The Final Constitutional Option

American Thinker ^ | February 9, 2014 | Robert Berry

[S.O.S121.500]

I thought The Final Constitutional Option was the Second amendment?

---

No, that is the reset button.

[Prospero]

A quick look at the comments under the article at AT shows (1.) how few grasp the distinction between the Constitutional Convention and a Convention for Proposing Amendments, and (2) how few are familiar with Madison's writings, late in life, during the, so-called, Nullification Crisis (which should not be confused with the abortive New England secession of Jefferson's first administration nor with South Carolina's decision to secede from the Union after Lincoln's election, 24 years after Madison's death).

Madison's argument against nullification was clear and effective, drawing much obloquy to the doorsteps of Montpelier.

[grumpygresh]

We know that electing more Republicans did not work. Even electing conservatives at the Federal level is useless with an entrenched bureaucracy.
Article V is worth attempting, but it’s no certainty, and in fact it is unlikely to succeed.
Patriot groups need to transform themselves into prepper groups. We need to stockpile supplies and skill-sets. Instead of appealing to federal legislatures, we should be talking to sheriffs.
I also think that liberty minded people really ought to get out of Leftist states wherever possible. Secession may be the best solution.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Others may be necessary before this is over.

Agreed. Though I am willing to go the distance in any scenario...I hope it doesn't come while I'm still drawing breath.

[glorgau]

The main plank of the Republican party should be to achieve a net reduction in the number of laws and regulations.

Simple point to make and will resonate with pretty much any voter.

[Jacquerie]

Article V, a process that entirely outflanks Washington’s fixed fortifications . . . Ping!

[Art in Idaho]

Another good article bringing to public awareness the Article V process.

Research links on the Article V process and the Liberty amendments:

Convention of States - Alabama Way to go Alabama! A good introduction.

'Convention of states' to rein in government? Another great summary explanation.

The Case for an Article V. Convention. Fantastic explanation of Article V convention to the Mass State Legislature.

I would recommend watching the above three videos first and then on to:

Convention of States Lots of information here.

A Summary of Mark Levin’s Proposed Amendments by Jacquerie

Chapter 1 of Mark Levin’s Book, The Liberty Amendments

Mark Levin, Constitution Article V, and the Liberty Amendments

Article V Project to Restore Liberty

Rep. Bill Taylor introduces a Convention of States

Citizens for Self Governance: Convention of States Project – a hub of 15 youtube videos on the Convention of States

Mark Levin Article V, Liberty Amendments youtube video hub

Three hour video of C-Span interview with Mark Levin

Amendments Convention Links

Gaining Steam? Nearly 100 Lawmakers Descend on Mount Vernon to Talk Convention of States The beginning.

Convention to Propose Amendments to the United States Constitution

The Other Way to Amend the Constitution: The Article V Constitutional Convention Amendment Process

Friends of Article V Convention Links

Article V Convention: Path of Least Resistance By Robert Berry

The Final Constitutional Option

Article V Handbook - for State Legislators

State Legislators Article V Caucus State Legislators, Join up at this site!

Send this list of links to your State Representatives and Senators here: Contact your State Legislators.

Sample Letter to state Representatives regarding the Convention of States Project and also, Talking Points. Both from Here.

Let’s all work together to get this going. Contact your state Senator today. Many of the State Legislatures are in session now.

The Federal Government is broken. We owe it to The Founders and ourselves to attempt a rational Article V amendment process.

[Texas Fossil]

Whatever it takes.

[Jacquerie]

That’s why this will never work.

Then no harm can be done if others try.

[ConradofMontferrat]

I personally think we should try to repeal the 17th FIRST.

IMHO, that keeps the lid on things and won’t allow a riot. And,as the Senate gets back to normal, things will change for the better.

There are more RED states than blue, and within the red states, the state houses and senates are mostly red.

Repealing the 17th would yank the teeth out of the high density population centers that are so sickeningly ratz.

[Beagle8U]

7.62x51 or 7.62x54? The latter would be common.

[Pajamajan]

bookmark

[Pajamajan]

bookmark

[TheGipperWasRight]

I find the Article V idea intriguing.

However, I know that the left has worked too hard to let a little thing like the Constitution to get in their way. A lot of preparations would have to be made, including getting ready for the onslaught of leftists on the state legislatures who are participating.

If it looks like the Constitution and conservatives are winning, I see the process or some part of it being declared “unfair” or “racist”, and attacked through the courts, and with the usual social justice agitation. Are there people at the state level who are ready for full-blown Alinsky tactics in their face? How about threats against themselves and their families?

At this point, it’s about all we have left. I’d have to do a closer look at each state, not just looking at which ones are red and blue, but what each state’s legislatures would be likely to do. I’m assuming when it says “states” would do the ratification, that it would be the state legislatures.

I like the idea, but it won’t be a cake walk. The left will not let decades of indoctrination and agitation be swept away easily.

[vg0va3]

My State Senator passed in GA this week. Now for everyone else to move forward too.

[Farmer Dean]

168 grains of instant conflict resolution.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Well I’m a nullification girl myself. The 10th ammendment might save us but if you are waiting on the Republican party to actually reduce the size of the US govt by say 50% which is what would be required at minimum you are deluded.

Lets just say The Republicans take back the Senate and we elect Cruz or Paul as the next President. They all agree to start shuttering these unnecessary and out of control agencies. It means basically laying off probably half a million people. The hue and cry from the MSM and the Democrats would be a tsunami. AFSME the union would be apoplectic and on every commie news channel screaming bloody murder. Even though AFSME does not represent Federal employees it would still be screaming. The American public would be stirred up agains’t the whole idea.

The Bureacracy is a self feeding mechanism. It defends itself like HAL in Space Odessy 2000. Getting rid of Bureacracy is the single most burdensome task at hand. It is going to take something significant to rid ourselves of what has been put in place over the course of a hundred years or more. The Progressives run the govt on a daily basis no matter who is President.

While Mark Levin and his followers are worrying about repealing the 17th ammendment they should be pushing the 10th ammendment and trying to get the states or enough of them to band together and start nullifying these overeaching and unconstitutional rules and regs put out by the US bureacracy. If necessary these same states need to stop sending in the Alchohol, tobacco and gasoline taxes to the Feds and starve the beast into submission. They need to start kicking the federal agents out of their states and tell them not to come back. Its going to take some really hard azz action to get this country under control.

We are beyond the ballot box at this point. We are certainly beyond Article V. We may be beyond nullification which is why everyone is running out buying up gun, ammo and food. Its not because they are afraid of burglars.

[DirtyPigpen]

762x51 is commonly known as .308

Although I do have a nice stash of x54r, I don’t have an autoloader in that caliber.

[Beagle8U]

On a related note...Natchez has had some really good sales on ammo lately. .223 as low as 35 cents per round.

[Publius]

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 or capitation taxes 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. So if California wants five senators, every state must have five senators. To permit this principle to be violated, this provision in Article V would first have to be amended; it would be a two-step process.

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. To permit the drafting of a new constitution, this provision in Article V would first have to be repealed; it would be a two-step process.

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