Posted on 04/23/2014 4:10:42 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Arizona’s Senate president is under fire from an unlikely source within his own political party: Sarah Palin.
The former vice presidential candidate took to Facebook on Tuesday to chastise Senate President Andy Biggs as the “only man standing in the way” of a vote on a measure to call an Article V Convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Palin notes that similar measures have already been approved in several states. But she said thanks to Biggs, a Gilbert Republican and leader of the GOP in the Senate, Arizona’s opportunities to approve SCR 1016 are rapidly dwindling. Legislatures in Alaska, Florida, Georgia and Alabama have all approved efforts calling for a Convention of States, and other states are still considering the option.
The Article V Convention measure was struck onto SCR 1016 in the House, where it was approved 31-24 and now awaits action in the Senate.
“Unless he budges, the session will run out, and the bill will actually die this year after thousands of hours of grassroots work and effort,” Palin wrote on Facebook. “Make no mistake, if that happens, these grassroots patriots will start over again next year and will continue as long as it takes. But I encourage everyone in Arizona to call this state senator and voice your objections to these Harry Reid-like tactics.”
“Tell him to allow this bill to come to a vote, and from now on, please only elect local leaders who support this effort,” Palin added.
As of roughly 5 p.m. Tuesday, Palin’s Facebook post has been shared over 1,100 times. And among the hundreds of comments on the post, many include the number to Biggs’ office in the Senate and his email address.
Some commentators expressed outrage that Biggs won’t allow the bill to proceed by urging a recall of the Senate president. Other accused Biggs of being a RINO, a “Republican in name only.”
“Ahh Mr. Biggs. . . . proving that some Republicans are more like Dems than they are like Conservatives,” wrote Damon Landschoot.
Biggs has a history of fighting against calls for constitutional convention. In 2012, the senator tried to defeat a similar Senate resolution by arguing that it could lead to a runaway convention where nearly any issue could be addressed, not simply to impose fiscal constraints such as limiting the increase of the federal debt.
A Convention of States to propose amendments (COS) is NOT a "constitutional convention". PERIOD!
The stench emanating from many of the AZ politicians really fouls our otherwise pristine air and sky. We will have our own “Earth Day” next election.
As per my rants that Sarah Palin should also consider pushing for patriots and former Obama supporters to try to win 2/3 “conservative” control of both Houses of Congress in 2014 elections to override presidential vetoes, please note the following. 2/3 control of both Houses is also what it takes for Congress to propose an amendment to the states.
So regardless of her approach to having the states initiate a Con-Con, I’m curious as to why Sarah isn’t trying to work both options of the Constitution’s Article V for proposing an amendment to the Constitution to the states.
Article V ping.
Lol...the ignorant will still argue your valid point :)
I don’t understand why a state senator would oppose a measure that would increase his influence, and that of his state, in congress.
One possibility is ignorance. Another is fear. A third is corruption.
She may be. You almost have to given the requirements for ratification of proposed amendments.
Even though two thirds of both houses can vote an amendment out and two thirds of the several states are required before a Convention Of States can convene, it takes a three quarter's majority for ratification in either process; of the state houses for something voted out of Congress and of the delegates at a Convention.
Recognition that the Congressional path would never in a Trillion years lead to amendments that lead to less power of the body responsible for that path. Amendments like term limits and %-revenue to government of GDP would only be proposed by the states themselves.
I agree with you to an extent. But if Palin can rally patriots and former Obama supporters to elect a "conservative" supermajority to Congress in 2014, then new conservative lawmakers might be inclined to address possible new amendments to the Constitution.
It’s the third option.
It’s the only one that makes sense.
a fourth is he is a socialist
Great point. Both paths should be pursued.
I think that is statistically impossible.
There are currently 45 Republicans in the Senate and 21 contested current Democrat seats in the 2014 election.
........I don’t know the answer to your question conclusively but I “think” that so called “experts” think it is impossible in the Senate.
As best I can relate from my SCF Battleground Map, 21 Dim seats are up in play and 14 pubs are for a total of 35. 5 dims are retiring. 2 pubs are retiring. The 5 dims retiring are in Iowa, Montana, Michigan, South Dakota and West Virginia. This is highly relevant because incumbency advantages go away in those 5 seats. Can the pubs flip those 5 to the GOP? I don’t know. Of the remaining dim incumbency seats of 16, it’s gonna be tough.
So, the question simply is can the pubs win 22 of the 35 seats in play in 2014 and show up with a 67 vote majority?
If they did, and all 22 rookies had some spine (unlikely), the dynamics of impeachment change dramatically overnight IF the house can get it’s pub count up to 289 votes for a 2/3 vote in that chamber assuming every single new pubbie WOULD vote for impeachment (again, unlikely).
Plus, I think Boehner has to go anywhere before ANYTHING conservatives like starts happening. Even if Boehner had a 2/3 vote in the house I question if he has the cahonies to use it. More pointedly, I think he has just sold his soul to big business, period. We have yet another saying in Texas and it is “he (Boehner) could F up an anvil with a rubber hammer”.
.........I don’t know the answer to your question conclusively but I “think” that so called “experts” think it is impossible in the Senate.
I'm not talking about Democrats or Republicans per se. I'm talking about politicians who will do anything to stay in office, including support repeal of Obamacare Democratcare with a presidential veto override.
And speaking of Democratcare, are you freepers aware that, regardless what activist justices want everybody to think about the constitutionality of Democratcare, the Supreme Court had previously clarified the following. The states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for public healthcare purposes.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. (emphases added)” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
If Sarah started talking about how the Supremes caved into Obama on Democratcare, "conservatives" winning supermajority control of Congress in 2014 elections might possibly turn out to be the easier way to possibly amend the Constitution.
I hope you are right on all counts!
In the first place, no one is proposing a call for a "con-con"... see Post 2... and also see the Constitution. Nowhere does it provide for another Constitutional Convention. As a matter of fact, language that would have allowed for another constitutional convention was refused four times by the Founders before they settled on the 143 words that now comprise Article V.
And in the second place, how do you know that she isn't?
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.