Posted on 01/23/2014 12:59:18 PM PST by Jacquerie
Thanks Art...
Here is Madison in Federalist #43 (Number 8)
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed43.htm
and
Hamilton in Federalist #85
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed85.htm
to add to the discussion...
THAT sums it up!
Those legal minds that know like Levin etc have said that doing an Article 5 State convention will allow narrow amendment processes and they can control what is brought up. The left will be controlled and locked out if enough States agree to reaffirm rights and limit the amendments. if not... there will be no convention.
I agree.
The first link in your list is incomplete or broken.
Wouldn't state legislatures still have a say on the rules for the state ratifying conventions, if Congress chooses to go that route? Each state would choose its own rules for their own conventions, too, right, because these are state-managed events.
Would the federal government try to argue that "equal protection" allows them to insert themselves into the state processes to make each and every state hold their conventions in exactly the same way? Today, "equal protection" does not allow the federal government to intercede when some states hold primary caucuses and other states hold popular votes, so why would the federal government be allowed to dictate how a state holds its own ratifying convention?
-PJ
The states held special elections for their conventions by having one (or more) delegates elected from each district of the state's lower house of the legislature.
thats going to be a tough number to get.
Congress Sets State Application Count As Zero
No Rules Exist for Count; Passes Law Mandating Delegate Election
By Bill Walker
In only what can be only described as a kiss off response Kirk Boyle, legal counsel of the House of Representatives responded in a one page letter to Dan Marks' request for an official count of state applications currently recognized by Congress for an Article V Convention call.
The sheer volume of applications in question is best appreciated by examination of this map.
Mr. Boyle’s response was succinct — number of applying states counted by Congress: zero.
Mr. Boyle stated Karen Haas, Clerk of the House of Representatives, whose job it is to maintain and keep all reports required by law has not been instructed by statutory law to maintain any count of the applications.
However this response does not agree with the facts. As reported earlier, “Under House rules (Rule II, 2(b) and Rule VII) the clerk of the House is responsible for providing any reports required by law to be made to Congress. This of course includes a report listing the number of applying states requesting a convention call as the “law” in question is Article V of the Constitution. The procedure for recording applications was established on May 5, 1789 and has remained unchanged. Therefore, according to House rules, the record is public domain as it has existed over 30 years. Under House rules the clerk is considered the “custodian” of all records of the House of Representatives including state applications for a convention call.”
Mr. Boyle’s letter does not discuss that the Constitution describes Article V, as well as the rest of the Constitution, as “law of the land.” That law mandates Congress call a convention. Obviously, to be in compliance with that law, Congress must track the applications in order to know when to call.
However, Mr. Boyle asserts, because Congress has not passed a law authorizing a count of applications, no one is obliged to count the applications, including the House clerk. Therefore Congress does not have to call a convention because it has not consented to do so in the form of a law authorizing such count. Thus, Congress can ignore the Constitution because it has not consented to be bound to the terms of Article V and conduct a count of applications. In legal language, this is known as the principle of sovereign consent or sovereign immunity.
Despite four Supreme Court rulings mandating a convention call is peremptory, Mr. Boyle’s position is all 746 applications submitted by 49 states don’t count because Congress has never consented to obeying the Constitution; in this instance by providing a means for the applications to be counted by Congress.
This fact means, not only are all applications for a convention call by the states being ignored by Congress, but also all so-called “rescissions” which the John Birch Society has spent the last 40 years submitting to Congress. This fact means these so-called “rescissions” are meaningless. They have had no effect whatsoever on the number of applying states or their applications as Congress has never recognized the validity of the applications in question. Therefore, from the point of view of Congress, there is nothing to rescind.
Mr. Boyle suggested Mr. Marks consent to having his letter forwarded to the House Judiciary Committee “for further consideration.” There are several problems with this suggestion. First, the Founders made it absolutely clear the issue of a convention call was not to be submitted to a congressional committee. Such an act, according to James Madison, would imply Congress would have the authority to refuse and not call the convention. Secondly, the rules (or lack thereof) Mr. Boyle cites for the refusal by the clerk to count the applications are the same House rules which govern the committee and subcommittee.
Thus, these entities have no more authority to count the applications than the clerk does, if one accepts the premise set forth by Mr. Boyle. Hence, according to the rules (or lack thereof), the committees can give no more “consideration” to Mr. Marks’ request than the clerk has. Mr. Boyle’s purpose is obvious. By asking Mr. Marks to submit his letter to a congressional committee for “consideration, ” Mr. Boyle wants to establish Congress has a choice as to whether or not to call a convention — even if the states apply in sufficient number.
As cited above, this so-called choice is entirely contrary to the Founders’ intent, court rulings, and even previous statements from Congress itself.
Agreed, as it should be...
But two of the first amendments are a balanced budget and term limit amendment which BOTH have a 65%+ support across a broad political spectrum...
The late John Armour, aka FReeper "Congressman Billybob", once told me that the law discharged all petitions submitted since 1790. That would in fact mean that the current count is zero.
Think state senators should be appointed not elected like the constitution originally intended.
I hope more states get on board, it might be the last hope for our country
Alright, but all of those petitions would have been discharged on some particular date. There have been petitions submitted to Congress since then. From what I've been reading lately, over 30 states have recently submitted petitions to Congress to convene an Article V convention.
If Congress is going to stonewall that process, then this whole effort is for naught, and the people will have to resort to other means to impose their will on this lawless government.
Thanks for the heads up. Fixed it: Convention of States
I’m talking about the States taking control not individual ciizens.
I think the best and easiest way to fix things is for the states to just leave the US gov t and start their own govt immediatly. Own military , taxes, laws ect. That is real and certain change. The bankers and perverted globalist control the US govt,not Americans. I dont think America can be fixed too many third worlders here now.
Probably 99% of the media have ignored our burgeoning movement. Once the states meet again this summer, I suspect all hell will break loose in a highly coordinated and choreographed drama of outrage.
Doing it
Remember Adam Clayton Powell? He was the crooked congressman from Harlem whom the House refused to seat over 40 years ago. He said the House was free to expel him by the constitutional method of a two-thirds vote of the full House, but insofar as he had fulfilled all requirements of New York state law and won his election, the House had no choice but to seat him. When the House refused, Powell went to federal court.
The Supreme Court decided in favor of Powell and ordered the House of Representatives about like a lackey for the first time in history. There had been warnings from Congress to the Court not to touch this case on separation-of-powers grounds, but the Court took it, decided it and gave the House orders. The Powell precedent still stands.
The states would go to federal court and argue that Congress was blatantly defying the Constitution in refusing to set the time and place for a convention. If the Powell precedent is honored, the Supreme Court would order Congress to set the time and place for an Amendments Convention. Further intransigence from Congress might put the Court in the position of setting the time and place itself.
However, the Court could also rule that this is a political question beyond adjudication. That would mean it would be up to the voters to remove those senators and congressmen who feel that Congress is no longer bound by the Constitution. It depends on the willingness of the Court to be activist.
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.
