Posted on 02/05/2015 11:44:36 AM PST by Moseley
This week, Virginia’s General Assembly considered applying under Article V of the U.S. Constitution for a convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The final “no” vote from Virginia may seriously take the winds out of the sails of the effort nationwide. Virginia is home turf for both Mark Levin and Michael Farris, key proponents of a “Convention of the States” campaign. However, some have been introducing an Article V Convention year after year in Richmond, so it may very well return next year.
The decision was a highly controversial, high-stakes contest of two completely alternate understandings of what would happen if the States try to propose amendments. But it didn’t have to be this way. It didn’t have to be such a stark “all or nothing” choice. The unfortunate and frustrating part of all of this is that Roman Buhler of the Madison Coalition started out with a brilliant and perfect strategy and plan.
We need to return to Roman Buhler’s original game plan. But when the money started flowing for a “Convention of the States,” Roman Buhler’s original plans got lost in the stampede. Nearly a year ago, I talked personally with Roman about his efforts to raise the necessary funds to carry out his strategy. He wasn’t able to pull together enough resources and interest to do this right.
Roman Buhler’s plan was to start by getting the States to define more precisely just exactly how an Article V Convention would work in State laws and State Constitutions. That would have mostly eliminated the risk and all the controversy. Instead of both sides screaming about what they believe the actual procedures might turn out to be, Roman wanted to actually create those rules and set them in stone ahead of time.
The idea was to set the rules of the game first, before calling for an Article V Convention. Instead what we got was “Fire. Ready. Aim.” In the tea party era, one of conservatives’ biggest errors is a feeling that we don’t have time to do anything the right way. Everything is a crisis. So better to make a mess of things in a hurry than to plan carefully and act methodically to achieve real success.
So rather than fight about the great unknown and uncertainty we face now, Roman Buhler proposed to get at least 14 states to pass laws to define exactly how all of this would work. Or better yet amend their State Constitution. The idea is that because the States must ratify an amendment, the State can define its own process for ratifying or rejecting an amendment. Each State should set the game rules ahead of time for how it is going to decide.
Because a proposed amendment must be ratified by three quarters of the States (38), getting 14 States to erect a fire wall of safeguards and procedures would make it impossible for bad amendments from a “runaway convention” to be ratified. Not only would this help prevent a bad outcome, but it would help discipline an Article V Convention in the first place, knowing that an amendment would have no chance without satisfying certain criteria.
The plan was to get at least 14 States to amend their State constitution or at least pass state laws, so that
•Any delegate to the convention would be bound to vote as instructed by the State •Any delegate to the convention would be bound to vote against any amendment that was not part of the reason that the Article V Convention was called. •The State would automatically reject (vote no on) any proposed amendment to the US Constitution unless it meets certain criteria of procedure.
So in addition to passing State laws, an amendment to the State Constitution could say something like:
In the exercise of its authority to either ratify or reject any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, this State hereby rejects any such proposed amendment submitted to it at any time in the future if proposed by a convention called under Article V of the U.S. Constitution and if
(a) the proposed amendment is not on a topic upon which the States called for a convention under Article V,
(b) the Article V convention was not organized so as to represent the States with equal voting power,
(c) the delegates to the Article V convention purporting to represent this State were not chosen by the method determined by the legislature of this State,
(d) votes at the Article V convention were unrecorded voice votes subject to the opinion of its chair,
(e) the delegates to the Article V convention included any currently serving Member of Congress or State legislature, official of the U.S. Government, or sitting judge, or
(f) the Article V Convention attempted to alter the ratification procedure and requirements required by the U.S. Constitution.
Now, it would be better to define these things at the Federal level. But the whole goal here is to force changes upon the U.S. Government that Washington insiders don’t want to accept. So taking actions that would make it easier for the States to force changes on Washington would probably not be embraced by the U.S. Congress. That is why Roman Buhler and the Madison Coalition came up with this brilliant strategy of building a firewall at the State level, to discipline anything that happens in an Article V convention.
There is also a theory that the more real the threat of State action becomes, the greater the pressure on the U.S. Congress to behave. Making an Article V convention more possible may help pressure Washington. Having an unacceptable risk from an Article V convention means that the U.S. Congress can totally dismiss concerns expressed by the States.
Thanks for the pings.
I totally agree! Keep it as-is, and just follow it. That INCLUDES Article V, States proposing amendments. Just another avenue to Follow the Constitution, as recommended by the Founders.
THAT should definitely be the FIRST STEP. Any changing won’t do a thing if it’s not followed! Good point!
So apparently, claims by current supporters that there is no way for this convention to become a “runaway convention” are entirely false, as the actual rules haven’t even been decided? According to this article, there is most certainly much opportunity for “bad proposals” to get through as the opportunity for “good proposals”. Interesting indeed.
No, we need more amendments and laws and regulations to ignore! Where's the fun in keeping it as is!?
(sigh)
This is not a convention to change the Constitution. It is a Convention of the states to offer amendments to the Constitution just like the Congress does.
Again, this is a Convention of the States. Article V allows for two ways to amend. Either through Congress or a Convention of the States. A Constitutional Convention is an entirely different animal that a Convention of the States.
The Constitution has been amended many times over the years. This would be the same thing only with the states proposing and voting on amendments and not Congress.
You're right! That's how we got the IRS!
Each state gets to set its own rules for choosing delegates.
It takes 3/4 of the states to agree to pass an amendment. That’s a pretty high bar. If there are 3/4 of the states who support a bad amendment or a lefty, crazy amendment your country is pretty much toast anyway.
Since we are no longer a Constitutional Republic and our Constitution is pretty much null and void what would we have to lose at this point?
Our founders gave us this article in order to provide for a situation they could foresee. It’s a final option to prevent bloodshed.
And the bill of rights
And a Convention of the states is a way to get rid of it.
You should read Mark Levin’s book “The Liberty Amendments”. He lays out the history behind Article V and explains very well what it is all about and what it is NOT. He also presents 10 example amendments which are pretty good actually.
They need to do so BEFORE submitting an application, or as part of the application process. The fact is, even if this is spearheaded by the GOP, there WILL be leftist proposals made and, in politics, the only way to get things done is through compromise with the other side. You really think the GOP's going to keep the leftists out of the process? I don't.
It takes 3/4 of the states to agree to pass an amendment. That’s a pretty high bar.
So how'd the national income tax pass? That was a horrible idea from the word IRS...
I'll read it when I find it on the discount shelf. Forgive me if I'm skeptical of something being pushed hard by someone who just so happened to write a book about it about the same time he decided to become its biggest proponent.
The state appoints the delegates and they set the agenda. The delegate must follow the state’s agenda. I believe there are legal remedies if they do not. Like I said. Read Levin’s book and you’ll be able to debate this issue actually knowing what it is all about.
The idea that there could be a runaway convention or rogue delegates has been shown not to be the case. The founders put Article V in the Constitution for a good reason. It was debated. You don’t think they already thought of all of these objections?
They did a pretty good job with the Constitution do you think they really screwed up with Article V?
I understand that and am completely behind it, HOWEVER, according to this article, your point is ONLY true (if)WHEN the individual states pass the rules for convention - at the moment, there are no such laws, rules, etc., which is the point of this article.
I'm not opposed to it, but a little common sense brings about a lot of angles that supporters of a Convention are completely ignoring. Supporters say this will be all sunshine and roses for the conservative movement. It won't be. Leftist proposals will have every chance of passing the righty proposals do, and I personally believe we need to be very very careful about what we ask for, because we're going to end up getting it, and it's going to be NOTHING like what was first touted.
There WILL be a leftist assault in the run up to and during the convention. The GOP, even on the state level, has ALWAYS been all about "bipartisanship" (which is utter BS, but that's another story) - do you honestly believe they will push the leftists completely out?
+1
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.