Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

State-Led Push to Force Constitutional Convention Gains Steam With High-Profile Republican Support
Fox News ^ | 14 February 2015

Posted on 02/14/2015 11:21:12 AM PST by Publius

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-216 next last
To: Publius

Massive.


181 posted on 02/16/2015 1:50:45 PM PST by Jacquerie (Article V. If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
The 17th alone was a betrayal of the American Revolution.

In any republic, whosoever the government acts upon has a seat at the legislative table. The 17th set up today's tyranny.

The powers of the new government assumed the presence of the states in congress. There is no way the constitution would have been ratified if congress was composed of two popularly elected houses.

The Framers got it right.

182 posted on 02/16/2015 2:02:41 PM PST by Jacquerie (Article V. If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo
First off, understand a fundamental difference between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. The Articles were approved as any other statute by each state. It is why the states readily and regularly gaffed off their duties under the confederation. No legislature can prevent subsequent legislatures from changing statutes.

The constitution was recognized as a higher order government because its ratification was by conventions of reps of the people.

The 1787 convention ignored the ratification process under which it was established . . .

Not true. State conventions were old hat by 1787. They went way back to early colonial times. The states themselves convened the federal convention of 1787. Congress had nothing to do with it. For you to claim the confederation congress called the convention, is like me calling for the Florida legislature to meet next month. My call will have nothing to do with its meeting.

. . . lowering the number of states needed to approve the new Constitution

To amend the articles, the confederation required unanimous consent of state legislatures. Several attempts were made to amend the articles regarding tariffs and commerce, but RI consistently prevented amendments. It was this practical impossibility to amend that prodded the states (minus RI) to convene in 1787.

and removing Congress from the approval process.

The federal convention advanced the draft constitution to congress. Congress could have tabled it, or thrown it away. Instead, it passed the constitution on to the several states for ratification by the people. Congress was certainly involved.

Given these facts, it would be unwise to assume that ratification of the convention’s pro­posals would necessarily require the approval of 38 states, as the Constitution currently specifies.

Huh?

183 posted on 02/16/2015 2:21:07 PM PST by Jacquerie (Article V. If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

We are in complete agreement.


184 posted on 02/16/2015 2:21:45 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Especially disturbing is the junk from the Bircher website, especially that which questions the legitimacy of the 1787 federal convention. Too many Freepers swallow it whole.
185 posted on 02/16/2015 2:35:28 PM PST by Jacquerie (Article V. If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

So what you are saying is the rule change that happened before in 1787, happened because of the way it was set up at the time and that the constitution is now ironclad in that a rule change could not be possible in an Article Five constitutional convention?

Interesting. My thanks for the non-condescending way you explained it.


186 posted on 02/16/2015 2:39:22 PM PST by icwhatudo (Low taxes and less spending in Sodom and Gomorrah is not my idea of a conservative victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Publius; Repeal The 17th; GraceG; DownInFlames; Extremely Extreme Extremist; jonno; ...
To those who are saying that an Article V convention would open the Constitution to amendments: look at the following pictures, they show how amendments are proposed and ratified — an Article 5 convention is for proposing Amendments. Period. — They still need ratified.

Here's what I would propose:

Tax Reform Amendment Fiscal Responsibility Amendment Judicial Reform Amendment
Section I
No tax, fee, fine, or judgement —federal, State, or subdivision of either— shall ever be withheld from any wage.

Section II
No property shall be seized for failure to pay taxes until after conviction in a jury trial; the right of the jury to nullify (and thereby forgive) this debt shall never be questioned or denied.

Section III
The second amendment is hereby recognized as restricting the power of taxation, both federal and state, therefore no tax (or fee, or fine) shall be laid upon munitions or the sale thereof.

Section IV
The seventh amendment is also hereby recognized, and nothing in this amendment shall restrict the right of a citizen to seek civil redress.

Section V
No income tax levied by the federal government, the several States, or any subdivision of either shall ever exceed 10%.

Section VI
No income tax levied by the federal government, the several States, or any subdivision of either shall ever apply varying rates to those in its jurisdiction.

Section VII
No retrospective, retroactive, or ex post facto tax, fee, or fine shall ever be valid; nor shall the Congress delegate the creation of any tax, fee, or fine in any way; nor shall Congress give any credit, exemption, or deduction to any person, class of persons, or corporation whatsoever.

Section VIII
No federal employee, representative, senator, judge, justice or agent shall ever be exempt from any tax, fine, or fee by virtue of their position.

Section IX
Any federal employee, representative, senator, judge, justice or agent abridging, attempting to abridge, or otherwise circumventing this amendment shall, upon conviction, be evicted from office and all retirement benefits forfeit.
Section I
The power of Congress to regulate the value of money is hereby rescinded; the unit of money of the United States is the Dollar.

Section II
The value of the Dollar shall be one fifteen-hundredth avoirdupois ounce of gold of which impurities do not exceed one part per thousand.

Section III
To guard against Congress using its authority over weights and measures to bypass Section I, the ounce in Section II is approximately 28.3495 grams (SI).

Section IV
The Secretary of the Treasury shall annually report the gold physically in its possession; this report shall be publicly available. Any five states may commission a third party audit to confirm this report at their own expense.

Section V
The power of the Congress to assume debt is hereby restricted: the congress shall assume no debt that shall cause the total obligations of the United States to exceed one hundred ten percent of the amount last reported by the Secretary of the Treasury.

Section VI
Any government agent, officer, judge, justice, employee, representative, or congressman causing gold, money, or real estate to be confiscated from a citizen shall be tried for theft and upon conviction shall:
     a.  be removed from office (and fired, if an employee),
     b.  forfeit all pension and retirement benefits,
     c.  pay all legal costs, and
     d.  restore to the bereaved twice the amount in controversy.

Section VII
The federal government shall assume no obligation lacking funding, neither shall it lay such obligation on any of the several States, any subdivision thereof, or any place under the jurisdiction of the United States. All unfunded liabilities heretofore assumed by the United States are void.

Section VIII
The federal government shall make all payments to its employees or the several states in physical gold. Misappropriation, malfeasance and/or misfeasance of funds shall be considered confiscation and theft.
Section I
No court or tribunal shall deny inquiry into its jurisdiction or the authority under which it operates; misrepresentation thereof shall result in that person being charged with malfeasance.

Section II
The Constitution may always be used as a defense, the interpretation presented may or may not be correct —it is the right of the jury to decide— but the court cannot prevent it from being cited.

Section III
The Fifth amendment’s prohibition against being tried for the same offence twice is hereby recognized as applying to the actions and not the jurisdiction; therefore no federal case shall be made against a person for actions already tried by the state or subdivision thereof. However, nothing is to prevent a State from trying persons for Treason against their own sovereignty.

Section IV
The Sixth amendment’s guarantee of a speedy trial is hereby recognized: for every week after the six months from the start of the trial the accused shall be paid the national average wage for one week’s pay, this payment shall be the responsibility and liability of the officers of the court.

Section V
The Eighth amendment is hereby recognized as preventing excessively long imprisonment: no term of imprisonment shall exceed ten years. The Eighth amendment shall not be held to prevent capital punishment.

Section VI
The Second amendment is hereby recognized: no court shall bar a juror from wearing his weapon, as he is a free man.

Section VII
No right of the Citizen shall be denied to a Citizen who has completed his sentence.

Section VIII
The text of the Constitution should not be arbitrarily reinterpreted and, as the judiciary does such with its doctrine of incorporation, the Fourteenth amendment is hereby repealed.
Senate Reform Amendment Commerce Clause Amendment Grand Jury Amendment
Section I
The seventeenth amendment is hereby repealed.

Section II
The several states may provide by law the means by which their senators may be removed or replaced.

Section III
No person shall be a senator for more than two consecutive terms.

Section IV
All Senators shall be paid by their respective states according to such wages as that State may set; they shall receive no remuneration from the federal government.
Section I
The federal government shall directly subsidize no product or industry whatsoever, saving the promotion of the progress of Science and useful Arts.

Section II
The federal government shall never prescribe nor proscribe what the several states teach. Neither the federal government nor the several states shall ever deny the right of parents to teach and instruct their children as they see fit.

Section III
The congress may impose tariffs, excise taxes, and customs duties on anything imported or exported, provided that they are applied uniformly and in no manner restrict, subvert, or circumvent the second amendment.

Section IV
No federal law, rule, or regulation may impose prohibitions or restrictions of any sort on the commerce between the several states due to the item itself.
Section I
The Grand Jury is hereby recognized as an independent, self-directing body of inquisitors comprised of citizens with power to pursue any unlawful conduct to its source, including the government itself.

Section II
All government agents, officers, judges, justices, employees, representatives, or congressmen may be held to account for obstructing a Grand Jury — upon conviction in a jury trial they shall be fined up to six month’s pay (but not less than one) and may be jailed for an equal term.

Section III
Any judge or prosecutor refusing to act upon a Presentment shall immediately be evicted from office.

Section IV
No member of a Grand Jury shall be involuntarily removed for any cause except conviction of a felony or Treason.

Section V
The local Sheriff of each county shall appoint the members of the federal Grand Jury for that county within two months after his election and their term shall be of the same length of time as the Sherif but starting six month after the start of his tenure.
There's a PDF with rationales for each of these here, and a comment thread here.
187 posted on 02/16/2015 3:03:10 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
Especially disturbing is the junk from the Bircher website, especially that which questions the legitimacy of the 1787 federal convention. Too many Freepers swallow it whole.

Why do you think that is?

188 posted on 02/16/2015 3:04:10 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

But I was told on this thread there was already a constitutional convention, there could not be another, and article 5 was NOT a constitutional convention.

189 posted on 02/16/2015 3:09:20 PM PST by icwhatudo (Low taxes and less spending in Sodom and Gomorrah is not my idea of a conservative victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

So once a convention is called under article 5, based on your chart, amendments could then be proposed by a 2/3 votes of a national convention called by CONGRESS. So if congress is calling it, do they get to pick who makes up this convention?

Then, if approved, according to your chart, 3/4 of something called “ratifying conventions” get to approve or dissaprove of the amendment. Who gets to pick who makes up these conventions?


190 posted on 02/16/2015 3:20:08 PM PST by icwhatudo (Low taxes and less spending in Sodom and Gomorrah is not my idea of a conservative victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo

Post #18, please.


191 posted on 02/16/2015 3:20:50 PM PST by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo
It's a misnomer in the graphic, and would probably be better rendered as Article V Convention or Convention of the States or similar… although you could arguably legitimately call it a constitutional convention in that it's a convention set out as per the Constitution; however, that leads people to believe that it's about writing a new Constitution rather than the proscribed procedure for amending the Constitution.
192 posted on 02/16/2015 3:22:44 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo
So once a convention is called under article 5, based on your chart, amendments could then be proposed by a 2/3 votes of a national convention called by CONGRESS. So if congress is calling it, do they get to pick who makes up this convention?

No; all the Congress does is set a place and time for the convention.

Then, if approved, according to your chart, 3/4 of something called “ratifying conventions” get to approve or dissaprove of the amendment. Who gets to pick who makes up these conventions?

The States, IIRC — just look at how the 21st was repealed to see that ratification method.

193 posted on 02/16/2015 3:30:31 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Thanks for the info.


194 posted on 02/16/2015 3:32:57 PM PST by icwhatudo (Low taxes and less spending in Sodom and Gomorrah is not my idea of a conservative victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

The boobs to which you refer are in the title of the article.
Wait till the progressives slide in.

Look for democrats to put forth amendments to alter the amendments they are presently attacking, specifically the first & second.

It’s no red herring, it’s a warning not to trust the collective of our present politicians.


195 posted on 02/16/2015 3:43:54 PM PST by Cold Heart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo

I don’t entirely understand your question.

Could you rephrase it?


196 posted on 02/16/2015 3:46:33 PM PST by Jacquerie (Article V. If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Publius; OneWingedShark

“Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.”

Is this a typo? Appears to say Article 5 gives Congress power to propose amendments. Others have stated only states can do so in an article 5.

“Once Congress, or an Amendments Convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:

State Legislature Method, or the
State Ratifying Convention Method.”

So unlike what OneWingedShark posted:

“all the Congress does is set a place and time for the convention”

You are saying congress also has the power to choose the ratifying method.

You also say “the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down.”

So the voters, defined by congress (illegals with legal status?) get to pick who ratifies the amendments.

You also adress that “The Constitution of 1787 may not be abrogated and replaced with a new document. Article V only authorizes “a convention for proposing amendments to this Constitution”; therefore, the Constitution of 1787 is locked in place forever.”

Yes, it is locked in place forever, but it can be amended which is what article 5 is all about.

“To permit the drafting of a new constitution, this provision in Article V would first have to be repealed; it would be a two-step process.”

So there are ways to repeal provisions in Article 5. Isn’t that what some are worried about? Once the process is in motion provisions of article 5 are “repealed” ?

You mention some referenced works about this:

“1973 report from the American Bar Association attempting to identify gray areas in the amendatory process to include an Amendments Convention. It represents the view of the ruling class of 40 years ago. While I dislike some of their conclusions, they have laid out the precedents that may justify those conclusions. What I respect is the comprehensive job they did in locating all the gray areas.”

I appreciate the time you and others have taken in pointing out info that is helpful in understanding this process, but from what I have seen so far from Article 5 defenders is:

*Congress does have power in this process
*Provisions of Article 5 can be repealed
*The ABA has identified gray areas in the process=I.E. some things are open to interpretation.

I do not think it is ignorant to at least “worry” about possible abuse.

I do not think is is unreasonable to use the term constitutional convention, as does Scalia, Mike Lee, Fox News, Newsmax, Heritage Foundation, and scores of others to describe what Article 5 supporters are pushing.


197 posted on 02/16/2015 3:53:51 PM PST by icwhatudo (Low taxes and less spending in Sodom and Gomorrah is not my idea of a conservative victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Beats me. All I know is that it isn't unusual for Article V opponents, like the bircher site, to question the legitimacy of the constitution.
198 posted on 02/16/2015 3:55:13 PM PST by Jacquerie (Article V. If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Sure. I think you made the point that the reason changes could be made in the first instance (the change being lets just replace the entire thing with a constitution) is that there was no rule forbidding it. In this case, the constitution expressly says no way to full replacement.

While I would agree thats the case, I don’t think anyone is worried about a full replacement. They are worried of games being played, “repeals” and “interpretations” of things we are being assured would limit and control the process.


199 posted on 02/16/2015 4:24:10 PM PST by icwhatudo (Low taxes and less spending in Sodom and Gomorrah is not my idea of a conservative victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo
>> “Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.”
>
> Is this a typo? Appears to say Article 5 gives Congress power to propose amendments. Others have stated only states can do so in an article 5.

Congress can.

This column is the possible ways to propose amendments. This column is the possible ways to ratify proposed amendments.
This 'row' is the normal process:
(Prop) Both houses of Congress pass a proposal for amendments by 2/3rds
(Rat.) 3/4 of the State legislatures pass (ratify) the proposed amendment.



This 'row' represents the most probable way of getting fed-gov limiting Amendments passed:
(Prop) The convention has 2/3rds vote for some amendment(s)
(Rat.) 3/4 of a special state convention voting on the proposed amendment(s).
(Note that the two conventions are NOT the same convention.)

As you can see, the national convention method of proposals has never been done.
200 posted on 02/16/2015 4:34:00 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-216 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson