Posted on 08/22/2013 1:05:12 PM PDT by Red Badger
Supreme Court interpretations of Article V
While the Supreme Court has never definitively interpreted the meaning of Article V, it has, on four separate occasions, referred to the Article V convention process:
Dodge v. Woolsey, 59 U.S. 331 (1855): “[The people] have directed that amendments should be made representatively for them, by the Congress . . . ; or where the legislatures of two thirds of the several States shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the constitution, when ratified. . . .”
Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920): “[Article V] makes provision for the proposal of amendments either by two-thirds of both houses of Congress or on application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the states; thus securing deliberation and consideration before any change can be proposed.”
Dillon v. Gloss 256 U.S. 368 (1921): In discussing Congress’s power to propose amendments, the Court affirmed that “[a] further mode of proposal—as yet never invoked—is provided, which is, that on the application of two thirds of the states Congress shall call a convention for the purpose.”
United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931): “[A]rticle 5 is clear in statement and in meaning, contains no ambiguity and calls for no resort to rules of construction. . . . It provides two methods for proposing amendments. Congress may propose them by a vote of two-thirds of both houses, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the States, must call a convention to propose them.”
Because of the political question doctrine and the Court’s ruling in the 1939 case of Coleman v. Miller (307 U.S. 433), it remains an open question whether federal courts could assert jurisdiction over a legal challenge to Congress, if Congress were to refuse to call a convention.
“Whatever the convention came up with would have to be approved by 3/4ths of the 50 states, so what is your concern?”
Exactly. Look at this list of states: VT, NY, CA, IL, WA, OR, HI, CT, RI, MA, ME, NJ, MD, MN, and DE. In order to ratify anything you have to get 2 of these states PLUS every single other state in the unionto buy off. What makes any of us think they’ll agree to anything that’s even slightly conservative?
conservatives need to understand that we are a small minority, the Democrats and RINO’s would OWN a convention.
They would control it totally.
That last paragraph is very true.
Definitely can’t have most of our spineless “representatives” currently in office doing anything of importance. Maybe Boehner could get Cruz’ coffee, if anything, or McCain could call for lunch.
“The fact that Mark keeps reiterating, day after day, that this is our last hope...even over and instead of electing Tea Party reps, says a lot, to me. He’s sounding the alarm. All the exits are closing, I’m afraid.”
Sounds to me like a diversionary tactic. Keep conservatives bogged down in a useless exercise rather than doing something useful.
To be honest, I figure we're done for when congress comes back from vacation.
Ain't hardly anybody left representing us to stop what's fixing to hit us, that's just a fact.
If any states get the ball rolling on this, it will have to start in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arizona maybe Mississippi and Alabama.
“A Constitutional Convention would be solely at the discretion of the States, without any input or interference from Congress. That’s the whole idea, to bypass Congress.”
And implicitly assumes that less than 1/4 of the legislatures are just fine with what is going on in Congress. So which of these states are having problems with what is going on? VT, NY, CA, IL, WA, OR, HI, CT, RI, MA, ME, NJ, MD, MN, and DE. You need to get at least 2 of them plus every single other state to ratify any amendments.
Ain’t happenin’.
Do you really think that he would do that?
So let me see if I understand you.
You are not worried about a run away convention,
you just think it is all a big waste of time?
“This too is nothing new. At the original convention, Patrick Henry adamantly refused to be a delegate because he “smelt a rat!”
And history has proven his fears well founded.
Maybe not hysteria but theoretical. Yes conventions could have enough sovereignty to lower the threshold on what amendments they choose to pass ...
but ...
why even ponder that? Because it goes back to state legislatures where the bar is set at 3/4ths; a very high bar.
THE WHOLE EXERCISE WILL SERVE TO REAWAKEN AMERICANS TO THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CONSTITUTION. CAN YOU IMAGINE THE BENEFICIAL EFFECTS ON THE YOUTH?
This exercise will affect future generations to come and will remind Americans how very important it is to teach American history and civics in schools. I am not sure those subjects are even taught in schools now.
Do me a favor. Go to Post #15 and print off the two documents linked therein. They are a treasure trove of information, even if some of the information is in conflict between the documents.
If our politicians dont have the guts to stand up and vocally show their
Outrage. If they do t have the guts to stop the over reaching power of
The executive orders, etc. then this is over their heads. They dont have
The backbone to stand up for what is right.
In this day and age they would totally destroy the constitution if they had the chance to do this. And the ignorant people would gladly go along with it.
From his book, page 12: "Importantly, in neither case does the Article V amendment process provide for a constitutional convention. It provides for two methods of amending the Constitution. ... The second method, involving the direct application of two-thirds of the state legislatures for a Convention for proposing Amendments, which would thereafter also require a three-fourths ratification vote by the states..."
True and to me, frightening
I have to agree with you.
The thing that immediately comes to my mind is this. Let’s say for a moment that such a convention were successful and limited a runaway government. Having established a precedent..the libs would turn around and do the same. Although the thought of the libs and the conservatives duking it out is very appealing, I wonder who the ultimate winner would be.
I only just received Levin’s book today. After reading it, I could change my mind. I think, at this point, strictly at gut level. Everyone, myself included, wants a remedy. If it were a different time in history...one with more patriots, one with a less self-serving media and politicians I might be more at ease with this idea.
I read the threads regarding this to get an idea of the pros and cons.
Ok will do.
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.