Posted on 12/04/2014 5:28:38 AM PST by Jacquerie
At this moment, Mark Levin is speaking to a breakfast gathering of the American Legislative Exchange Council. Afterward, at 9:30 AM, he will join a Convention of the States Policy Workshop. On his radio show, he has been openly critical of state legislators for not doing their duty, to demand an amendments convention. I can only assume that videos will be available in the near future.
The question of the desirability of a convention, so often expressed at FreeRepublic, is entirely separate from the legal issue of congress’ obligations under Article V*. More than two-thirds of the states have made application for an Article V convention. Congress has no discretion, no option but to call a convention. That it has not done so is the equivalent of amending the constitution, of vetoing Article V.
Once two-thirds of state legislatures have applied for a convention, congress’ duty to call a convention is immediate.
The existence alone of applications from two-thirds of the legislatures creates and demands congressional action. Once that point is reached, the dictates of Article V take precedence, and neither the states nor congress have the authority to curtail the focus of the convention.
Nor does the current failure of congress to call a convention establish some rule of contemporaneousness upon the requirements of Article V. The constitution cannot be vitiated by unlawful inaction of congress. Weak arguments by statists in congress, the courts and lawyer groups to stymie the natural right of a sovereign people to frame their government, cannot be cause to violate the clear dictates in the constitution.
IOW, as every conservative knows, no part of our constitution can be legitimately vetoed by congress or the courts.
Article V was a critical factor leading to the adoption of the new constitution. The framers considered a constitutional process to amend their work by future generations as necessary to cure and correct any defects. Bequeathed to us by law, we have the means in Article V to avoid the death and destruction our framers endured to secure their freedom.
Beginning at page 50* of the reference below, the authors list the various state applications. There are well over thirty-four. Whether a convention for proposing amendments is desirable is no longer an issue.
The role of congress today is to issue a proclamation or resolution to that effect and then step aside. According to the plain language of the constitution, and the intent of the framers, the convention process must be completely free from congressional control.
This natural and constitutional right must be protected.
It truly is as simple as that.
* Parts of this FreeperEd are adapted from the Hamline Law Review, Volume 14, No. 1.
Vast powers have swirled into the executive branch without our consent. We have two years at most to reclaim our republic.
Events of the last month show it to be a near total waste of time to petition members of congress. It is time to become acquainted with, and conversational with your state assemblymen and senator. Petition THEM to do their duty and demand the absolutely necessary and constitutionally required Article V convention to propose amendments.
Article V ping!
In before the ignorant con-con morons.
The REPREHENSIBLE ruling class made itself EXEMPT from Law
and taxes, which it delivers to others below themselves,
secretly, as the EXEMPT coverup up the worst crimes,
from Benghazi to Obama’s IRS abuse
and importation of EV-68 by Quartering
paid for by the US taxpayer.
Yep, they’ll be here... in 3.... 2.... 1....
We had a federal republic.
One hundred and one years ago we foolishly turned it into a democratic republic.
Now, we have neither.
When are people going to realize that we are living in a dictatorship that is run by both parties, the republican leadership are all New World Order Socialists, aka fascists.
We need to get used to living under the boot of these thugs as they are not going to just return the power to the people. Once they flood our nation with illegal voters and give them all free stuff we are done.
“A people that will not use extreme violent force to obtain or preserve their liberty deserves the tyrants that rule them” me....
WHAT? Congress, the Executive branch and the Supreme Court are ignoring the Constitution again. SURPRISE!
The peaceful options of the patriot have loooonggg been exhausted and yet we continue to hope.
Fit yourselves for battle, prepare for WAR!
Which 34 states have called for a Convention? When did the 34th one join the call?
Wait... _Congress_ calls the Artvee?
I thought it was the states.
Congress won’t call it, because it will inherently limit their power.
“The peaceful options of the patriot have loooonggg been exhausted and yet we continue to hope.
Fit yourselves for battle, prepare for WAR!”
LOL! What?
Do you realize how many things we have not done on the state and local levels?
You’ve got Article V at the very most to use. Don’t do that, then you have no legitimacy to go to “war”. I certainly wont support any of that nonsense if that route is ignored.
If folks think this stuff is hard and frustrating, then what are you going to do in a real civil war?
They will call it. I believe the nuts-n-bolts of doing so is run by the Congressional Archivist.
But no matter, even if they did not... the states would go ahead with ArtV anyways. In the words of that famous philosopher Bill Cosby, the states could say to the ferals: “We brought you into this world, and we could damn well take you out”.
“Artvee”... did I just coin that?
Sounds catchy.
An interesting way of categorizing your fellow citizens who have yours and the countries best interests at heart, and are expressing their thoughts on the subject. I’m quite sure there are an equal number who just might prefer to exercise the Article V as enumerated in the Constitution.
There are a number of issues that might be pretty important, such as the potential view by Democrats that this would be another Republican railroad without their consent as in our view of Obama Care since no Republican voted in favor.
What particular amendment might be the subject of said request for Article V. An issue related to how many have been previously filed but never the required 34 states with the same subject which is why one has not been called. At present there are 24 states for a balanced budget amendment, which has the most requests at this time.
Conditions are better now than they have been in the past for calling for Article V because of the red state over blue state gains in the last election. There are now 30 states with complete Republican Legislatures and seven states with split legislatures. Meaning the overwhelming numbers of Republican’s could turn the tide where in the past one required active participation of blue states to make the magic 34 states to call the convention.
There are very very few democrats who have any interest at all in an article V convention. They would prefer a reversal of the Supreme Court decision in the matter of Citizens United before a convention and the fundamental differences between the two parties just add to the separation.
See this web site for what is being done right now to facilitate the Article V. http://www.theassemblyofstatelegislatures.org/
Democrat attendance at the previous two meetings of the Assembly was less than five percent. That does not mean it can’t improve, but Republican’s in general are most interesting in restoring Constitutional Governance NOT Democrats. One of those unfortunate fundamental differences in the two parties.
I apologize for being unclear but I am not advocating a civil war. It just seems inevitable to me and that it would be prudent to prepare for the likely failure of all of these peaceful efforts to rein in the federal leviathan.
The lawlessness will only continue to increase until its unbearable and we should be preparing for the worst.
If you want peace prepare for war.
Click the Hamline Law Review link at the bottom of my post.
The list of states and their applications begin on page 50.
Exactly.
From my post, “Bequeathed to us by law, we have the means in Article V to avoid the death and destruction our framers endured to secure their freedom.”
Future generations will not look kindly on this generation if we gaff off our responsibility.
Please read my post again, and then check out the source link pdf beginning on page 50.
To demand identical applications is to amend the constitution, for nothing of the sort from history or the clear writing of Article V can support it.
Also, see Federalist 85. The two-thirds requirement was designed to correct a flaw in the Articles of Confederation (AC). Under the AC, every state had to ratify any amendment. The two-thirds threshold was meant to be significant but not too difficult. The three-fourths requirement for ratification ensures the constitution will not be amended for transitory purposes, yet not be impossible to amend, as in the AC.
I hope I am wrong.
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.