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 ...
It is obvious that your mind is made up. If a Constitutional Convention comes to pass I hope you are correct, but I have not found any proof that it it can’t go in a direction that none of us will like.
This is really a “raise-the-bridge/lower-the-river” issue, IMHO. The lower-the-river endeavor is this constitutional convention. It could change the whole landscape. The raise-the-bridge angle would be to 1) clarify the 14th Amendment to make it say exactly what it was intended to say 140 years ago, and specify what it WASN’T intended to say; and 2) eliminate the commerce clause entirely as being an obsolete vestige whose necessity and times no longer exist (and, at the same time, poof! goes the Commerce Department).
I believe that with those two refinements, the Constitution could still be our Lex Rex, and the libs would be hard pressed to govern, either legislatively or administratively; because there is not a single substantive action taken by liberals within the past 60 years that wasn’t entirely predicated upon the 14th Amendment and Commerce Clause, applied wrongfully, by the Supreme Court.
So I say let’s raise the bridge.
You miss the point. Senators are supposed to be representatives of the state legislatures. Representatives are representatives of the people. When both of them are elected by the people, we have pure democracy. Pure democracy always devolves to the masses voting themselves funds from the public treasury.
It makes sense but you’re going to play hell convincing people to give up their “right” to vote for senators. Pete Hoekstra was no conservative firebrand but he made an offhand comment about needing to fix the 17th Amendment and was met with immediate sustained screeching about wanting to strip people of the right to vote.
As far as the legislatures electing senators, obviously it would be better as far as the GOP is concerned but I’m not very trusting of the state legislatures either. On the other hand, it might just get people more involved in legislative politics which would be a good thing.
I’m still thinking my way through this but I can’t ignore the fact that it would be an awfully hard sell with the people.
“Every high school student should be required to know the simple options for amending the Constitution in Article V before being allowed to graduate.”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
When I was a public school student we WERE required to know that along with a lot of other things that people who hold a degree in history or political science or any other degree don’t know now. I had to be able to write out the whole procedure of how a bill goes through congress and explain what a “pocket veto” was. We even understood that any “money” bill could only originate in the house, not the senate. Seems even people in the senate and house don’t know that now.
Not really, 5 corrupt judges can do it.
Even worse a President can issue an EO and it requires a super majority to undo it, at least during his tenure.
In case you haven't noticed, everything is already on the block.
Every alphabet government agency has been armed, I have no clue why. :)
I now what AN. Amendment involves, “with or without Mike Allen “and this is no amendment and you damn well know that. But, hey, go right ahead. Six weeks after something like this starts you’ll all be standing around wondering how Thad libs got control of it.
Sigh. Beyond folly.
Name calling. Which means my argument won. Thank you.
Fear monger? You mean like Mercy Otis Warren who in the Constitutional debates repeatedly warned that even the Bill of Rights wasn’t strong enough? Or George Mason or Patrick Henry, who said that a convention would lead to an uncontrollable federal government? Those fear mongers?
So, if the Tea Party keeps nominating people, a handful of which actually get elected, and then sees many of those (Rubio, tBrown) quickly cave, do you really think that the selection of commissioners would be different?
Let me suggest what the Ohio delegation would look like: it would NOT be one of hHe few Tea Partiers we can trust, such as Jim Jordan, but we would see Bob Taft brought back, probably someone like Mike DeWine, and then for "balance" a "moderate" Dem in the Tony Hall mode. So, 2RINOs and an uber-lib.yeah, they'll act with our freedom in mind.
The result will create a country that reflects every socialist's wet dream.
Right now, we are seeing a foretaste, under the current administration, of what will be created by such a Constitutional Convention. Electing a strictly conservative future government will not change the outcome.
As it stands, socialists have a plan, a goal, and lots of money, as well as the MSN ready to report most favorably on them - while failing to mention those things which could be seen as negative. Low information voters will lap up every sound bite.
As it stands, the Conservatives have some money, moral rectitude, FOX news, and a moldy piece of paper. Low information voters will not have a clue what conservatives are talking about, if they even hear anything at all.
No Amendments will be strengthened, only weakened or eliminated. New Amendments will enshrine socialist values.
Holding a Constitutional Convention in such an environment is the worst idea possible and will end very badly for this country.
We live in interesting times ... be careful what you wish for ...
It wouldn't call it a suggestion but an understanding of where we are, and until the majority begins to shift, nothing will change. In the meantime, we need to make sure that we don't throw away what few hard-won victories we have in desperation "Hail Mary's." The wheel always turns, but it is possible to break the wheel.
Crawl into your hole and bit your pillow.
The point is, do not think such a meeting would in any way be limited to either the issues which it was to address nor the direction. For example, a proposal to limit spending or balance budgets could very easily be flipped by libs to remove ALL restrictions on spending; or a proposal to further protect gun rights could (and would) insinuate language that would easily undermine the 2nd Amendment.
That’s “bite” and it shows that not only can you not argue, you can’t spell.
If someone's served two terms in the US House of Representatives, they're done. They can run for President, but that's it.
Same for the Senate - serve two terms in the Senate and you can run for President -- but that's it.
No more CAREER politicians. While we're at it, NO MORE DAMN' LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT EITHER! We go back to a Citizen Legislature OR ELSE.
Touche I misspelled bite so you are superior. My bad.
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.