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 ...
Who says it would have to go back to the States? Many state legislatures could provide that their delegate to the convention has authority to vote on behalf of the legislature for any amendment proposed by 2/3's of the state delegates to the convention. If the numbers worked out right amendments could be proposed, accepted, voted on and ratified, within an hour's time.
Not if the legislature gave its delegate to the convention the power to vote for the acceptance of any amendment proposed at the convention by 2/3rds of the states.
/johnny
Politicians of every stripe love power.
Given that maxim, plus our national decline, I find it amazing that state legislators didn’t clamor long ago to reassert themselves in the senate.
It is time. Article V.
At some point, probably shortly after the next assembly of states this coming June, there will a coordinated old media attack on our efforts.
Good. Bring it on. Let's debate America's first principles instead of Sandra Fluke's groin. We'll win that debate.
Once again, I have to tell you that you are seriously off the rails. None of your concerns are remotely connected with reality.
Here’s one piece of reality for you to chew on: the ratification of amendments proposed by the Article V Convention ARE NOT RATIFIED BY THE CONVENTION.
Each State must vote on each amendment separately to the convention, either in the state legislatures or in special state ratifying conventions - but still state by state.
This can only be described as a lie. The process does not, cannot, and will not ever work that way. Are you on drugs?
The danger from a runaway state initiated amendment convention is also present in runaway congressionally sponsored amendments. Neither has happened.
OTOH, do we not have a runaway, consolidated government in DC?
And nothing would prevent any given state legislature from giving authoriy to its delegate to the convention to vote on ratifying any proposed amendment that got the go ahead by 2/3's of the states. Nothing. It could all be done in an hour.
/johnny
ON this notion, you are so utterly, profoundly, and irredeemably wrong, that I have to wonder about you. Humans are not normally capable of such obtuse wrong-headedness.
Why not? Where's the constitutional provision to prevent this from happening? Please enlighten me.
Why? because you said so? You certainly have not been able to articulate a reason why this couldn't happen. I'm still waiting.
Let me answer you in this way: yes, a state could authorize it's delegate to do nearly anything it wanted to, but a vote to ratify even if offered at an Article V Convention would be utterly without effect since an Article V Convention has NO POWER to ratify Amendments. None. It can only PROPOSE them; to be ratified they must be acted upon by each of the States, individually.
Let's try to scale back the nonsense, OK.
This paper examines the growth of government during this century as a result of giving women the right to vote. Using cross-sectional time-series data for 1870 to 1940, we examine state government expenditures and revenue as well as voting by U.S. House and Senate state delegations and the passage of a wide range of different state laws. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing over time as more women took advantage of the franchise. Contrary to many recent suggestions, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s, and it helps explain why American government started growing when it did.
It wouldn't be the "convention" voting to ratify it would be the state delegates that had authority to do so voting to ratify. The constitution says nothing about where or when the ratification vote has to take place. If enough state delegates (3/4 of all states) with the legislative authority to do so voted to ratify the amendments just minutes after they were approved by 2/3 of the State delegates then it would be a legitimate state ratification. Nothing in the constitution would prohibit this.
Hysteria \Hys*te"ri*a\, n. [NL.: cf. F. hyst['e]rie. See
Hysteric.] (Med.)
A nervous affection, occurring almost exclusively in women,
in which the emotional and reflex excitability is
exaggerated, and the will power correspondingly diminished,
so that the patient loses control over the emotions, becomes
the victim of imaginary sensations, and often falls into
paroxism or fits.
[1913 Webster]
Note: The chief symptoms are convulsive, tossing movements of
the limbs and head, uncontrollable crying and laughing,
and a choking sensation as if a ball were lodged in the
throat. The affection presents the most varied
symptoms, often simulating those of the gravest
diseases, but generally curable by mental treatment
alone. Hysteric
What is your solution reverse Police State America 2014?
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.