Don’t feel obligated to look anything up for me. I just want to know where you are getting your information. Please understand, I think the framers of the constitution were wise to put this option in. I think this would be a great thing to happen. Unfortunately, I am a realist and understand that the ship has sailed. It is too late. If this were attempted in the 1930’s there may have been a chance. At this point the people are too apathetic, the media is too biased and the politicians are too crooked. The last two are a product of the first.”
The Article V conventions process does not depend on the liberal urban archipelago of low information voters. That’s the beauty of it and why it’s timely now. It depends on statehouses where conservatives hold an enormous advantage.
The Article V conventions process will cause the ‘oligarchy’ to stand on its head in bewilderment as the process bypasses them. They will be dazed and confused. They will attempt to hijack the process by bringing it back into Congress where they can run out the clock and control the language. Don’t let them do it.
I don't even know how to respond to that. Your "research" had nothing to do with any point I was trying to make. I understand that congress arbitrarily made up the 7 year rule and can make up any other rule it wants to regarding the process. I specifically mentioned that when I said...
Also, congress has implemented time restrictions on how long a period of time between state applications is acceptable. Who is to say they won't make up other restrictions?
Your link is pointless.
I will say one more time...THE ACTUAL PROCESS OF THE CONVENTION IS WHAT I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT. THE STEPS BETWEEN APPLICATION AND RATIFICATION ARE WHAT THE RNC AND DNC WILL CONTROL.
The North Dakota application backs up everything I have said regarding the process and answers none of the questions.
The Convention I have questions about is the same one mentioned in the application here...
the North Dakota Legislative Assembly accordingly makes application to Congress for the calling of a convention for proposing an amendment
and here...
Each delegate selected to represent North Dakota at a convention that Congress calls under this resolution shall take an oath, enforceable under this state’s law, to abide by and act according to the limits imposed by this resolution on the purpose of the convention.
Notice they specifically refer to a Convention that will take place. At this Convention they will propose amendments. When the delegates agree on one and it's wording they will send it to either the state legislatures or state conventions.
Is there any way that Congress/Supreme Court could simply reject this application for some arbitrary reason similar to the 7 year rule they made up?
Who are these delegates?
Will the Republican and Democrat parties be influential in picking them?
Where will they meet?
Can they be lobbied?
Do you think the delegate will be more like Mr. Levin or Mr. Boehner and Ms. Pelosi?
Will you admit you were incorrect when you said?...
There is not necessarily a national convention. There may be state legislature committees that reconcile language but the rules of drafting and approving proposals are obviously left to the state legislature coordinators who are likely selected state legislators or hired consultants
It is now clear to me that you have no idea what you are talking about and can't even see that you are missing a fundamental step in this process.
1.Application - see the North Dakota application and the 700 or so others that have been submitted throughout history.
2.Congress calls for a convention - maybe they will, maybe they won't. They have always found a way out in the past. Think back to how certain you were that Obamacare would get overturned.
3. THE ACTUAL CONVENTION WHERE HUMAN BEINGS SIT AROUND A ROOM AND HAMMER OUT AN AMENDMENT - this is the part that has never happened and would be completely made up on the spot by whoever had the most influence
4. Ratification of the amendment drafted at the Convention.
This seems to be difficult for you so I will simply lay it out.
90% chance that the DNC and RNC will put pressure on the state legislatures and stop any attempt at an organized application procedure.
95% chance that IF enough states present applications - Congress will simply find a way not to call the Convention. Either the applications don't qualify or congress will take up the cause on their own or John Roberts will say it is unconstitutional or something.
100% chance that IF enough states present applications AND Congress is somehow forced to call a Convention - The delegates will be lawyers, lobbyists and insiders who reside in the various states They will be hand picked by the RNC and DNC and will do whatever they are told for the promise of wealth and power. They will be instructed to either fail to agree on an amendment, propose an amendment which infringes on Liberty rather than promotes it or they will propose an amendment that has been pre-determined will not be ratified by the state legislatures or Conventions.
Is that easy enough for you to understand? Is there any track record that argues against these scenarios?
You need to come to grips with the fact that Liberty has very few advocates in Washington and Washington controls EVERYTHING.
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.