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.
I will see what I can do to find a the full document.
While I agree, we are not quite there yet. There are still peaceful avenues available to us, including - especially - Article V.
The Constitution does not explicitly require that applications be identical. So if all applications that have been filed since 1787 are counted, there are well over 34.
At present there are 24 states for a balanced budget amendment, which has the most requests at this time
The above statement applies to the scheduled Assembly Meeting in Dec 2014 and not to the long list of applications over our history.
Every email I have received indicates the Assembly will meet in Dec.
The next meeting will be at the Naval Heritage Center on December 8 & 9, 2014 (December 8 noon to 5pm December 9 from 8:30am to 2pm).
“So if all applications that have been filed since 1787 are counted, there are well over 34”
...and if not rescinded, one can understand, why the JBS, Eagle Forum, Concerned Women for America, and others have a real problem with Article V to begin with. The Congress isn’t in the business of following the Constitution, adhering to it, acknowledging it as the Supreme Law of the Land, or in any way bowing to it’s superiority, much less the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights.
Especially since they have found their own superiority and are basking in it. An Article V that accomplished putting the Federal Government back in the box, would not suit any of the three branches of the tyrannical leviathan now in DC.
Okay. Thank you for the clarification.
Thank you for your concern and added efforts.
Let’s have an Article 5 convention then cut out Congress completely since they cannot and will not protect our liberties.
If those count then why was it not big news when we hit 34?
I must have missed something
Was there a change in thinking that all applications have to be the same? I would agree they should not be required to be the same as that would put the bar to high to be practical.
Is Levin saying a convention is due to be called now?
sorry for all the questions but wow, I must not have been paying as much attention as I thought.
page 61 has some explanations for you
vii congress’ failure to call a convention
Runaway Convention. What of the John Birch Society shibboleth of a “runaway” convention? Why do Article V opponents regard a convention to propose amendments as no more than a dangerous mob?
State appointed delegates to this important gathering will not be schlubs off the street. They will have state commissions which define their authority. Furthermore, and most important, the convention can do no more than propose amendments. Even if radical leftist proposals emerge, all it takes is thirteen states to reject them. OTOH, any amendments which can garner the approval of thirty-eight states deserves to be part of the constitution.
The lawgivers to our republic, the framers of the constitution hoped their work would endure, yet they knew a self-governing people must have peaceful means the framers did not have to adjust their government.
There is no historic support for the assertion that congress has authority to freeze the constitution as it now stands. Ironically, those who promote limits to the convention method in the guise of protecting the constitution are actually emasculating it. In any event, these phony “protectors” are not needed, for the constitution provides for its own protection. Every provision remains until amended by three fourths of the states.
It would be another gross violation of the constitution and our unalienable rights if congress, under the deception of “protecting” the constitution, imposes any barrier against a convention to propose amendments when two thirds have applied.
Mark Levin to my knowledge has not posited what I am pressing, that there are more than enough applications now.
I cannot recall him ever saying how many applications are with the Archivist of the United States.
On page 16 of The Liberty Amendments, he writes: “Moreover, the state legislatures determine if they want to make application for a convention; the method for selecting their delegates; and the subject matter of the convention.” So far, so good. The states do indeed determine what they will consider, at the convention!
However, I am unfortunately deeply disappointed in regard to the following:
Levin's endnote 29 of page 225: “The state legislatures can recommend specific language or amendment, but cannot seek to impose them through the application process as Article V empowers the delegates to the convention to propose amendments, which the states subsequently consider for ratification. The applications from the states must also be similar in subject area to reasonably conclude that two-thirds of the states are calling for a convention to address the same matters.”
I find his two sentences to be contradictory. The first acknowledges state power to propose amendments at the convention. The second demands states submit similar subject applications to be considered at the convention.
I can't answer why the 34 magic number didn't set off a convention. I've asked my congressman for his opinion as to how many are stacked up in Archivist’ file, but got no response.
Please, for your other questions, I do not mean to put you off, but you can scan the table of contents at the source, or my previous FR posts for a Readers Digest summary better than I can do off the top of my head at this moment.
American extra-governmental colonial/state conventions go back to the 17th century.
We have a natural, God given right to frame our government, which neither congress nor any other power has the right to stop.
Related to your post, is the fact that this extra-congressional forum to consider the structure of our government is located outside of Articles I, II, III.
If the new government was to have power over the state convention process beyond what is clearly articulated in Article V, it stands to reason those powers would be in one or more of the first three Articles.
my guess
this is concerning the convention itself - NOT the process that leads to the convention
the state legislatures pick the delegates but cannot mandate that they do whatever the legislature tells them to do - kinda like choosing a politician - you can tell them what you expect but after elected, he has independence - i think the delegates to the electoral college are the same way
“...which the states subsequently consider for ratification.”
then the states consider the amendments submitted from the delegates of the convention and cannot change them - not sure if it is voted on by the people or if the state legislatures vote on them
“The applications from the states must also be similar in subject area to reasonably conclude that two-thirds of the states are calling for a convention to address the same matters.”
this is about the process of calling for a convention - meeting the requirements to be counted as a yes vote to call a convention - NOT the amendments themselves
the hamline thing seems to say that the subject area means nothing - if maine calls for a convention to mandate free cigarettes from the federal government, and texas calls for a convention to mandate free ammo from the feds, that would be 2 states for a convention - levin says the subjects must be similar (i suppose) for it to count as 2 states for a convention
from above, once a convention is called, the states cannot control what the delegates send back to the states to vote on
that hamline article talks of ‘if the subjucts must be similar, there are x number of states already - if the subjects do not matter, there are y number of states already
check section vii
No, the states will send delegates with commissions, meaning specific powers.
<>if maine calls for a convention to mandate free cigarettes from the federal government, and texas calls for a convention to mandate free ammo from the feds, that would be 2 states for a convention<>
That's right!
I don't see the problem. Again, everything the convention does, limited or not, must be ratified by 38 states. Congress has nothing to do with it.
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.