Posted on 02/07/2014 9:04:18 AM PST by taildragger
Two months ago, Emma Roller and I wrote about the possibly historic Assembly of the States in Mount Vernon. Momentum had been building oh-so-slowly on the right for a new, state-led constitutional convention, which could pass amendments far quicker than the Congress could. (And no one sees a scenario, any time soon, where there'll be 67 conservative votes in the Senate to pass amendments.) The reaction: Largely just a lot of doubt that this would come to anything.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
It was suggested you do some research. There are rules for a Convention to propose amendments.
The first rule in a COS is that any amendment that passes must have approval of 2/3s of the states. That is itself is a tight control.
The second rule is that 3/4s of the states must ratify any passed amendment before the amendment becomes part of the Constitution. That is a high bar but not for conservatives. Conservatives still control the majority of the states.
A CC is called to draw up or revise a Constitution. A COS merely amends the existing Constitution if any amendment can get past 38 states.
There is NO CHANCE of a runaway convention. The rules are clear.
Here’s my proposal:
WHEREAS, the federal government has created a crushing national debt through improper and imprudent spending; and
WHEREAS, the federal government has invaded the legitimate roles of the states through the manipulative process of federal mandates, most of which are unfunded to a great extent; and
WHEREAS, the federal government has ceased to live under a proper interpretation of the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, it is the solemn duty of the states to protect the liberty of our people, particularly for the generations to come, by proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States through a convention of the states under Article V of the United States Constitution to place clear restraints on these and related abuses of power.
THEREFORE, let is be resolved that henceforth, the Federal Government, and the Courts, shall actually follow the Constitution as it exists.
I said at the “state level”. Do you have a reading problem? Apparently so!
There are plenty of LIVs populating State legislatures. Furthere there are plenty of "conservatives" that have thier liberal side. Many social conservatives are not necessarily economic conservatives and vice versa. Once a convention gets convened there's no limit to the wheeling and dealing which will take place. Would a staunch "pro-life" delagate be willing to trade the 2nd amendment for an anti-abortion amendment? Like I said, once the genie is out of the bottle there's no way to insure where this thing is going to go. I'm not saying don't do it but if you do then make sure your eyes are open.
So the only procedural and substantive guidance we have is the numbers necessary to open the convention and to pass amendments. That's not a lot to go on. Everything else is wide open.
> “There are plenty of LIVs populating State legislatures.”
Not in the conservative states that were swept by the Teap Party groups in the 2010 elections.
It’s obvious you’re blowing smoke now.
So, both use the same process to amend an existing constitution. I see no difference for a country that already has a constitution. The only fixed rules are the numbers required to begin and complete the process. Everything else is wide open.
Your comment reads almost (but not quite as bad) like the super-ignorant ones on Slate. Please, I hope we have a higher order of member here on Free Republic.
> “So the only procedural and substantive guidance we have is the numbers necessary to open the convention and to pass amendments. That’s not a lot to go on. Everything else is wide open.”
38 states is not a lot to go on? Make an appointment with your neurologist, there’s a concern showing here that you need to have your head examined.
> “Everything else is wide open.”
Yeah? Like what? Name one thing!
What did that accomplish in this regard? And I hate to inform you that we've had another election since 2010 and the Tea Party didn't accomplish jack in that election. You cannot control outcomes. "Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread."
Some of what you are saying may or may not have any element of truth, but here’s the part that is certainly true: “If 3/4 of the states vote to pass any such amendment then it becomes part of the constitution.”
The other side of that is that if 1/4 of the states do not ratify some dumb-assed liberal proposal, it goes nowhere. I’m quite happy with this prospect.
Let’s get on with it.
The procedure for running the convention. Who gets seated in the event of conflicting state claims to representation. The agenda. The amedments which will be offered. Who determines whether a proposed amendment got 3/4's of state support if the majority says it did? The Supreme Court? I don't know that I trust them. When the stakes are this high there would be plenty of "solid conservatives" who would be bought off.
Sorry, it is broken and needs fixing. if you can’t see that, then you haven’t been paying attention for the past 100 years.
You are seriously off the rails.
You need to do some research.
/johnny
And what if the majority of the delegates to such a convention vote that all votes on passage of proposed amendments be done in secret with an "official vote counter" to announce the results? Nothing would prevent this at an Article V convention. And when all the amendments you despise get fraudulently passed how are you going to challenge that?
If that was the case, they would have proposed an amendment convention many times since 1913. They have the courts always at the ready to amend the constitution.
American 2014 is a police state. It is foolish to gaff off the peaceful means our framers gave us to possibly restore freedom.
/johnny
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.