Posted on 04/11/2014 3:35:48 PM PDT by Jacquerie
I post the following to address a common concern of Freepers who oppose an Article V state convention.
The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.
The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.
A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.
In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist's certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive.
In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President. President Johnson signed the certifications for the 24th and 25th Amendments as a witness, and President Nixon similarly witnessed the certification of the 26th Amendment along with three young scholars. On May 18, 1992, the Archivist performed the duties of the certifying official for the first time to recognize the ratification of the 27th Amendment, and the Director of the Federal Register signed the certification as a witness.
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:
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
Mark Levin Article V, Liberty Amendments youtube video hub
Three hour video of C-Span interview with Mark Levin
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
Ulysses at the Mast: Democracy, Federalism, and the Sirens' Song of the Seventeenth Amendmentby Jay Bybee. Repeal the 17th!
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.
Excellent Article V Letter to a State Assemblyman by Jacquerie
Let’s all work together to get this going.
The Federal Government is broken. We owe it to The Founders and ourselves to attempt a rational Article V amendment process. If it doesn't work, or is hijacked, then fine, it's on to what we're all expecting anyway, revolution. It's your call America.
We are being told here in Arizona that the final vote on the Convention of States Article V Application - SCR1016 - will probably take place next Monday, April 14th, in the Arizona House of Representatives.
This may be our last opportunity to help pass this legislation during this legislative session. This bill has moved favorably through four committee hearings and will now go to the floor of the House before the Committee of the Whole for a final vote. SCR1016 is considered to be the only realistic strategy that can finally begin to reverse the fiscally unsustainable and politically irresponsible actions of an out-of-control federal government.
For those of you who are still on the fence, fearing that what the nay-sayers and fear-mongers are calling a “runaway convention” could actually happen, please understand that this is a convention of state delegates called only to PROPOSE amendments to the Constitution, amendments that would LIMIT the power and scope of the federal government. Any proposal outside of those strict parameters would be ruled out of order and would not even be debated. Besides, no matter what proposals come out of this convention, they are nothing more than that – PROPOSALS – until ratified by at least 38 state legislatures. Do the math and you’ll see that it only takes 13 states to stop any amendment in its tracks... and they could do it by simply doing nothing!
The convention itself will be an open, closely followed public forum where true conservative ideas can finally be proposed, expounded upon and debated for the entire nation to see. Ideas like term limits for Congress and all federal judges; requiring Congress to pass an annual balanced budget under penalty of law; prohibiting votes on all but one-subject bills; banning international laws and treaties from influencing our courts; clarifying and greatly narrowing the General Welfare and Commerce clauses; ending the IRS and the EPA as we know it; just to name a few. And in the exhaustive examination of these ideas, there will come clarity, refinement and precision, culminating for some in proposals for amendments that will help steer the nation back toward the course envisioned by the Framers.
We here in Arizona are being asked to please set aside about 30 minutes over the weekend and call every House member on the roster linked below, particularly the leadership of both parties, and leave a brief message for them to find on Monday. You can be assured that the opposition will be making their calls, as well.
Remember to thank them for their service to their constituents - the people of Arizona – and strongly urge them to lend their support to SCR1610, Representative Townsend’s Article V legislation calling for a Convention of States to propose amendments to the Constitution to reduce the power and authority of the federal government and return it where it belongs... to the states.
Member Roster ==> http://www.azleg.gov/MemberRoster.asp?Body=H
Is the AZ application identical to that of the COS?
Well said, but that the federal government would try to stop or subvert it is kind of obvious. In truth, I expect that if the SCOTUS involves itself at any level, that is, does not firmly refuse to hear any appeals about the convention, and even goes so far as to instruct the judiciary that it is not their business, there is going to be trouble.
The federal judiciary has no authority over a convention, and if the convention votes it, any federal judge who involves himself, as well as any federal agency or individual, can be immediately suspended or even arrested.
That point should not be neglected: that the convention may sit as a judge and jury, and basically order villains to prison for an indeterminate length of time, while they accomplish their purpose.
Yes, it is.
I understand the constitutional process but there is a downside to a constitutional convention.
A constitutional convention cannot be limited to a single issue.
A constitutional convention can subject the entire Constitution to proposed changes.
I've not been able to find where a Convention of States called for the purpose of proposing amendments has that sort of authority, but I think a more likely reaction by the Establishment (including the judiciary) would be to quickly pass a few placebo bills, hoping to take the wind out of the delegates' sails, and I wouldn't rule out an attempt to propose a new "omnibus" amendment themselves... anything to muddy the waters.
Actually, it can, if done correctly. The term "constitutional convention" is an unfortunate misnomer here, and it's even more unfortunate that the excerpt comes from an official website. Nevertheless, a distinction must be made, and common usage and our understanding for the purposes of this discussion has it that there has been only one Constitutional Convention (note the capitalization), and that was to create the original document.
Technically, nowhere in Article V (nor anywhere else in the Constitution) does one find the authority for a convention to draw up a new constitution. There is authority, however, for a convention of states to propose amendments to the constitution.
No one here is calling for another Con-Con. We already have a Constitution, and one is enough. We simply believe that it needs to be clarified in a few places by amendment, a wholly legitimate and constitutional process. Like any convention, a Convention of States to Propose Amendments to the Constitution can (and will) define its scope, and, like any convention, an issue that falls outside of those strict parameters will be ruled out of order.
A constitutional convention can subject the entire Constitution to proposed changes.
Only if it's defined scope allows, and I don't see that being proposed in any of the legislation currently moving through the state legislatures.
What I do see are two bills, one drafted by the Compact for America that will apply to Congress for a Convention of States to Propose a Balanced Budget Amendment (CFA BBA), and a second bill drawn up by the Citizens for Self-Governance (CSG COS) applying to Congress for a Convention of States to Propose Amendments to the Constitution that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, that limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and that limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.
That's it, and they are both rather specific. Everyday parliamentary procedure would quickly dispose of any motion to "re-write the constitution" or to broaden the power of the federal in any way as void ab initio, or dead on arrival. Such an item would never make it to debate, let alone consideration. That's the way conventions work.
None of this is to say, however, that those who do wish to re-write the constitution can't try to pull off their own convention for that specific purpose down the block. It's a free country (sort of), and personally, I wish them lots of luck. They should do they math, though, and understand that it only takes 13 states to kill any harebrained ideas that they come up with... actually only one chamber in each of 13 state legislatures.
Bottom line here, in my opinion, is that the only legitimate "runaway" fear is that of a runaway federal government, and a Convention of States is a solution as big as the problem!
We have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Every citizen has a legitimate right if not an obligation to demand their representatives honor their oath to defend the Constitution.
The people have that right because they have not tampered with the words. May God bless those words.
Those worried about a Convention should consider the default permanent sitting pseudo “convention” of nine judges called “The Supreme Court.”
You beg for God's blessing. I believe we have that. He's done his part, now it's time for us to do ours. I feel certain that He (and we) would appreciate you pitching in.
Amen!
You have come a long way in discussing the amendment process. From an constitutional process to tampering.
I had overlooked the notion that someone would view the constitutional amendment process as tampering.
I thought it was clear that I was not referring to the 17 amendments after the ratified Bill of Rights. The words have been twisted, convoluted, and prostituted but remain unchanged. Not a single legislative constitutional power has been added.
The salvation of the founder’s vision for America exist in the Constitution’s words, and yes, may god bless those words.
You have every right to stand on principle. Just as we have the right to go to the polls every two years like the sheep that we are and send good constitutional conservatives to that meatgrinder in DC, only to see them chewed up, spit out and returned to us at re-election time as so much baloney.
You are not the only one who wants us to behave, by the way. The entrenched establishment of both parties loves things just the way they are. They, like you, pray that we continue to hope for Divine Intervention and ignore the solution to the problem that the Founders wrote right into that document you pretend to adore.
You simply cannot have it both ways: If you believe in the Constitution, then you believe in it in its entirety. You cannot cherry-pick your Articles. James Madison, among others, allowed for the fallibility of men, himself included, and helped write the remedy.
Please, take a moment and read those 143 words... words, by your own testament, blessed by God.
I've lost track of your point if you ever had one.
For the record, I want it one way, the constitutional way.
Praying and hoping are at best related. When I hope for something, I am wishing; when I pray for something I am demanding.
This thread began when you responded to a post I posted to Jacquerie:
I understand the constitutional process but there is a downside to a constitutional convention.
A constitutional convention cannot be limited to a single issue.
A constitutional convention can subject the entire Constitution to proposed changes.
I suggest you heed this caution regardless of your feelings.
I strongly favor a constitutional government. A constitutional government is a government with elected people who honor their oath to defend the Constitution. We do not have that situation now. A constitutional convention is not a guarantee of improvement.
Conservative voices will not be alone in a constitutional convention. I advise approaching problems informed and with eyes wide open. On another thread on Free Republic, a Congressman is proposing adding five words to the 2nd Amendment.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”
These progressive thoughts will be present in a constitutional convention.
You cannot have it both ways.
If the Constitution is to be followed to the letter, every word, than that includes the 143 words in Article V.
I cannot make it more clear than that.
I would respectfully ask that you respond to that issue. After that, possibly we can discuss other matters... maybe even your inadvertently referring to a Convention of States to Propose Amendments to the Constitution as a constitutional convention.
Sheesh!
Sheesh!
And see where we can go from there.
I would like to begin to by showing you that I am not alone in my assertion that a Convention of States to Propose Amendments to the Constitution is a constitutional convention.
34 States Call for Constitutional Convention
Following Article V is the objective.
I am not annoyed that you prefer calling the proposed constitutional convention a convention of states but I am curious why it annoys you that I do not.
My original intent in this thread was to suggest caution as we go forward. This is a worthwhile warning because every movement has hotheaded people who react without thinking.
I don't want you to think I am not enjoying this but I think we both realize our positions by now and further discourse would likely be pointless.
On that final note, we agree.
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.