Poll: Most South Carolinians approve states' convention

Seventy-five percent of South Carolina's voters are dissatisfied with the federal government and 71 percent are in favor of an Article V Convention of States, according to S.C. Rep. Bill Taylor, R-Aiken.

In a statewide poll that included 1,264 voters from various ethnicities, age groups and from every county conducted by True South Communications, Taylor posed two main questions. When asked if South Carolina should join other states in calling for a convention, Taylor said 32 percent were in favor, 32 percent opposed and 36 percent were undecided.

The idea behind Taylor's initiative is that if two-thirds of states submit an application to Congress, Congress must then call a Convention of States to propose amendments to the Constitution. Each state must then send an appointed delegation to the convention, where the delegates will discuss and vote upon amendment proposals.

Of those who opposed or were undecided, Taylor asked if they would support a Convention of States if the purpose was to establish term limits for members of Congress and a balanced-budget amendment for the federal government. Fifty-eight percent changed their minds and approved the convention, Taylor said.

“Because the COS initiative is a new concept to many voters, a second question was asked of those who opposed or were undecided in the first question,” Taylor said. “The explanation of specific potential amendments resulted in a majority giving their support.”

Taylor began spearheading the effort to call a Convention of States last month for the “express and sole purpose of limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.” South Carolina and Virginia became the first two states to call for a convention. On Dec. 7, more than 100 state legislators from 32 states met in Washington, D.C., to begin the groundwork for filing a Convention of States.

Taylor added, “In only a month since the legislation was pre-filed, it's clear we are on the right path and support will continue to grow as more people understand that our founders intentionally gave us a remedy in Article V of the Constitution.”

S.C. Rep. Bill Clyburn, D-Aiken, said he thinks other legislators have the right to call for a COS; however, he personally disagrees with it.

I think it's fine to exercise whatever powers you have as it relates to government, but I don't believe it will change anything,” Clyburn said. “I believe the best way to change things is to improve the quality of life from state to state.”

State legislators are planning to reconvene this month to continue working on a product they can pass on to Congress.

The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps: Proposal, Disposal, and Ratification.

Proposal:

There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.

The Congressional Method requires the House and Senate to pass an amendment by a two-thirds majority.
The Amendments Convention Method requires the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to petition Congress to call a Convention for Proposing Amendments. The states may request a single-subject convention or a general convention open to all subjects. Once the two-thirds threshold is reached, Congress is required to set a time and place for the convention.

Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.

Disposal:

Once Congress, or an Amendments Convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:

State Legislature Method, or the
State Ratifying Convention Method.

The State Ratifying Convention Method has only been used twice: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.

Ratification:

Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three-quarters of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.

Forbidden Subjects:

Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and one implicitly forbidden subject.

Explicitly forbidden:

No amendment may be added to the Constitution concerning slavery until 1808. We’re past that deadline.
No amendment may be added to the Constitution to change the principle of equal representation in the Senate. If California wants five senators, every state has to have five senators.

Implicity forbidden:

Throwing out the Constitution of 1787 and replacing it with a new document. Article V only authorizes “a convention for proposing amendments to this Constitution”; therefore, the Constitution of 1787 is locked in place forever. Congress and an Amendments Convention have exactly the same Proposal power; therefore, neither Congress nor an Amendments Convention can start over. Both bodies can only propose amendments.

I have two reference works for those interested.

The first is from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative pro-business group. This document has been sent to every state legislator in the country.

Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers

The second is a 1973 report from the American Bar Association attempting to identify gray areas in the amendatory process to include an Amendments Convention. It represents the view of the ruling class of 40 years ago. While I dislike some of their conclusions, they have laid out the precedents that may justify those conclusions. What I respect is the comprehensive job they did in locating all the gray areas. They went so far as to identify a gray area that didn't pop up until the Equal Rights Amendment crashed and burned a decade later. Even if you find yourself in disagreement with their vision, it's worth reading to see the view of the ruling class toward the process.

Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee

I’m concerned that many patriots have actually never been taught the Constitution as the Founding States had intended for it to be understood, particularly the federal government’s limited powers. And if such is the case, then low-information patriots are arguably just wanting to gind the ax in frustration with respect to talk amending the Constitution as a remedy to force the feds back into their constitutionally-limited power cage.

In other words, patriots need to elect conservatives to Congress who will impeach activist justices and Constitution-ignoring presidents as opposed to the overkill, imo, of amending the Constitution; if it’s not broke then don’t “fix” it.

On the other hand, if patriots “just gotta” amend the Constitution, then simply give the state lawmakers and / or voters the power to recall bad-apple federal lawmakers regardless what state elected them.

I believe we should amend the constitution, in part! to expressly prohibit judicial review. And that will take care of the feral judge problem. Permanently.

Please correct me if I'm wrong concerning judicial review. But if there was no judicial review, then regardless that the Supreme Court decided unconstitutional Obamacare in Obama's favor, the Court wouldn't have been able to test the constitutionality of Obamacare in the first place.

The way I see it, the only way to force the unconstitutionally big federal government to comply with its constitutionally limited powers is the following. Parents are going to have to make sure that public schools teach their children reading, writing, arithmetic and the federal government's constitutionally limited powers the way that the Founding States had intended for those powers to be understood.

I think this article does a great job of explaining why a states convention is such a terrible idea:
http://godfatherpolitics.com/12299/constitutional-convention-bad-idea/
Hmm maybe i should post it

Well, except that the article isn't about a states convention. Go read it again. The whole article is about a Constitutional Convention, NOT a Convention of States.

From the article:

Mark Levin is a great guy, and his new book is a good read, but if we agree to a ConCon, we’ll end up being conned by a hydra-headed political monster. A ConCon (Constitutional Convention) is VERY different from a Convention of States.

Buy Levin's book and read it.

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.