Posted on 02/01/2014 3:48:17 AM PST by Jacquerie
In what is taking shape as a sort of Great Awakening, state legislators have begun to learn that they hold equal status with Congress when it comes to proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, a handful of state legislators from each state, as yet unknown, are destined for the annals of American history the moment the nation's first Convention for Proposing Amendments is gaveled to order.
The process, found in Article V of the U.S. Constitution, requires the legislatures of at least two thirds (34) of the states to pass resolutions demanding that Congress call a "Convention for Proposing Amendments" -- an ad hoc assembly where state legislators, voting state-by-state, may propose (but not ratify) amendments.
The thought of such a thing, while horrifying to Congress, represents the last constitutional method to reform a federal government run amok. And nothing more clearly illustrates the divide between flyover country and the federal city than the remedies that are sure to be proposed and later ratified by the states. To the ruling class, nothing could be more anathema than the prospect of amendments requiring term limits, balanced budgets, single-subject bills, and commerce clause reform.
Few on the Hill seem to be taking notice of the gathering clouds -- a situation that the states would do well to exploit. If anything, the nascent "Article V movement" is little more than a curiosity among the ruling elite. Congress, aware of Article V, has every expectation that the states will continue a 200-year losing streak when it comes to coordinating the resolutions necessary to trigger the process. This is entirely due to the fact that the founders left Congress in charge of counting the resolutions.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The logic is there; the calculus of this trajectory is indisputable, the math calls for it...(see tagline)
Brilliant. Power wants power and will seek it out. Pit the state legislatures which chafe under unfunded federal mandates against the overreach of the executive branch and you have a political winner. Well done.
The other part of this tiger is keeping a narrow focus. Repeal the 17th and a lot comes together for everyone and over time. No need for a revolution when liberty will evolve naturally. We’ll have to watch out for an Internet tax from a newly empowered Senate, but a House can stymie that.
The real risk is the push back you’ll get from the Left. They’ll call it undemocratic and a step backward once they see how their power in DC will be undermined. You’ll also have a stealth fight via the K Street crowd and every crony capitalist. What are the arguments you’ve seen countering the charge that this is a step backward? What kind of education do the voting public have (we can ignore those that don’t vote)?
I left this post at the site too:
I assume the author is referring to the IN law limiting the delegates ability to alter the amendments prescribed by the legislature?
This legislation was an assurance to not just the opponents of an Article V session would not result in chaos, but for themselves to maintain control of the outcome.
As this is a new procedure, the state legislators are stepping timidly to insure complete control. They understand that this effort must be able to withstand attacks of all opponents in the future.
Consider that complete control will guarantee that multiple versions of an amendment are not crafted. Exiting the session with multiple version will create the exact havoc the author describes.
This may be a one time shot and I do not blame legislators for wanting to get it right from the start.
In fact, Mr. Berry’s suggestion to not place clear limits on the delegates could create more trouble than actually doing so.
I like and commend the legislators for the clear, cautious and controlled path currently being created.
“How will changing the Constitution help?”
Good point. It won’t help.
The Constitution does not need to be changed it needs to be followed.
It takes 2/3 of the states to ratify an ammendment to the Constitution. It would take way less than that number of states to use the 10th ammendment to simply nullify the laws and regulations put into effect by this progressive administration.
State sovereigntly is the way to go not Article V. If Obama keeps up his demented tactics the Congress could invoke Article 25 and remove him for being unfit. Frankly I think they have grounds to do it now.
A constitutional convention would be an unmitigated disaster. The American people have been stupid enough to elect Obama. Twice. I therefore have little faith in their mental abilities. I can see “freedom of religion,” “freedom of speech,” and the 2A going right out the window if our feckless leaders get their mitts on them and whip the sheeple into an emotional frenzy.
The Constitution as written ain’t the problem. The problem is the gubmint don’t pay any attention to it. There’s no constitutional authority for ANY of the socialist programs that have driven us into bankruptcy.
So putting more amendments on the document, that they’ll ignore as well, won’t be helpful. Not to mention all the “corrections” they’ll insist upon when provided this golden opportunity.
So the left would be able to accomplish this chicanery, not with the support of a willing Legislative, Judicial, or Executive Branches, but of 38 states seeking to give away more authority after calling for a meeting?
Think not.
@GeorgiaGirl “State sovereigntly is the way to go not Article V.”
Follow the steps:
1) Convene Article V State Convention
2) Exit Convention with language specifically removing the language of the 17th Amendment
3) As U.S. Senators rotate back to legislative appointments the chamber is once again filled with people designated to conduct their jobs on behalf of the states and not self interested voters.
4) Future and past legislation is repaired to return the power back to the states and the people (unfunded mandates dissolve)
5) Now you have power within the state.
Tell me your path to restoring that power, please. Other than hope and voting for the existing animal.
@afsnco “The American people have been stupid enough to elect Obama.”
Exactly!
That is why an Article V STATE Convention will not rest with the American people, but with the state legislatures.
groups of the American Union includes the people (see the 9th Amendment) and the states (see the 10th Amendment).
This is simply one group of members using the power created on their behalf to regain a seat at the Federal table.
Fantastic article!
How would you propose we do that?
“2) Exit Convention with language specifically removing the language of the 17th Amendment
3) As U.S. Senators rotate back to legislative appointments the chamber is once again filled with people designated to conduct their jobs on behalf of the states and not self interested voters.”
I hate to be the one to tell you but the reason for the 17th Ammendment in the first place was because people were upset at all the corruption going on from Senators being appointed by the state legislatures. Its a viscious circle. Repealing the 17th ammendment will do nothing to restore the constitutional republic.
No, it takes 3/4 of the states.
State sovereigntly is the way to go
How do you propose we do that?
“How do you propose we do that?”
Read the 10th Ammendment.
Great analysis
OK. I read it. Now what?
“OK. I read it. Now what?”
I don’t know. I’m not your Mom. Form an opinion. :-)
As for the Left, they've convinced a nation once dedicated to liberty that the end purpose of government is democracy. When the media realize this Article V movement is real, perhaps we'll have a debate over first principles.
If amendments anywhere near those suggested by Mark Levin are ratified, the structure of government will be changed back toward federalism. We're talking about changes that cannot be ignored, such as repeal of the 17th.
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.