Posted on 10/30/2013 10:38:13 AM PDT by Jacquerie
Any teacher, lawyer, or politician will tell you that word choice matters. The words we use (and how we use them) can mean the difference between successful communication and horrible misunderstanding.
Over the last few months, many folks have asked, “What is the difference between a ‘constitutional convention’ and a Convention of States?” Those who oppose the use of Article V like to use these terms interchangeably. They say that a “con-con” is dangerous and could result in the destruction of the American system of government. Any sane person, they say, wouldn’t dream of pursuing a “con-con.” Well, we agree. A constitutional convention would be dangerous and could very well result in disaster.
(Excerpt) Read more at conventionofstates.com ...
Please explain how "convention for proposing amendments" is euphemistic, when that is the exact language used in Article V?
-PJ
Thank you.
This would prevent a Member of congress who was in office when, say, DHS was created from being nominated to serves as DHS Secretary.
I’ve never promised an Article V convention would fix America’s problems. It is a lifeboat, and lifeboats are sorry replacements for the ship that was lost.
Little discussed at FR is that on October 16th, for all practical purposes, congress relinquished its last effective power, the power of the purse to Obama.
Obama can rule by fiat. The constitution’s limits are gone. But, Article V acknowledges the power of the sovereign people to reclaim what is theirs.
The senate is Obama’s bitch and the house is not far behind. There are patriots in both houses, but in the aggregate, the careful framework of our framers is gone.
We, the sovereign people have the constitutional means to reverse course. There is no guarantee; we may be too far gone.
Consider what outrage could possibly prod most Americans to call for an Article V convention. Obama rules by fiat, and that is not enough. Would he have to remain in office past 2016?
Having read just a little about the brutality of revolutions, including our own, I would rather risk an Article V convention long before we are (if not already) cornered without other than violent options.
Whatever comes out of a convention, three fourths of the states must ratify. There is no guarantee of the output of the convention nor what the states will do. It could be awful.
Still, history will not look kindly on a people who had the peaceful means to restore republican liberty and gaffed it off.
As for violence, forget it. We aren’t talking flintlock v. flintlock. Obama and his DHS monkeys have a monopoly on the big stuff and would appreciate the opportunity to thin the conservative herd.
But they didn't have a ratified Constitution already in place, with an Article V that limits the span of the convention to only proposing amendments, and not wholesale rewrites of the Articles of Confederation.
-PJ
I never said a word about “convention for proposing amendments”. I said “convention of states” is euphemistic because such a convention is called by Congress and it’s method of ratification is determined by Congress.
The purpose of the phrasing “Convention of States” is to diminish the fact that such a convention can only occur with federal involvement.
How much involvement? Proponents of an Art V. say not much, because the Constitution says so. The fedgov will say that they are allowed to have their fingers in the whole pie. The Unification of Powers (as opposed to the former separation of powers) will agree, and so will the media.
That is their history and it’s precisely the reason why you want to call and Art V in the first place. To pretend that the fedgov won’t interfere because it’s an Art V is silly. Of course they’ll interfere. It’s the nature of power to protect itself.
They’ll not only interfere, they’ll see it as the perfect tool for their own purposes.
They will proceed on that basis.
Then what?
To call a Art V convention a “Convention of States” and to pretend that their is no federal role (or that such a role can or will be limited, no matter what the Constitution says) is indeed, euphemistic.
Let me know when you figure out a way to force the federal and state governments to abide by the law and then we can talk about whether the law should be changed. Until then there is no point in rewriting rules for people who believe rules are only made to be broken.
At present we are in effect operating in the same way as if we had never had a written constitution, it is completely ignored so it matters little what the written document actually says.
Amending the constitution in this atmosphere is the equivalent of a parent who keeps saying, “You kids stop that right this minute or I will spank you” but never does.
I say, let them try. Let them show the people that they are at war with the states.
I, for one, am tired of people who talk themselves out of action because they presume a worst-case scenario as a foregone conclusion, and then give up entirely before even engaging the opposition.
Who knows what will ultimately happen? Who knows if the people will turn on Congress and support the states, or if Congress will suspend habeas corpus and crack down on the people?
Let's at least do something, and find out!
-PJ
> “Article 5 is very clear that Congress shall call a convention.”
Congress must ‘call’ it if 2/3s of states apply for it. But call means only to alert the National Archives and other involved offices of the Federal Government to honor the applications of the states.
Many states, and you can find them on the internet easily, have applied in recent years for a Constitutional Amendment. The application process is well-defined as to the role of the federal government which is an involvement of certain offices to support and facilitate the states, not to interject any policy or politics or judgements.
Two-thirds of states (34 states of the 50) are necessary for the federal government to ‘act’ on an Article V process. By ‘act’ is meant certain offices are put at disposal to process and archive the applications, nothing more.
Then the same offices are responsible for faciliating the ratification process where they count the number of states that ratify each amendment. It must be 3/4s or 38 states of the 50. That’s a really high bar so it’s laughable that anyone would use scare tactics that a runaway convention would dramatically change the government frame work of the United States.
And most states are red conservative so a reasonable person can only think that those using scare tactics to discourage a convention are doing so because they are frightened to death that conservatives will amend the Constitution to make for a more conservative government.
> “Congress shall decide the mode of ratification.”
Yes, either they choose to have federal offices respond to state legislatures or to state delegations elected for the purpose. But they have no say in any of the deliberations after the choice is made.
The Article V power given to Congress to decide the mode of ratification was written at a time the 17th Amendment did not exist. At that time the members of the US Senate were appointed by their legislatures. If an amendment issue was more populist than legislative, then Congress could decide to allow delegations to communicate results because it would be closer to the People.
But Congress gets only to decide the mode as via state legislators or delegates, and after that there is no Constitutionally mandate for anything else.
> “How is a Constitutional Convention called by Congress and verified by methods determined by Congress a “Convention of States” independent of federal control?”
That’s easy. Congress has a very small role in setting up a convention. Namely, they call for it and they decide whether ratification is via state legislatures or state delegations. The role is small but necessary because the states will be writing and ratifying new amendments that must find their way into the Constitution and for this purpose there must be some communication with federal government at some level. The National Archives is the main federal organization that is the link with the states.
As for the original Constitutional Convention, this was called for the express purpose of replacing the Articles of Confederation, not for amending the AOC but for ‘replacing’ it. The AOC had an amendment provision in it but it was not used. The Founders knew when the AOC was written that it setup a framework for a provisional government that would require a more permanent framework later.
But a Convention of States is for amending the existing Constitution, not for replacing it. And to guard against replacing it by creating a ‘Runaway’ Convention, the Framers set the high bar to at COS could not convene until 2/3s of them applied, and 3/4s ratified.
There is no danger of a Runway Convention and there is no heavy control or mandate granted the federal government.
An Article V convention to propose amendments is for the States. Amendment 10 grants to the states all powers not delegated to the United States.
It seems to me that the power to control an Article V conventions falls to the states via the 10th amendment, since it is a convention of the states, by the states, and for the states.
-PJ
True enough. But I would like to see this front-door closed, even if the back door remains open.
-PJ
An Article V convention is a body that "created under the Authority of the United States," but the question is whether its delegates are "officers," but who are not subject to advice and consent, or just a transient body.
A lesser question is what happens to quorum if the parties decide to stack their state delegations with congressmen, and the convention goes on for months and months. What happens to Congess when their members are absent for extended periods of time?
-PJ
Every time a Freeper thinks about emailing or tweeting his congress-critter, he should also contact his state rep and senator. Ask him/her what he/she intends to do about the latest outrage from Washington. They know very well about abuse from the central government. If they know we support reclaiming our freedom through the states, we may just get a movement going that congress can do nothing about . . .
Imagine taking over the national debate! Leftists heads would explode!!!
As I posted earlier, let's see that fight.
Regardless, I would say that it's not that such a convention can only occur with federal involvement, but that it can only occur with federal sanction.
Am I being euphemistic or precise?
-PJ
Here are other examples in the Constitution where states have exclusive power, but require Federal sanction.
Article IV Section 1
I cited this to suggest that any state had the plenary power to officially have demanded that Hawaii make available their direct physical public records of Obama's birth certificate, but Congress could have interceded to define the conditions under which this would occur. They could not stop a state from getting access to these public records.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Article I Section 10
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power...
Congress has to assent to the interstate compact, but Congress does not interfere with or otherwise broker the content of the arrangements between the states.
-PJ
The states also have plenary power to appoint presidential electors. In Article I Section 2 the states determine the qualifications of the electors who elect congressmen.
These straightforward clauses should give pause to illegitimate interference from Washington.
No, wait... you're talking about the phrase in Article I section 2? That one confuses me.
However, that reminded me of another one.
Article II Section 1 Clause 2
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
States can choose to popularly elect winner-take-all, apportion, or just let the legislatures pick, their Electoral College electors. The federal government has no say in how states choose their electors for the Executive, and sitting Congressmen or Cabinet secretaries cannot be state electors.
This is also possible evidence to my earlier post that Article I Section 6 might also prevent sitting Congressmen from participating as delegates to Article V conventions. We see here that they are also explicitly prevented from participating as state electors to the Electoral College. In that sense, the Electoral College acts akin to a convention of states, does it not? Except maybe that the Constitution does lay out a specific role that Congress plays in the Electoral College.
-PJ
Exactly. That is where non-natural born citizen presidential nominees should be stopped. I will NEVER acquiesce to ANY court determination as to who may be on presidential ballots.
In that sense, the Electoral College acts akin to a convention of states, does it not?
Very good point. They are both temporary bodies assigned to serve important purposes, and are afterwards dissolved.
Can one argue that a convention of states, similar to the Electoral College, is also a civil body authorized by the United States, and therefore also forbidden to Congress?
The precedents are there.
-PJ
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.