It’s crucially important that state legislatures and state delegations complete the process for at least one amendment to get it recorded on the history books.
An Article V path-finding exercise serves to establish successful protocols and order and to leave precedent for future generations to emulate as well as to raise awareness and confidence that this part of the US Constitution is entirely feasible and necessary.
In drafting the original 17th Amendment, state groups of voters organized an effort to invoke Article V and it was not taken seriously until it was evident that the final two states needed signaled they would be signing up within a few months. The problem seemed to arise that some states would not appoint their US Senators (bicameral conflict) and Senate seats remained empty. Why an amendment was needed in this context is a mystery as such states could have easily passed state laws or amended their constitutions with workarounds such as having the Governor appoint an interim US Senator if the legislature would not.
In any case what evolved was an elected person (US Senator) that was delinked from any state legislative concerns and who promptly became the target of oligarchs seeking political control of a federal chamber (which is what exists today). To have US Senators elected by popular vote is a joke as it creates a myth that somehow voters know who they are voting for versus the marketing, branding and packaging that is created for the public to consume. The result is an offering of Coke or Pepsi without revealing the inside ingredients. If it is impossible to revoke this right to vote for US Senator, then at least an amendment should be debated that allows state legislatures to recall wayward US Senators (McCain comes to mind).
The early 20th Century, a time in American history when such magical things called radios, horseless carriages, kinetoscopes (cinema), transocean telephone calls, flying machines and so many other modern wonders were spreading across the American continent created an ambiance of modernization that lured people into thinking it was time to update the US Constitution to solve problems that lingered since the founding. But ... the 16th, 17th and 18th Amendments, all of which were ratified in 1913 during the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson who promoted the amendments and encouraged their ratification, were the worst concoctions that Congress could devise. The generation of 1913 were too smart for their own good and the national attitude was reflected in the condescending arrogance of the Princeton academic snob that inhabited the White House. The public and its Congress overlooked the unintended consequences of this series of amendments: Congress never bothered to factor that the 16th Amendment would grow the US Tax Code into a monstrosity, nor bothered to assess how the 17th would disconnect statehouses from their US Senators, nor how the 18th would empower underworld groups to take over cities (Al Capone). And largely this was Congress’ fault as they were in that time the trusted source for bringing improvements to American government and society. They failed miserably.
But the Article V movement of today has the benefit of hindsight and it has the benefit that it is not subject to the hardened, inured and normalized corruption that takes place daily in today’s US Congress which seeks above all to preserve its status quo and gain positive albeit in many cases false media spin.
State legislatures and their legal, historical and economic functionaries have many more tools at their disposal to be well-versed in the ramifications of proposed amendments and will be careful via debate to foresee negative impacts that amendments will have both during the proposal stage and the ratification stage. Amendments may be thrown into the mix, bandied about, debated, struck down, revised, merged or separated but the debate will penetrate the American population like never before.
There exists an absolute need to examine how the 17th can be fixed if not outright repealed.
There exists an absolute need to repeal the 16th and enact the HR 25 Tax Code Legislation.
There exists an absolute need to have a serious debate and proposal over the federal government’s role in marriage, abortion and religious rights.
There exists an absolute need to seriously consider powers of the federal judiciary in the form of term limits or independent judicial review.
All the Levin amendments need serious consideration.
Importantly, plausible consequences of any proposed amendments must be thoroughly vetted before respective votes are taken.
And perhaps most importantly, the protocols of an Article V process must be thoroughly debated and tested because in effect they will be a blueprint for future generations.
Lastly, the debates must not be rushed as prolonged deliberation brings wisdom to bear on final drafts.
The effect on the US Congress will be an historical seismic event. Never again will they as a body assume that they have no outside competitors, no outside rivals. Statehouses and state delegations will appear as a heavy check on the role of the US Congress.
It will also be a critical check on the two-party duopoly, a genuine shot across the bow.
One day Congress was notified that the threshold had been reached for calling an Amendments Convention to discuss the direct election of senators. This caused panic in the Senate because senators were afraid that a convention would formulate an amendment that would require the election of the entire Senate by the people in one fell swoop rather than phase in the amendment by two-year senatorial "class". Accordingly, the Senate passed the current version of the 17th Amendment, and the House followed quickly.
But shouldn't an Amendments Convention been called anyway? After all, the two-thirds threshold had been reached.
It turns out that some petitions from state legislatures for an Amendments Convention to discuss the direct election of senators had a Discharge Clause. This clause said that if Congress passed an amendment to handle this topic, the state petition would be considered "discharged". Enough petitions contained Discharge Clauses to permit Congress to say that the two-thirds threshold had not been reached. This is how Congress weaseled out of calling an Amendments Convention. But it the states who made the decision to include Discharge Clauses, so it was legally acceptable.
The 17th is nuts.
The fundamental error of the 17th is that it denies the consent of the governed. The constitution acts on both the people and the states and both were represented prior to the 17th, in the law making body, congress. It makes as much sense to remove the states from congress as it does to remove the people, . . . no sense at all.
Also, consider the last clause of Article V. It was designed to enshrine the Connecticut Compromise forever in a system which could not envision the removal of the states from congress.
Aside from this academic discussion, the people know they are being screwed. Our congressional overlords risk the demise of ancient republics if they deny us our God given and constitutional right to amend our government.
To publius and elcid, thanks for the history lesson.
Most FReepers are aware of these links, but I post anyway for review and for people new to Article V. It is our responsibility to make Article V the most understood aspect of the US Constitution.
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.
Article V Project to Restore Liberty Another good source.
Convention of States model Resolution
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
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 the Article V Convention
Friends of Article V Convention Links
Ulysses at the Mast: Democracy, Federalism, and the Sirens' Song of the Seventeenth Amendment by Jay Bybee. Repeal the 17th!
Article V Convention: Path of Least Resistance by Robert Berry
Article V Handbook - for State Legislators An important resource.
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
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke. Let’s all work together to get this going.