I really don't see how applications from the several States to the U.S. Congress for the calling of a Constitutional Convention to Propose Amendments could advance on the basis of such squishy logical grounds as "curbing the overreach and jurisdiction of federal government power."
That looks to me like a prescription for a "runaway Convention," assuming Congress would even accept any State Application like that, which is highly dubious.
Given the above reflections/considerations, dear Hostage, I must tell you that I find great merit in your proposal that the Applications from the several States to Congress for the mandatory "calling" of a Convention of the States for the Purpose of Proposing Amendments should be organized in terms of the language of "States Rights and Control of States Rights." And not just because of the tactical, or "psychological" advantages of winning an early victory, on which to build later ones.
As a practical matter, in order for a Constitutional Convention for the Proposing of Amendments to become reality, 34 States must make Applications to Congress that are sufficiently similar in language and scope that Congress may "aggregate" them for the purpose of determining whether the "two-thirds of the States" criterion has been met. Once that threshold has been reached, Congress MUST issue a "call" for such a Convention. At that point, its only discretion in the matter is to indicate the time and place of its convocation.
BTW, not ALL States need to be there. Some might boycott such a convention. But for the purpose of proposing Amendments to the Constitution, only 34 States are needed to constitute an Article V constitutional quorum. Subsequent ratification requires 38 States. We can worry about that later; let the Convention do its business first.
The beauty of your suggestion is the language you propose: The "applying" States, if they want to get anything done, should be requesting a Convention dedicated to the subject of "States Rights and Control of States Rights."
Because I am reasonably certain that not only 34 states, but all 50 states, have "issues" with federal usurpations of their Tenth Amendment retained powers — covering everything from fiscal to healthcare to cultural (e.g., marriage, abortion) to management of public lands issues, etc., etc. — it should be fairly easy to convene a "quorum" of the States necessary to force Congress to call a Convention of the States. That is to say, 34 States.
But your proposed language is also a safeguard against a "runaway convention." Any proposal issued by the Convention must pertain to the "mission" of the Convention. Which is: "States Rights and Control of States Rights."
May I note here that such a Convention might end up producing not one, but several proposed amendments? Each to be separately ratified by the several States, three-fourths of which must concur before the proposed Amendment becomes part of the federal Constitution — according to whatever ratification method Congress selects?
If we were to use the language you suggest, dear Hostage, then repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment would clearly fall within the intentional meaning of a Convention devoted to realizing the overarching theme of "States Rights and Control of States Rights."
Thank you for your amazingly fertile insight, dear Hostage!
Thanks Betty Boop. You’ve refined some points here that caused me to rethink the best approach that leads to success.
Let’s first agree that whatever we discuss and suggest here and in the future, that on occasion we put on our ‘Bernie Sanders’ mask (or pick your least liked liberal, communist, etc.) to criticize our own work; devil’s advocate approach. I just listened yesterday in the background while doing my work, a 40-minute YouTube video of Sanders speech in Portland, ME. It was awful and predictably communist with not a single new or credible proposal. But I had it on so that I would understand what the opposition is thinking and talking about. So for example, as we discuss Article V, don’t be surprised if I interject thoughts that seem to arise from left field as I attempt to factor for what the left might do. I’ll try to be realistic and not be too paranoid about it.
I think we all can agree that Professor Natelson should eventually be contacted as well as Michael Farris to view the framing of the ‘mission’ as Betty Boop calls it to ‘STATES RIGHTS AND CONTROL OF STATES RIGHTS’. I believe they will react well to this and pass it on to Mark Meckler and Senator Coburn (fmr). Based on your remarks the ‘rethinking’ should make Jacquerie much more agreeable and give Publius some new things to think about for which it is hoped he will share his thoughts.
With respect to the minimum 34 states crossing the threshold, the previous thinking and current thinking are:
Previous:
* A single issue topic is necessary but the topic should be limited to ‘States Rights and Control of States Rights’ (this is still part of the current thinking).
* All State applications for an Article V Convention of States should contain amendments that at their core are uniform with all other state applications presumably at the 34 state threshold (this is no longer a part of the current thinking).
* All State applications for an Article V Convention of States should contain one and only one amendment that is uniform in its core language among the 34 state threshold (this is no longer a part of the current thinking) .
Current:
* A single issue topic is necessary but the topic should be limited to ‘States Rights and Control of States Rights’.
* Each state application shall be devoid of amendments (although the states will have circulated a list of amendment drafts and agenda topics, the actual state applications will not include them).
* Each state application shall contain a core resolution that is uniform among all states applying that shall state as follows:
********************************************************************************
“A joint concurrent resolution of the Legislature of the State of ............... ; to the Committee on the Judiciary:
“JOINT CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. XX
“A joint concurrent resolution applying to the Congress for a Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States
“Resolved, That the Legislature of the State of ............... , pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the United States, makes application to the Congress of the United States to call a convention for proposing amendments limited to and for the express purpose related to:
“Article —
“The matter of addressing States Rights and Control of States Rights; and be it further
“Resolved, That this application by the legislature of the State of ............... constitutes a continuing application in accordance with Article V of the Constitution of the United States until at least two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states have made similar applications pursuant to Article V, irrespective if Congress proposes similar amendments addressing the matter of ‘States Rights and Control of States Rights’; and be it further
“Resolved, That in noting this method of proposing amendments to the Constitution has never been completed to the point of calling a convention and no interpretation of the power of the States in exercising this right has ever been made by any court, and in observing the exercise of the power is a basic tenet of sovereign rights and the interpretation thereof is in the sovereign government making such exercise and observing the power to use such right in full also carries to use such power in part, the Legislature of the State of ............... proceeds with Article V as Pacta Sunt Servanda under the Constitution such that when two-thirds of the states make application to propose amendments to the Constitution with the limitation to address the matter of States Rights and Control of States Rights as the only matter before it, that such convention would have power only to propose amendments addressing such matter and would be limited to such matter and would not have power to hold debate beyond the scope of such matter nor would it have power to propose amendments outside the scope of such matter; and be it further
“Resolved, That a duly attested copy of this resolution be immediately addressed to the Secretary of the Senate of the United States, the Clerk of the House of the Representatives of the United States, to each member of Congress from this state and to each chamber of each State Legislature in the United States.”
********************************************************************************
This revised approach allows for flexibility among state legislators and the delegates they appoint to craft amendment(s) they can reach consensus on. For Example, the previous suggested amendment could be revised as:
************************************************
AMENDMENT XXVIII
To redress the balance of powers between the federal government and the States and to restore effective suffrage of State Legislatures to Congress, the following amendment is proposed:
************************************************
Section 1.
A Senator in Congress shall be subject to recall by their respective state legislature or by voter referendum in their respective state.
Section 2.
Term limits for Senators in Congress shall be set by vote in their respective state legislatures but in no case shall be set less than twelve years nor more than eighteen years.
Section 3.
Upon a majority vote in three-fifths of state legislatures, specific federal statutes, federal court decisions and executive directives of any form shall be repealed and made void.
Section 4.
The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
************************************************
Should Section 4 not reach consensus at the Convention of States, then it can be stricken while leaving in all other provisions that do reach consensus. Each provision of each amendment addressing States Rights and Control of States Rights can then be debated to consensus.
As to Repeal of the 17th, which I fully support, the question is what twisting of the repeal will the Bernie Sanders of the Left resort to? Certainly they will create hysteria among the left that “these right-wing state legislators are out to rob the American people of their right to vote!”, and “the right wing wants to use state legislators to take over Congress and overthrow all of the protections and benefits for working men and women, and families and elderly people!”, etc. We can imagine the tirades to come.
We can also expect that the MSM with respect to a repeal the 17th debate dredge up all the history of the 17th which goes back to original Constitution Convention where Founder James Wilson proposed that US Senators be elected by popular vote but was voted down, and then an amendment for a popular vote of US Senators was introduced several times during the 19th century, getting closer each time to officially being proposed. So there is a long history there.
In sum, discussions of the 17th repeal will drown out new beneficial provisions for States Rights and Control thereof. But it’s ultimately up to the legislators who will be besieged by press and other ‘out of towners’ with all manner of confusing demands.
The 17th Amendment and behind it the 19th century movement for a popular vote of US Senators was severely flawed from the very beginning. The enormous growth of the US population as opposed to the continuation of small numbers of US Senators has caused voters to be further and further removed from their US Senator in turn causing US Senators to require enormous funds to buy media and marketing campaigns to saturate the public with. Those funds can only be obtained in exchange for the US Senators selling themselves out to special interests. Ergo, corruption on a massive scale and a catastrophic loss in representation to both voters and state legislators. As a result, the Federal Government has carte blanche to grow beyond whatever could be imagined; and Congress is for sale to the highest bidder. From a purely organic perspective, this was entirely predictable.
If a leader with the financial, management and logistics expertise (Trump?) can join with the legal scholars and inside personas (e.g. Mark Levin) of the Convention of States project (http://www.conventionofstates.com) and organize a ground operation, then state legislators can be empowered and assisted to slog through amendments and bring forth those that can achieve consensus. But that takes education, analysis, tactical planning, historical review, campaigning.
Back to the 17th, I would prompt the ground efforts to push for putting repeal of the 17th on hold and getting provisions like the first 3 sections of the suggested 28th above to reach consensus. Once voters and state legislatures have recall power (which they don’t now; SCOTUS declared recall of US Senators unconstitutional in the 1960s, see history behind recall effort of Sen. Frank Church), then effectively state legislators or voters through referendum can fire their US Senator who sells out. From the US Senator’s perspective, selling out will be a nightmare because now not only do they have to respect lowly state legislators but they also have to fear the voters when they are seen violating their principles.
The power for voters to recall (fire) their US Senator elevates them from being mere subjects to being patrons of the US Senator’s offices. With recall they become overseers with power. Whereas with mere election voting power they are marked as fools by PACs. They can never know their US Senators, they can never get close enough to establish a necessary degree of trust; it’s ludicrous that they should vote for a US Senator, an exercise in mindless inane vacuity. But once they know they can ‘fire’ their US Senator for cause, then they have a new, better more suitable power as opposed to mere mindless voting.
The campaign to repeal the 17th should wait until after other enabling powers are given to voters and after a campaign is successfully waged to persuade voters that the popular vote of US Senators is absurd given the sheer numbers and ratios that preclude any degree of effective representation save for the very very rich.
It's hard to imagine a topic that couldn't be smuggled into this convention based on that mission. There are plenty of voices who would like to diminish states rights, and as you state later in your post everything from fiscal matters to healthcare to land use to culture would be on the table.
I don't think Congress, especially a hostile one, would ever consider states rights and control thereof to be a credible "single subject".