Congress’ Failure to Call an Amendments Convention. (Part VI)

[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.

[wita]

I don’t see the problem.

Congress has to act to get things moving. They are really not up to it. The mentioned groups are rightly fearful that even if the congress acts, they will pull something out of their bag of tricks that thwarts the process or worse.

[Da Bilge Troll]

"The mentioned groups are rightly fearful that even if the congress acts, they will pull something out of their bag of tricks that thwarts the process or worse."

. . . and that is irrational.

[wita]

. . . and that is irrational.

In a pigs eye! Not when the congress isn’t listening to we the people. Not when the congress can’t seem to obey it’s constitutional mandates, not when they have abrogated their basic responsibility as servants of the people, not when they take a sacred oath to protect the Constitution yet cannot be bothered, not when they regard themselves a higher authority than the sovereign states, and on and on.

Rather than call them irrational why not go where they hang out and speak your mind without the name calling. They will tell why they believe as they do, and they have lots of history on their side, but they also realize we as a Republic are rapidly moving to a democracy if not already there and something needs to be done before the only one left to intervene is God himself.

[Da Bilge Troll]

"Not when the congress isn’t listening to we the people."

Congress has nothing to do with a COS other than the date and location of the convention. That's it.

So yes, all the fear mongering is irrational. The problems you point out are the very reason to call a convention - or do you expect Congress to fix Congress?

[wita]

“Congress has nothing to do with a COS other than the date and location of the convention. That’s it.”

I would say that is a rather naive view.

You won’t find date and location in the Constitution.

So the Congress IMHO can inject itself in any number of ways based on rules as can the States themselves, which is why the Assembly of State Legislatures is attempting to set some rules that will guide them.

What the Congress does or doesn’t do is a another subject entirely.

In addition you are making an assumption that what I am telling you is actually how I believe. I am telling you how one side of the issue is likely to respond to a convention call or a move to request a call. I am listening to both sides of the issue with good points made and wisdom on display. The red state blue state issue alone should cause anyone wanting an Article V to pause and examine the possibility of unintended consequences.

[Da Bilge Troll]

"pause and examine the possibility of unintended consequences"

Unfortunately, the consequences of doing nothing are intentional and predictable.

[OneWingedShark]

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'm not sure why that would be contradictory; he's basically saying the call for amendments can contain suggested/recommended language but cannot specify the exact text of the [proposed] amendment and that similar calls should be grouped together (e.g. "balancing the budget" and "getting control of federal spending" and "eliminating all unfunded liabilities" could all be grouped under the topic of financial responsibility).