Posted on 04/02/2014 11:45:21 AM PDT by 12th_Monkey
We often hear talk about pressing for a constitutional convention as a means to address issues that Congress keeps avoiding, especially on debt and spending levels as well as intrusion on states’ rights. States have that option, as long as two-thirds agree on a demand for such a meeting — which hasn’t taken place since the US Constitution was put forward more than 220 years ago. Did a recent call from Michigan for action on balancing the budget hit the two-thirds mark?
A similar issue came up during the debate over the Equal Rights Amendment, which stalled and died in the 1980s. Some states voted to ratify the amendment but then changed their collective minds, and voted to rescind their ratification. The Supreme Court ruled that the rescissions were valid in Idaho v Freeman in 1982, and the ERA ended up dying on the vine partly as a result. The first arbiter of this question will be Congress itself, but any legal action challenging the validity of the count at 34 would likely refer back to the 1982 decision. It’s more likely that the count is 23 rather than 34, in practical terms.
Should we encourage the move to a Constitutional convention? Mark Levin is the most prominent advocate for it, and his reasoning is solid. The option exists as a check on federal power so that it allows states to rein in an acquisitive Congress or executive. After ObamaCare and the borrowing sprees of the last several years in particular, it’s all but impossible to argue that those conditions don’t exist at the moment.
Still, it’s an interesting debate, if still a bit academic at the moment. We’ll see what Congress thinks of the count, and see whether it ends up going through the judiciary.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
There is NO “Constitutional Convention” proposed by MI or Mark Levin, or anybody else today. We hand one “Constitutional Convention” in 1789, and under THIS Constitution, ONLY conventions to propose amendments are Constitutional.
Furthermore, not all Article-V conventions are the same... they always have a Call Topic.
In the case of MI, it is for a balance budget amendment. PERIOD.A BBA amendment convention is VERY narrowly focused, and would produce one amendment.
In the case of the COS and Levin, it is to reign-in the federal govt. PERIOD. A COS might produce a few to a half-dozen or so amendments (term limits, abolish the 17th, and a few others).
All that would emerge is the still intact, coerced union with the Bill of Rights tossed out and the Declaration of Independence deemed seditious, which in context, probably is.
We are a totalitarian state along these lines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarian_democracy
Only one or the other or a combination of two things will change the status quo, or something even worse than the status quo:
1) Overthrow of the Washington government by internal or external enemies, or
2) sovereign bankruptcy and dissolution.
Ping.
Proposal:
There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.
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:
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:
Implicitly forbidden:
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
Pandora’s box is never restrained by rules or even laws ... :-) ...
Often problems are not dealt with by doing nothing effective to fix them.
the term "always" and "the same" seems a bit odd here, as there have been zero Article V Conventions.
Um, no.
I think it’s a risky thing, but anything is better than what we have now.
I lean more toward secession
His reasoning might be solid, but for the fact that the government operates heedless to the Constitution we have. His proposed Liberty Amendments on the other fall egregiously short of dealing with the most obvious and egregious flaws in the original document. hence, this idea of Levin's has dropped him in my estimation considerably.
I see it that way too. Comes a point when something is to broken to fix and a reset is needed.
Thing is, do we want a new constitution written by the ACLU, PETA, Green peace, New Black panther party and whatever else that crawls out of the muck?
The problem is that it has been amended dozens of times by Scotus and every other week by Obama. None of these amendments appear in the text, yet they are there and defended by the Left as (Un)holy writ.
Narrowly defined, structural change proposals for a state amendment convention to consider cannot do any harm. It is why, at this early stage, far more state level democrats have opposed a convention than pubbies.
Please elaborate.
Pardon my mis-post.
His proposed Liberty Amendments on the other fall egregiously short of dealing with the most obvious and egregious flaws in the original document.
Please elaborate.
I’m not sure what they are talking about either.
Here is a link to his liberty amendments:
http://www.redstate.com/2013/08/13/mark-levins-liberty-amendments/
I don’t see a damned thing wrong with any of them
I have realized that elections are not enough to restore our liberty. In fact, it is scandalous that our liberties should be subject to the outcome of elections in the first place.
Earlier today, I posted a Freeper Editorial that dealt with that very subject:
Exactly!
All the more reason to drop the BBA, in favor of a COS to reign-in the federales. Much better to have an amendment to balance budget AND limit the ferals to a specific % of GDP. The discussion of this in the COS arena would have special considerations for war and whatnot, to address the objectors... but something like this is needed - check spending AND revenues, while balancing the budget.
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.