Replies

re: “. . . it should be noted that the States are fully within their right to apply to Congress with the expressed purpose of calling a Convention of States for well-defined purposes. It would not be prudent to call a convention for the broad purpose of amending the Constitution. States are able to, and many should be willing to, apply for a Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution TO LIMIT THE SIZE AND SCOPE of the federal government, for example. Those States on board with this intent would thus attend.”

That all sounds good, but does Congress have the right to deny the states to hold a convention with well-defined purposes? Or, can the states do it themselves? I guess I’m just too cynical anymore to think that such a thing would accomplish what we want.

I know your heart is totally in the right place, dontreadthis, and if it were to happen, I would pray for its success. I just think our nation is so divided that such a convention would be ignored by this President and current Congress. They’ve ignored the rule of law of the Constitution already - why would this be any different?

“on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States” the Congress “shall” call for the Convention is the wording. If that were to be somehow denied or tabled, I believe that those here now calling for an armed revolt would see it happen.
After Congress sets the place and time for the Convention, it is no longer involved.

That all sounds good, but does Congress have the right to deny the states to hold a convention with well-defined purposes?

Congress has no such power, express or implied. Congress' role has been described as "purely ministerial". In other words, all they get to do is "call" the convention, setting the date and time. Beyond that nothing.

Or, can the states do it themselves?

The states have full control over setting the rules of the convention where each state has an equal vote and voice, unless the states vote to employ some other voting mode, but I think that possibility beyond imagination.

I just think our nation is so divided that such a convention would be ignored by this President and current Congress. They’ve ignored the rule of law of the Constitution already - why would this be any different?

I think the results of the convention and any proposed amendments subsequently ratified by 38 States will be honored without question because of their immediacy. These will not be the archaic words of men long dead; these Amendments will represent the bedrock will of the people TODAY.

And what is the alternative, anyway? According to many on this thread, it is civil war. Should we not first try the civil, Constitutional alternative given to us by the Founders for just such a situation?