> “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.