Posted on 06/26/2015 4:00:53 PM PDT by Isara
I think you are exactly right but I suspect a majority of Americans will be unable to grasp what you are saying.
You need to study more and learn that amendments can be designed so that only the States administer and enforce the provisions of the amendment, not the Federal Government:
Start here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3304160/posts
here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3304783/posts?page=284#284
And that should be enough for now if you are truly interested in understanding.
It may happen to our benefit in the Republican Presidential Debates if some candidate does an “Ollie North”
North was subpoenaed before Congress in the Reagan years and they tried to crucify him about Irangate.
North, in his uniform, with his lawyer at his side, took no guff during the widely watched televised committee hearings. He was polite, appropriate, but took no crap and corrected them in no uncertain terms when they were wrong.
The next day, Congress wet itself apologizing because America has seen North live on TV, not the Newsies opinions of him.
The smart Republican candidate will remember Newt in ‘12 answering the “affairs” question and also how well Trump will do when he takes some news hen apart on national TV in a debate.
If the Republican candidate wimps out as Romney did in the second 2012 debate, (and as Obama did in the first 2012 debate) we lose.
A pair of gonads wins every time
“The Convention of States is not a Constitutional Convention.”
Maybe you could explain the difference? I can’t.
Maybe you need to learn to understand plain language. The problem now is that the states are being trampled by the federal government. Just how do you propose to change that? All the language in the world will not stop tyrants, And that should be enough for now if you are truly interested in understanding.
Yes it’s simple.
A ‘Constitutional Convention’ is preceded by a mandate to perform a major rewrite of the governing document. In the case of the Articles of Confederation, those attending the convention knew they were performing a major revision. The Constitution still retails a lot of language of the original AOC document but addresses the gaps that all states new existed in the AOC. The AOC was never intended to be permanent as it was hastily drawn up and agreed to during wartime. Once peace was attained, the states turned their attention towards thoroughly hashing out a more lasting document which became the Constitution.
Today a ‘Convention of States’ (COS) or more accurately a ‘Meeting of State Delegates’ is a meeting to record votes yea or nay on a list of amendments that have previously been circulated through legislator’s offices and given the green light for inclusion on the meeting’s agenda INCLUDING the rules of order that each delegate must agree to before the meeting takes place. Therefore, the meeting’s purpose is only to record for the National Archives that Article V requirements are satisfied with respect to a list of proposed amendments.
The Meeting of State Delegates will not be an invitation to chaos as prior agreement to rules of order and agenda are mandatory.
I’ve asked Publius to read the post here because he is in tune with the rules of order and the tight control over the amendment proposal procedure and he may be able to provide comments that illuminate just how tight the process will be.
Repeating here what I hoped you would have read and understood and what the participants of the thread have already been over:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3304783/posts?page=284#284
The convention will elect its own officers and set its own rules of order. If that is agreed upon before the convention starts, so much the better. It's less work for the delegates.
I'm not worried about the reactions of delegates from liberal states. They'll make some noise and try to obfuscate the issues, but most of the preparatory work has already been done, and the liberal delegates will find themselves behind the eight ball when things begin.
Judicial malfeasance and treason should be added to the impeachment indictment.
You wrote;
“Today a ‘Convention of States’ (COS) or more accurately a ‘Meeting of State Delegates...”
Article five calls it “a convention for proposing amendments” so why do you say “MORE ACCURATELY” a meeting of state delegates? Why don’t you call it a convention for proposing amendments?
You wrote;
“a list of amendments that have previously been circulated through legislator’s offices and given the green light for inclusion on the meeting’s agenda”
Article five is silent on the subject of the meeting’s agenda or how an amendment is given the “green light” to be on the agenda. You seem to think that the convention can be strictly limited as to what may be considered. We all know that proposed amendments must be ratified by three fourths of state legislatures OR BY CONVENTIONS in three fourths of the states but many do NOT believe that the convention can be held to some specific list of amendments to be considered, I certainly don’t see language in article five saying that such is possible. I would envision a convention in which every conceivable amendment one can imagine is aired, in other words something very much like the convention which produced the current constitution. It takes thirty four states out of fifty to call a convention, just how do you propose to limit what amendments can be considered? Personally I think the distinction between a “convention of states” and a constitutional convention exists only in the minds of those who are calling for a convention.
One thing I have learned is that very few modern writers are available who are capable of writing amendments which are not easily misinterpreted. I think the founders were much better wordsmiths than are likely to write any new amendments. Don’t bother pointing out any errors in my own writing, I am not asking for an opportunity to write any amendments. I have also learned that trying to clarify things by adding words is usually futile and apt to produce the opposite result. The only person I can think of immediately who might possess the requisite quality of clarity in writing would be Dr. Thomas Sowell. We certainly don’t want amendments written by someone who cannot distinguish between there, their and they’re or lose and loose as is so common now. Words have meanings and the modern tendency is to pounce mercilessly on any ambiguity, real or perceived, we have all too many in government who are capable of arguing that up is down, day is night, freedom is slavery etc.
I also don’t consider all of the amendments which have been passed to date to be a shining example of how to improve things. I can think of many examples of what I would consider bad amendments, some I would call disastrous. I don’t see how you propose to make sure that there are no bad amendments proposed, the definition of bad being subjective and apt to be very different in different states. Article five DOES say that any amendments proposed become valid upon ratification, that seems to mean that if an amendment requiring everyone to purchase five pounds of sugar per week is ratified the only recourse is to repeal it and that is not an easy process. This convention idea has been kicked around for a long time on FR and it still looks like a huge can of worms to me.
It would be great if, at this point, I had a better solution to offer. Unfortunately I don’t have such a solution but I am convinced that a convention is not the answer either. I can understand why many people believe it is and I probably would have thought so too when I was younger and had not had so much experience with unintended consequences. I would prefer that amendments be considered one at a time. I would also prefer that at least the next two amendments be repeals of existing amendments.
***
The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps: Proposal, Disposal, and Ratification.
Proposal:
There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.
Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.
Disposal:
Once Congress, or an Amendments Convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:
The State Ratifying Convention Method has only been used twice: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.
Ratification:
Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three-quarters of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.
Forbidden Subjects:
Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and one implicitly forbidden subject.
Explicitly forbidden:
Implicitly forbidden:
I have two reference works for those interested.
The first is from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative pro-business group. This document has been sent to every state legislator in the country.
Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers
The second is a 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. They went so far as to identify a gray area that didn't pop up until the Equal Rights Amendment crashed and burned a decade later. Even if you find yourself in disagreement with their vision, it's worth reading to see the view of the ruling class toward the process.
Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee
Words taken out of context by Lewis and embedded in a pitiful argument.
Kelly makes it clear at time 2:16 the scope is limited to ‘limiting’ the overreach of the Federal Government; any expansion of federal power is out of scope.
Lewis makes the failed plea that the remedy is to stop electing those that won’t uphold the Constitution. Pitiful to watch this ‘remedy’ flashed on his subpar presentation.
Lewis’ ‘remedy’ plea is no remedy at all. By making this plea Lewis reveals an intellectual deficiency in his failure to trace the origins of the federal overreach to the year 1913 when the flawed 17th Amendment was passed.
Because Lewis lacks the intellectual acumen to understand the effects of momentous deleterious events of history, his thinking follows a path that leads to error upon error in direction. To save his self-inflated pride he picks up a substandard defense that one must preserve the harm done by electing officials to continue following the tortuous path that has caused most of the harm.
Lewis’ presentation makes for a pitiful exposition; not worthy of any categorization other than garbage.
If that’s the best you got, you better prepare for the coming Article V groundswell that has been forming this year and now has a critical boost from the events of last week.
Thank you for that thoughtful response and setting me straight as I was really despairing and not thinking clearly. I need to read through the related messages to this post again. Again, I appreciate yours and Hostage’s replies. Once again, the Founding fathers were brilliant in their many checks and balances they provided, our constitution is an amazing thing if we will only use the structures provided to us within it - and using the states to enforce measures that wont be enforced by the Federal government is brilliant as Hostage mentioned in his reply to me - it bears repeating for any who stumble on this thread again:
The answer to your fear is in Section 3 where the States are allowed to void any specific Supreme Court ruling. The term ‘void’ in legal definitions means to be treated as if it never existed.
SCOTUS won’t have any interpretation opportunity for Amendment 28 Section 3. If 30 or more states declare according to Amendment 28 that the same-sex ruling of today is void, the state statutes and policies are free to remain intact and there is nothing the federal government can do about it. No reliance is placed on any part of federal government to interpret or enforce. All power from the example 28 falls to the States. That’s why it’s like nothing seen before; why it’s a game changer.
You certainly seem to have a great deal of confidence based on not much that I can perceive. We shall see what happens in the end, it may be far different than either one of us can foresee.
“Ted Cruz would make a superb SCOTUS justice himself.”
I used to think that Justiceseeker93, until I read a statement attributed to Cruz misinterpreting the 14th Amendment, contradicting its principle author, Congressman John Bingham. Criz does raise many issues for which I appreciate his voice in Congress, but where careful and honest interpretation of Supreme Court decisions depending upon constitutional interpretation, “original jurisdiction” as provided by Article III section 2, Cruz has chosen the political path, probably acknowledging the success by supporters of both parties, both of whose candidates in 2008 failed the Constitutional requirements for becoming president, though there is no law preventing them from running.
Cruz is in “good” company. Mark Levine cites Obama’s Harvard law advisor Larry Tribe and former Solicitor General Ted Olson, who offered the misdirection, the 1st Congress’ Nationality Act from 1790 as the reason John McCain should be considered a natural born citizen, when they, along with every U.S. Senator, all of whom signed Senate Resolution 511 in April 2008, knowing that the 1790 act, the only law proposing to interpret natural born citizenship, was entirely rescinded in 1795. Those are facts. If anyone cares, read the act. Both parties have calculated that few people care enough to read it themselves. This is just a symptom of the further degradation of the intent of our framers and founders.
Cruz can ignore it but by so doing he has deigned to assume his personal authority to provide definitions useful to himself and his supporters. I think we can do better, but enemies of our individual sovereignty based upon laws and not men have won this battle. We will see where a “living Constitution” leads us. We already have much evidence with a Supreme Court making new law including defining marriage, authorizing new taxation, defining environmental risks, and on and on.
Thank you for all of your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
This is more substantial then a mere law. It would be impossible for the Imperial Court to ignore an amendment aimed directly at them.
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.