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

[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).