State-Led Push to Force Constitutional Convention Gains Steam With High-Profile Republican Support

Fox News ^ | 14 February 2015

[Publius]

A state-level campaign to rein in the federal government by calling an unprecedented convention to amend the U.S. Constitution is gaining steam, picking up support from two high-profile Republicans as more states explore the idea.

Coburn, a legendary government-waste watchdog, announced this week that he has joined the effort by becoming a senior adviser for the group Convention of States Action, which wants states, not just Congress, to pass constitutional amendments.

Article V of the Constitution states amendments can be ratified either by Congress or by states if two-thirds of them petition Congress to call a convention. Then, any amendment proposed at the convention must be ratified by three-fourth, or 38, states.

So far, the Alaska, Florida and Georgia legislatures have each passed a resolution in support of a convention, and 25 more are considering one, according to group.

“Our founders anticipated the federal government might get out of control,” Coburn said Tuesday. “And they gave us a constitutional mechanism to rein it in.”

Meanwhile, Ohio GOP Gov. John Kasich, a potential 2016 White House candidate, has recently concluded a six-state tour in which he has asked legislators to support the convention, largely to push the balanced budget idea.

“Who the heck thinks we should keep spending without any regard to the consequences?” Kasich, a fiscal hawk and former House Budget Committee chairman, asked in South Dakota. “I don’t care if you’re a Republican, a Democrat or a Martian. This is not what we should be doing as a nation. It’s irresponsible.”

Kasich, who claims credit for crafting a balanced federal budget before leaving Congress in 2000, gave a similar pitch week last month in Utah, urging state lawmakers to pass a convention resolution, which has failed there in past years.

[Jacquerie]

Massive.

[Jacquerie]

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.

[Jacquerie]

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?

[OneWingedShark]

We are in complete agreement.

[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.

[icwhatudo]

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.

[OneWingedShark]

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.

[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.

Why do you think that is?

[icwhatudo]

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.

[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?

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?

[Publius]

Post #18, please.

[OneWingedShark]

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.

[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?

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.

[icwhatudo]

Thanks for the info.

[Cold Heart]

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.

[Jacquerie]

I don’t entirely understand your question.

Could you rephrase it?

[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.

“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.

[Jacquerie]

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.

[icwhatudo]

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.

[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.

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.