Call a Constitutional Convention, Already! Article V: A gift from the founders.

am spectator ^ | 3/14/14 | Allen Mendenhall

[bestintxas]

e've talked endlessly about using a Constitutional convention to wrest the reins of government from entrenched interests and put them back in the hands of the people. Enough talk: It's time to put the theory into action.

To recap, the Constitution may be amended in two ways: by a two-thirds vote of Congress, or by a convention called by two-thirds (34) of the (50) state legislatures. All amendments to date have arisen through the first mechanism, although conservatives and libertarians increasingly are calling for state lawmakers to pursue the second. If 34 states pass convention measures, Congress must convene a convention to discuss amending the constitution. In the words of James Madison, who was instrumental to the drafting of Article V, "If two thirds of the States make application, Congress cannot refuse to call one." Even the centralizer Alexander Hamilton conceded that the wording of Article V leaves "nothing...to the discretion of Congress."

The publication of Mark Levin's The Liberty Amendments seems to have brought this simmering talk to a boil. In his book, Levin suggests several amendments: to establish term limits for members of Congress, to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, to establish term limits for Supreme Court justices and provide a legislative override of their opinions, to limit federal taxing and spending, to restrict the federal bureaucracy, to promote free enterprise, to protect private property, to grant the states more direct power to amend the Constitution and check Congress, and to ensure that voting is open to citizens only. A non-profit called Citizens for Self-Government, run by Tea Party leader Mark Meckler, is organizing grassroots support for a convention. Lawmakers in Georgia have even come to taking votes on the matter.

[Political Junkie Too]

Could you have a Convention that was limited to what it could act on or one where it could pass on anything it wished? Would the State Legislatures have to vote on all proposed changes or could they cherry pick amendments?

The Convention would be for the purpose of proposing amendments. I suppose they could propose whatever amendments they want, but they cannot wholesale write a new Constitution. That said, I suppose they could try to do what the Senate does with House bills and pass a single amendment that says "Strike out the entire Constitution and replace it with this..." I doubt that an amendment proposal like that would win a vote at the convention, and even if it does, I'd expect 13 states to reject it.

The states wouldn't cherry-pick amendments, they would vote on each separately, yea or nay. The current Bill Of Rights were voted on separately, with different combinations of states voting for different amendments.

-PJ

[Da Bilge Troll]

Your assumption is that there are people who will take it to the next step.

I understand. This issue has been addressed. See conventionofstates.com under "Frequently Asked Questions":

Can Congress Block a Convention of States?
No. As long as each states applies for a convention that deals with the same issue (i.e., limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government), Congress must call the convention. Congress can name the place and the time for the convention. If it fails to exercise this power reasonably, either the courts or the states themselves can override Congressional inaction.

[DoodleDawg]

First, it wouldn't be a single document, it would be a package of amendments, each ratified separately by 38 states.

In other words half the blue states have to vote to ratify. You really think that's likely?

[ops33]

Could the Convention set a time limit for the State Legislatures to debate their proposed changes? When the Congress sent the ERA Amendment to the legislatures for debate it stated that if the Amendment was not ratified by a certain date the proposed Amendment would die.

[Publius]

Under Article V, it is the responsibility of Congress to handle the conditions of Disposal, such as assigning a time limit. Even the ABA does not believe an Amendments Convention can arrogate that responsibility to itself.

[society-by-contract]

So. what will YOU do when the new and improved Constitution removes your right to bear arms?

My comment asserted that the Philadelphia Convention acted illegally and by extension the document produced is illegal, too. Please don’t conflate recognizing this historical fact with me advocating an Article Five convention.

My own thoughts are not really important, but since you seem interested, my position is that of secession from the United States. Pan-secession actually. The idea that one document can effectively govern over three-hundred million souls is a conceit.

[kvanbrunt2]

The amendments will never be made. congress won’t call convention. the press won’t cover it.