New “Article V Information Center” Helps Federal Reform Efforts

constitution.org ^ | 4/16/15

[cotton1706]

DENVER — The burgeoning “convention of states” movement wants to save the republic, and the Independence Institute is pitching in to help.

The Institute’s new “Article V Information Center” website provides journalists, state lawmakers and other citizens with up-to-date, accurate and unbiased information on a little-known part of the U.S. Constitution that could be triggered in the next year or two.

Article V of the Constitution empowers state legislatures to force reforms on the federal government. If 34 state legislatures demand a particular kind of constitutional amendment, the result is a meeting of state legislatures that the Constitution calls a “convention for proposing amendments.” The gathering can then propose reforms, which become part of the Constitution if 38 states agree.

A convention for proposing amendments is a limited-purpose gathering, and NOT a constitutional convention, with which it is sometimes confused.

Advocates of an amendment forcing Congress to balance the federal budget are only a few states away from the necessary 34. They have added three states to their tally this year.

Also picking up steam are amendments imposing term limits on federal officials, campaign finance reform, and cuts in the federal bureaucracy.

“Relatively few people realize it yet, but we could be on the cusp of a major change for the better,” says Rob Natelson, the long-time constitutional law professor who heads the Article V Information Center. Natelson’s publications on the amendment process sparked the “convention of states” movement.

http://articlevinfocenter.com/

[cotton1706]

http://articlevinfocenter.com/

[cotton1706]

ping

[MrB]

Just to play to the nay sayers,
let’s say the ArtV convention WAS infiltrated by a
bunch of Soros funded leftists and they proposed
amendments to turn America full on communist...

Do you think these amendments will be passed by 3/4 of the state legislatures?

[SvenMagnussen]

A proposed amendment does not amend the Constitution until it is certified by the Archivist of the United States and published as a slip law. The Archivist and the Government Printer, the official printer of the United States, are appointees of the President. Appointees of the President serve at the pleasure of the President.

Any proposed amendment could be withheld by the President through the firing of the Archivist and the Government Printer. A new Archivist and Government Printer could only be appointed with advise and consent of the Senate.

A constitutional convention is the only option after an ineligible President assumes the office.

[grobdriver]

Do you think these amendments will be passed by 3/4 of the state legislatures?

As devil's advocate, how many of those 3/4 would actually be in play?

Say the results of an article V was the conservative's worst nightmare, and it went out to the states, 26 of which went to Obama in 2012. If we stipulate that those 26 would also go for the Soros results... that leaves a 12 state "battleground".

A much smaller margin on which to hang the future of the country.

[Jacquerie]

Thanks for keeping up on Article V in the media.

There’s an interesting article at the info center about Justice Warren Burger’s opposition to Article V.

Opposition to Article V has clearly worked toward leftist goals. They get to rewrite the constitution at will, while the people and states are told to keep their hands off.

[savagesusie]

Of that amount-—Obama minds owns the most-—and the trillions of the Soros group could bribe and control the votes (voting machines) of the rest-—for a complete obliteration of the Worldview of unalienable Individual Natural Rights only from God.

We need to go back to the original intent and meaning of our Supreme Law of the Land. As Justice John Marshall stated (Father of Jurisprudence)—that all “law” which is antithetical to the Supreme Law, is “null and void”.

All our judges need to toss out unconstitutional “law”. As St. Thomas and MLK,jr. and Nuremberg Trials stated——all “unjust law” is “null and void” and you have a DUTY to DISOBEY unconstitutional (unjust) Law.

We needed tort reform 80 years ago——and we need to dump all convoluted, irrational “law” because it is unconstitutional anyhow. We just need to get back to NATURAL RIGHTS from GOD......not the State. We don’t need PERMISSION (rules/regulations) for our NATURAL RIGHTS from government —EVER.

[Ray76]

Those who do not advocate an Article V convention are leftists?

[Publius]

Article V ping.

[C210N]

Forget leftists, soros, “runaway” convention nonsense, and so on for a moment...

Assume there is a groundswell impetus for some new amendments on some random topic. You are given a choice where they should be written. There are only two choices:

1. Congress
2. States

Okay, now given that, presume the actual topic of said amendment(s) is to limit the federal govt.

The rhetorical question to ask, then, where should these amendments be written? Again, the choices are 1) Congress, or 2) States.

[nathanbedford]

There are 99 houses in 50 state legislatures. Any leftist amendment would require only 13 of these legislative bodies from 99 to defeat ratification. In other words, three quarters of the state legislatures must ratify or 38 states. If 13 legislatures fail to ratify the amendment is defeated. Since ratification by legislatures requires both houses to consent, only 13/99 are required. That is very close to 13%.

After the last election Republicans control 69 houses of the 99 state legislative houses. Republicans control 31 of the 50 state legislatures. To stop any unwise or imprudent amendment would require only 13 of these 69 Statehouses (from different states) or about 19%, fewer than one in five.

The problem will not be to stop left-wing amendments but to pass prudent conservative amendments which restore the Constitution by invoking the Constitution.

If the Congress of the United States elects to have the ratification procedures conducted by conventions rather than legislatures, the method of selecting the delegates to those conventions would be chosen by the legislatures. If only 13 legislative bodies out of 99 object to the method chosen by the other body because it is considered to favor a leftist amendment, there is no ratification forthcoming from that state.

By either procedure the odds of a liberal amendment getting past so many conservative legislative bodies in so many states is both arithmetically and practically remote.

Finally, this is only the last line of defense, there are innumerable steps along the way which make a "runaway convention" virtually impossible and render the need for the states to fail to ratify very likely superfluous.

[Jacquerie]

Opposition to Article V has clearly worked toward leftist goals.

[Ray76]

By that “reasoning” it can be said that voting for Republicans has worked toward leftist goals.

[Art in Idaho]

Well said. By either procedure the odds of a liberal amendment getting past so many conservative legislative bodies in so many states is both arithmetically and practically remote.

Finally, this is only the last line of defense, there are innumerable steps along the way which make a "runaway convention" virtually impossible and render the need for the states to fail to ratify very likely superfluous.

The "runaway convention" talk, as you point out, has no basis in reality. People that harp this don't realize we have a runaway Congress and President? Do they want more of the same? Some obviously do but any thinking person has to see the merits of an Article V Convention of States. To do nothing at this point is criminal and a rejection of our forefathers and children yet unborn.