Posted on 06/12/2014 5:10:40 AM PDT by Jacquerie
State Sen. Jim Arnold, D-LaPorte, will join some 105 delegates from 33 states at the Indiana Statehouse on Thursday and Friday for the second meeting of the Convention of the States planning group dubbed The Mount Vernon Assembly.
Arnold did not attend the group's first session in December at George Washington's Virginia estate, but said he jumped at the chance to participate this time when Senate President David Long, R-Fort Wayne, an organizer of the planning group, asked Arnold to join him and state Rep. Ben Smaltz, R-Auburn, as Indiana's delegation.
However, because an Article V convention never has been called, there are no clear procedures on how it would begin, what rules the convention would follow or whether it could be limited in scope.
Long said The Mount Vernon Assembly is focused on putting a parliamentary structure in place for a Convention of the States, "so that we can have consensus on how this thing is going to be run" prior to Congress authorizing the convention.
"Without this structure, it won't work," Long said.
Arnold said many Hoosier legislators and lawmakers in other states agree that something must be done to bring the federal government under control, and a Convention of the States just might be it.
"There's a lot of unhappiness out there, on both sides, about out-of-control spending in Washington, mandates Washington makes on states, bureaucracy and so forth," Arnold said. "I hope that this striving to have a convention is where some of these things will be answered."
(Excerpt) Read more at nwitimes.com ...
I expect to see Executive Orders from OTrauma repealing the 2nd, 10th, and 1st Amendment.
/johnny
LOL! I know you've been paying attention. What do YOU think OTrauma will do?
An article V convention merely allows the states to control what amendments are proposed. Without that, the only other way to bring up amendments would be to have them proposed by Congress by a 2/3 vote of both houses. The whole point of the Article V convention is to bypass Congress since it’s unlikely that they’d propose ANYTHING that would actaully limit Federal power.
In either case, though, any amendments proposed would have to go through the normal ratification process, with any proposed amendments requiring ratification by 3/4 of the states before taking effect.
Precisely why he WILL interfere.
And wholesale slaughter of legislators will certainly bring about severe.... mixed emotions.
/johnny
I totally agree.
We DON’T want the bastards who NECESSITATED the need to clarify the Consitution involved in ANY way. If they are, screw the Convention of the States. Leave it alone!!!!!
Saying nothing of the kind. Trying to knock your Normalcy Bias blinders off.
He has a pen and a phone.
Bull. That’s pretty much exactly what you said.
Johnny, I know all that, but this guy will find a way to interfere using surrogates.
Look at what’s happening along our southern border. This is his and Valerie Jarrett’s doings. They are trying to start major civil disturbances using other people; and they do not care what happens to those children.
Obama and company are evil
See how that works? I, too, can make stuff up out of whole cloth.
Seriously, read the Constitution or take some civics classes. Amendments can be proposed in two ways, namely through a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress or via a convention of the states (Article V Convention). In either case, proposed amendments are sent to the states for ratification, either by state legislatures or special state ratification conventions. The President has no power whatsoever regarding the amendment process.
I think you’re dreaming if you think either of those two amendments you propose could possibly garner support of 2/3 of both houses of Congress. The ONLY way that such amendments could even hope to see the light of day is through an Article V convention. Even then, I seriously doubt they’d pass muster.
The ONLY power that the Article V convention has is proposing amendments. There’s no political power involved. The convention proposes amendments which are then subject to the normal ratification procedure by the states. That would place a very restrictive limit on its power. Do you seriously believe that, for instance, 38 states would ratify a repeal of the 2nd amendment?
/johnny
Yes, you can make stuff up. However, I only rephrased what you actually said. You can pretend otherwise, but everyone can see it.
Do you honestly believe that you could find 38 states willing to ratify repeals of those amendments?
But I only rephrased what you said, too. You love pedophiles and you want them to babysit children. You can pretend you didn't say it, but everyone can see it.
If that’s your opinion (and I’m not saying you’re wrong), what’s the harm of an Article V convention? You’re basically saying Obama’s going to do whatever he wants regardless of anything we do. Why would calling an Article V convention be harmful? At the very worst, he’d ignore any new amendments stemming from it.
If he’s really going to effectively repeal the first, second, fifth, and any other amendments that he doesn’t like, won’t he just do it? Why would calling an Article V convention change that fact one way or another?
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.