Posted on 04/11/2014 1:32:11 PM PDT by JeepersFreepers
Momentum is building behind what would be an unprecedented effort to amend the U.S. Constitution, through a little-known provision that gives states rather than Congress the power to initiate changes.
At issue is what's known as a "constitutional convention," a scenario tucked into Article V of the U.S. Constitution. At its core, Article V provides two ways for amendments to be proposed. The first – which has been used for all 27 amendment to date – requires two-thirds of both the House and Senate to approve a resolution, before sending it to the states for ratification. The Founding Fathers, though, devised an alternative way which says if two-thirds of state legislatures demand a meeting, Congress “shall call a convention for proposing amendments.”
“Based on several reports and opinions, Michigan might be the 34th state to issue such a call and therefore presents the constitutionally-required number of states to begin the process of achieving a balanced budget amendment,” Hunter wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
What could possibly go wrong? I mean, anything’s better than what we have now, right?
I see a mistake. The founding fathers should have left Congress out of the equation entirely. As it is, Congress has to call for the convention and they could literally sit on their laurels forever and not do it.
“What could possibly go wrong? I mean, anything’s better than what we have now, right?”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Wrong!
I hope the 2A survives and may even be strengthened.
Look on the bright side, perhaps they could limit the powers of the guy with the phone and the pen.
This is a Convention of the States. It will have no effect on the Articles or the Bill of Rights which were ratified as a package.
The purpose will be to propose new Amendments and not to rewrite the entire Constitution.
It takes 37 states to change the Constitution.
Thus, I cannot see the 2A being changed either way.
However, I think the following has support from both liberal and conservative sides, and could easily get 37 states to pass:
- Overturning Kelo
- Making it illegal for members of Congress to engage in insider trading.
I’m still on the fence but from what I’ve been reading this type of convention is pretty limited in scope and can’t really be bowled over by the feds. Basically not much can be added.
This sword has two edges. Be careful what you wish for.
I believe that there is no limit to what part of the Constitution can be amended. I’m willing to be corrected.
Maybe some education is necessary to understand what the COS is not a Constitutional Convention.
http://conventionofstates.com/
Now the fools want to amend it as if IT were the problem. Fools need to look to themselves.
I’d be happy if we had an amendment that requires that anyone running for the office of president must be a natural born United States citizen. /sarc
No sense in writing new ones until the old ones are enforced.
The COS is ONLY for proposing amendments. The states STILL have to ratify them. I have no fear of a COS or even a full blown Constitutional Convention. This may be the only chance we ever get of reigning in the power of the federal government.
It is our only hope short of an all out civil war.
An article 5 convention is a way for the states to get back some of that power, and the feral government has no say.
Only the state legislatures have a say in an article 5 convention.
Harry Reid and Nasty Pelosi need not apply.
Uh huh. We should only allow Congress to propose amendments right?
Puke......
The ignore the current ones by claiming that the meanings are flexible and obscure. The COS will specifically define the “gray” areas so there can be no doubt. For example, one of the proposed amendments is to repeal the 17th Amendment and make the senators selected by the state legislatures. Another is to term limit the representatives. Yet another is to forbid Congress from giving the agencies it creates the power to create rules with the weight of law. Another is to redefine the power that Congress has on interstate traffic to limiting interstate tariffs instead of the broad powers it now claims the interstate commerce clause gives them. Kind of hard to use weasel words on plain words.
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.