South Carolina Representative Bill Taylor pre-files Convention of States application

conventionofsttes.com ^ | 12/29/14 | Ann Reiner

[cotton1706]

Representatives in the Aiken County legislative delegation have hit the ground running by pre-filing bills to gain position at the top of the agenda when legislators get back to Columbia in January.

S.C. Rep. Bill Taylor, R-Aiken, is continuing his push for an Article V Convention of States and pre-filed for the bill about three weeks ago.

Taylor began his pursuit of a states’ convention a year ago when he represented South Carolina in the Palmetto State’s call for a convention along with Virginia.

“Whereas, it is the solemn duty of the States to protect the liberty of our people, particularly for the generations to come, to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States through a Convention of the States under Article V to place clear restraints on these and related abuses of power. ...,” Taylor wrote in the bill.

Moving forward, Taylor and others said they expect 24 states, including South Carolina, to join Alaska, Florida and Georgia and submit formal applications next year. It takes 34 states, or two-thirds, to call for a convention. Each state has to pass a resolution and send it to Washington, D.C., for Congressional Record.

Once 34 states apply for the same purpose, then, the Constitution says, Congress shall call a convention, and the states will send delegates to propose amendments.

From there, the proposed amendments have to be sent back out to the states and then three-fourths, or 38 states, have to approve them.

[Da Bilge Troll]

Excellent. Maybe Missouri will follow suit.

[Jacquerie]

Once 34 states apply for the same purpose, then, the Constitution says, Congress shall call a convention, and the states will send delegates to propose amendments.

Not true. There is nothing in Article V, nor the state ratification debates, nor The Federalist Papers that require or even imply same purpose applications.

Gathering in convention wasn't supposed to be very difficult; getting proposed amendments ratified by three-fourths was purposely far more difficult.

[upchuck]

South Carolina Ping
Send FReepmail to join or leave this list.

Keep up with what our Congresscritters (House and Senate) are doing. Sign up for the free MegaVote email service here.

[Doug Loss]

You are correct, but having the applications state the same intended purpose isn’t an onerous requirement and removes one of the objections I guarantee you would be made against the legitimacy of the convention.

[Publius]

[Repeal The 17th]

“...they expect 24 states, including South Carolina,
to join Alaska, Florida, and Georgia
and submit formal applications next year...”
-
Who will be #4?

[longtermmemmory]

what are the agenda items?

Marriage Amendment?

No treaty in any force or effect without the senate positive vote?

How to prevent the californuts from abolishing the second amendment?

How do we keep poison pill amendments (see juan McCain)

[MrB]

How about “Amendment 9 and 10 MEAN WHAT THEY SAY, DAMMIT!”

[Jacquerie]

Well, to add a same topic requirement is to amend Article V, another hurdle that serves to delay the process.

Here's are FR posts which links to a 1990 Law Review paper that examines the history of Article V. There are plenty more than enough applications for the states to meet in convention. Congress hasn't acted, so IMO the states should meet anyway.

Congress’ Present Duty to Call a Convention:
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part VI

[Hostage]

Thanks for the ping. Excellent news!

[Hostage]

Good catch. Article V writes

“... on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, ...”

Nothing more complicated than calling a meeting but the meeting must be applied for by 2/3’s of the states or 34 states. The time is approaching!

Maybe as Mark Levin says the state legislators will wake up to the fact that just 70 of them, each chosen by their respective legislatures, have more power than all of Congress, the Judiciary and the Executive, and that no Governors, Presidents or Courts can supersede the power given them by the US Constitution.

[PapaNew]

Here are the top three things I hope the Convention of States addresses.

1) The 14th Amendment "Incorporation Doctrine". Originally intended and limited to forbidding state laws segregating former slaves as confirmed in the 1872 Slaughter-House Cases, the 14A has been construed by SCOTUS, ignoring original intent and precedent, to allow the feds to enforce the first Ten Amendments and interfere with state laws leading to a parade of horribles like banning prayer and Bible study in state schools, 70+ million abortions, threatening gun rights, interference with state marriage laws, threatening free exercise of religion, etc.
Solution: As per Slaughter-House Cases, an amendment clearly limiting the 14A to prohibiting state segregation laws and prohibiting the federal government from enforcing the first ten amendments upon the states. The federal government may only enforce the first ten amendments upon itself.

2) The [Interstate] Commerce Clause (Art I, Sec 8, Cl 3). Originally intended and limited to deal with commerce issues directly between the states as confirmed in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States in 1935, the CC Clause has astonishingly been expanded by SCOTUS, ignoring original intent and precedent, to give the feds almost unlimited power over intrastate and local economic activities leading to minimum wage laws, individual subsidies, and interference in just about every business enterprise and economic endeavor, the latest, most obvious being the push to socialize healthcare with "Obamacare".
Solution: As per Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States , an amendment clearly prohibiting the federal government from interfering with intrastate transactions that have only indirect effects in the sphere of interstate commerce and limiting commercial regulations only to what is necessary to accommodate free flow of direct commerce between the states.

3) The "Necessary and Proper Clause" (Art I, Sec 8, Cl 18). Originally intended to allow executive enforcement and regulation pursuant to legislation within the scope of the Constitution, the N&P Clause has been expanded beyond constitutional grounds and limits to such an extent that a quasi-fourth branch of government has been created: the Administrative State with behemoth bureaucracies like the $1 trillion unconstitutional Dept of Health and Human Services.
Solution: An amendment that directly calls for abolishing all unconstitutional administrative activity and bureaucracies. This would include a time-phased teardown (not more than 2-3 years total) of the Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS - $1 trillion budget), the FDA, the FCC, Dept of Agriculture, Dept of Labor, HUD, Dept of transportation, Dept of Energy, Dept of Education, EPA, the Small business Administration.

That's good for starters.

[Jacquerie]

<>Maybe as Mark Levin says the state legislators will wake up to the fact that just 70 of them, each chosen by their respective legislatures, have more power than all of Congress, the Judiciary and the Executive, and that no Governors, Presidents or Courts can supersede the power given them by the US Constitution.<>

Exactly right. I spent almost an hour with my state legislator explaining that.

From post #10, Part IV:

The structure of the federal government created by the constitution also supports the view that congress’ role in the amendment process is severely limited. The convention process is created by Article V; it is not a component of any of the three branches of government created by the first three articles. The convention derives its power from a separate and independent grant of authority in the constitution itself. It cannot be made subservient to any branch of the government. Further, the sole purpose of the convention is to propose changes in the pre-existing system of government. This renders the convention distinct from, if not superior to, the three branches of government.

[OneWingedShark]

The 14th Amendment "Incorporation Doctrine"

Aside from the incorporation doctrine, there's the nice little bit in the section 4 saying:
The validity of the public debt of the United States […] shall not be questioned.

Yeah, the elite can load you up with debt, and you can't question its validity.

[OneWingedShark]

Marriage Amendment?
How to prevent the californuts from abolishing the second amendment?
How do we keep poison pill amendments (see juan McCain)

There's one simple answer to all these: do you really think that no more than 13 states would refuse to ratify such?
(Because that's all it would take to keep such an amendment from passing.)

[OneWingedShark]

On the topic of amendments, here's a collection of several that I've come up with, along with their justifications/rationale:
Amendment Booklet
[FR Comment Thread]

[PapaNew]

I’m not complaining about the 14A as originally ratified, although it was famously badly and hastily written. Only how SCOTUS and the feds have misapplied it to greatly expand federal power.

[Resettozero]

How come we get better local news coverage from a FReeper in Yankee Territory than we do here in S.C.?

What’s with THAT?

R2z

[upchuck]

Thank you cotton1706 for checking the Convention of States website and reporting Bill Taylor’s prefile.