Posted on 02/02/2015 7:19:05 AM PST by cotton1706
One of the most unique and important discussions among constitutional conservatives is taking place right now in Virginia’s General Assembly. It is the debate about whether the states (including Virginia) should exercise their rights to call an Article V Convention of States.
Principled limited government constitutional conservative former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has come out in favor of two bills currently before the Virginia legislature calling for a constitutional convention of the states.
Speaking through his e-newsletter “The Cuccinelli Compass” Cuccinelli argued in favor of a position shared – and opposed – by many principled limited government constitutional conservatives.
Here’s the text of Cuccinelli’s email supporting the Virginia calling for a constitutional convention.
“One of the most unique and important discussions among constitutional conservatives is taking place right now in Virginia’s General Assembly. It is the debate about whether the states (including Virginia) should exercise their rights to call an Article V Convention of States for the purpose of proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution to limit the power of the federal government.
“While I have good friends whom I respect on the other side of this debate, I support the effort of the states to call such a convention and I wanted to share my reasons with you.
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativehq.com ...
Just do it!
The best thing that could happen would be a convention of states that want to leave the so-called union.
-PJ
<>HJR 497 only allows a convention to consider amendments that will limit the power of the federal government. HJR 499 only allows a convention to consider a balanced budget amendment. This can be reflected in the qualifications of Virginia's delegates.<>
Cuccinelli knows his Article V.
Hopefully, it can be stamped out.
Correct. As stated in Mark Levin's book, "The Liberty Amendments," Congress's role in such a scenario would be purely ministerial. It is obligated to call the convention "at the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several states." But Congress can propose one of two methods of ratification of any amendment(s) that such a constitutional convention may propose.
The relevant passages in Article V are:
The Congress,...on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which...shall be valid, to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress...
There are no procedures specified in the Constitution as to how delegates to such a constitutional convention might be chosen, nor as to the procedures to be employed by the convention once it is assembled. Hence, there is a concern among some that such a convention might get out of control and propose amendments outside the scope of the issues it had been called to address.
Another seventeen make applications without specifying topics.
With thirty-four applications in hand, should congress call a convention?
Congress could and probably should call a convention with 34 States on any subject after all the Convention itself is to decide Amendments not to pass a specific one.
Furthermore nether congress nor the States really control what goes on in the convention process so nothing any state says in their Call for a convention matters anyway.
That said congress will be as it always has been extremely nitpick simply to avoid losing control of the process and thus also a larger chuck of their power than they might otherwise have to give up.
To date there have already been calls for Convention by 48 of the 50 states Congress simply has refused to count much-less count them together. Which is of course as illustrated not only ridicules given a Conventions General nature, its highly self-serving of Congress own power.
This ‘formality’ has thus become the akleels heel of the Article 5 process. What we have now to advantage us is just 2 things:
1: We know of each-other and our State activities so we have our own count.
2: The house as passed a rule change that for the first time formalizes a counting process.
In the end our State leaders should be prepared to take their case to the Press to prove that 34 Convention requests have been submitted and Congress is wrongfully withholding its formality. This was the failure for the last 50 years, even a Republican congress simpathitic to our cause, and otherwise deadlocked by Obama might not do their simple duty.
its well past time
A Convention to repeal the 17th is the key step to restoring balance to the system. Right now, with popularly elected Senators, the big cities can dominate an entire state. Fundamentally conservative states, i.e., those with Republican legislatures, are often represented by fundamentally Liberal Senators, who see their first duty to the Federal Government, not to protect the interests of their state.
Is Cruz pushing this? Is anyone in the hunt for POTUS?
Interesting that some conservatives of note are in favor of this. I suspect that’s because they’re reading the tea leaves and seeing the choice is between an article V and other moves that they consider even less palatable.
“Hence, there is a concern among some that such a convention might get out of control and propose amendments outside the scope of the issues it had been called to address. “
That’s a tired canard. The ratification requirement of 3/4 of states pretty much assures that a runaway convention wouldn’t happen.
My argument against an article V is the opposite. The 3/4 ratification requirement would neuter anything useful coming out of a convention, so why bother?
thanks justiceseeker93.
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.