Posted on 04/21/2014 2:46:24 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll
Momentum for the Convention of States Project has spread from the peach trees of Georgia to the mountains of Alaska to the beaches of Florida.
The Alaska Senate passed the Convention of States application (HJR 22) on Saturday by a vote of 12-8, and the Florida House passed the Convention of States application (SM 476) today by a voice vote.
Congratulations to our teams in Alaska and Florida! They’ve done a fantastic job and deserve all the credit for this important victory. Thanks to everyone who made a call or wrote an email–your voice was heard, and we’re two steps closer to holding the first ever Article V Convention of States.
In both states, the House and the Senate passed identical versions of the bill, so no reconciliation will be necessary.
Once we receive final confirmation from the state legislature, Alaska and Florida will join Georgia in their call for a Convention of States to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.
ping
Article V ping.
Idiots. There is no way a convention of the States as governed by the pols we have today could come out anything but badly. It makes no sense to modify the Constitution when the government ignores the one we have.
Idiots. There is no way a convention of the States as governed by the pols we have today could come out anything but badly. It makes no sense to modify the Constitution when the government ignores the one we have.
*******************************************************************
I agree. And I worry that in the event that a convention of the States ever comes about, the progressives and RINOs will seize effective control by stacking the participants and result in a “Runaway Convention” destroying the Constitution.
Thanks Publius. Do you know if these are for the CoC proposed by the Citizens for Self-Governance? So far, that’s the one CoC I favor. I’m not comfortable with any old CoC.
This is the Mark Levin project. Three states so far, and 31 to go.
V
When will this really get national attention? Given recent western events, the near daily Obama outrage, I think the movement can only grow.
I didn't take careful notes regarding support from national political figures these past few months, but IIRC Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, (others?) have expressed public support, without making a big push for it.
I know the one in FL is COS.
---
The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps: Proposal, Disposal, and Ratification.
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
Let us pray that the steps we take today be done in good faith and good hearted interest of the preservation of our rights.
Two more states. Interesting. Again, I think it’s largely an exercise in futility but fairly harmless. One question I have though for the folks favoring this is how to deal with the problem of the individual states not exactly being friendly to the idea of limited government or expanded liberty.
Very good news!! 31 to go!
34 to call for a convention, 38 to ratify any resulting amendment.
Now that it has been determined that states cannot rescind their resolutions, what is the count of states?
Neither did the Federal Convention.
An Article V Convention of States is simply a formal gathering of delegates from at least 34 states (two-thirds), to discuss, debate, and "propose amendments" to the Constitution.
And you think our august Congress wouldn't run with it? You think the courts wouldn't back them up?
Anybody can propose Amendments. What's wrong with starting that discussion here as you and I have done before in a reasonably productive exchange (without rancor or nastiness I might add)? It might take a few months, but there are some very smart people here who just might run with it.
The convention would operate on a one State = one vote system; with each State carrying the same weight.
One look at the map shows why that is a problem. Such a convention is heavily weighted toward the demands of liberals.
Any proposal not within the stated purpose of the Convention of States (fiscal restraints; limits on power and jurisdiction; limits on terms of office) would be unauthorized, rejected, and not approved by the Convention of States.
I just don't buy this.
Any proposal that emerged as a "proposed amendment" by the Convention of States would require ratification by 38 states (three-fourths), the same as with any other proposed amendment.
Ask yourself: What Amendments do you see that would get 3/4 of the States to agree? I can think of a couple, as I have mentioned, with regard to clarifying the Supremacy Clause and the manner of treaty ratification. Those are no-brainers. IMO, such is where we need to start.
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.