Posted on 08/19/2015 4:52:41 PM PDT by cotton1706
One reason Donald Trump is finding support for his presidential bid is that so many people are fed up with Washington and its inability to get things done--that is, get things done the way the fed-up people think they should.
Some of that sentiment is also driving a reexamination of an Article V Convention of the States.
Most Americans know that the Founding Fathers tried to set up a system of checks and balances, but that issue is usually discussed in relation to the three branches of the federal government imposing a check on each other.
But Article V of the U.S. Constitution creates a check and balance between the states and Washington.
If two-thirds of the states apply to Congress for a convention for the purpose of amending the Constitution, Congress must convene it. If the convention of the states is able to agree upon a constitutional amendment, and if three-fourths of the states ratify the amendment, it would become part of the Constitution.
There is a growing interest among state legislators who believe that Washington has ignored some of its constitutional responsibilities and far exceeded its allowable reach with respect to the states. An Article V convention might restore some of the historic balance.
The country's top expert on an Article V Convention is Rob Natelson, who used to be a law professor teaching constitutional law. He is now with the Independence Institute in Colorado.
(Excerpt) Read more at yourhoustonnews.com ...
Already happened and they did it without a Convention, so what do you fear now?
if you know it won’t work, why push it?
Not kidding and we will control it. Any proposed amendment must be ratified by the state’s just like an amendment initiated by congress. The risk folks see in the CoS is significantly overstated. What risk is there? Presently we live under tyranny. The constitution is ignored whenever the government wishes. The CoS will attempt to restore balance by empowering the states.
you cannot control republicans in congress under normal circumstances. what makes you think that you can control this convention when it faces liberal and media pressure never before seen int his country? you’ll end up with hot and cold running RINOs who will sell your cause down the river for favorable press.
The control comes from the state legislatures that must ratify any amendment proposed by the CoS. The ratification bar is very high. Three quarters of the state’s must ratify a proposed amendment. This is the bulwark against any left wing malice. It is also the hurdle we must get any proposed amendment over. It is a difficult task and it is intended to be. I believe the dangers are grossly overstated by leftists in a deliberate attempt to sabatoge the Article V means of correcting their evil. Conservatives who love their country buy into the argument to protect the nation from further harm because they are used to the leftists constantly wining through lies and subterfuge. Given our situation what is there to fear? The constitution has been abrogated by federal courts, our congress, and the executive. Essentially, we have been in a post-constitutional government situation for some time now. Decades in fact. Our government must be seriously cut back because they and far to many of our people are no longer moral, just, or virtuous. Hell, they don’t even respect morality, Justice, or virtue. Our present constitution is not designed to deal with this. Therefore the people’s protection against a runaway government must be strengthened to protect their freedom. Article V is the only peaceful way of of getting proposed amendments to the states that exists. The only other avenue, as you are aware, is through Congress which is in my opinion a non-starter. Two amendments are desperately needed. Repeal of the 17th amendment, returning the election of senators to the state legislatures. This gives the states the voice in the federal government they were intended to have but do not have now. And an amendment that provides the states a viable means of overruling the Supreme Court. After reviewing a number of proposals in this area I believe a simple majority of state legislatures is all that should be needed. I would at a later date go after the congress ability to write tax law. But that is down the road if at all. Have a great weekend.
You do all the heavy lofting. I try to help a little as my limited knowledge allows.
You should post stand alone vanities.
First principles.
Always.
I think there are a lot of reasons why this is unlikely to ever happen, not the least of which being the math.
To call a national convention to propose a constitutional amendment would require an application by the legislatures of 34 states. There are currently 31 state legislatures controlled by Republicans (30 where Republicans control both houses, plus Nebraska, whose unicameral, nonpartisan legislature is unofficially controlled by Republicans), 8 states where each house is controlled by a different party, and 11 state legislatures where both houses are controlled by Democrats. That means, assuming all 31 Republican-controlled state legislatures voted to call a convention (which I would not consider a safe assumption), we’d still need at least three states where Democrats control at least one house of the legislature. The good news is that there is at least no language in Article V that would permit state governors a veto in this process—five of the 31 Republican-controlled legislatures have Democrat governors.
It may not be so simple as the legislatures merely voting to call a convention, either. Article V is silent as to the composition of such a convention, the procedures to be used, whether any voting at the convention would be by state or by individual delegate, whether delegates would be bound to follow the instructions of their state legislatures, whether the legislatures can restrict the purpose of the convention, how long the convention would be allowed to sit, or what number of delegates or states are necessary to propose an amendment. There is no precedent to go by, either, because this procedure has never been used in the 227 years since the Constitution was ratified. These are some pretty important issues, so who gets to decide all of this? The legislatures themselves? Congress? What if some of the legislatures’ applications include conditions authorizing only a certain kind of voting or the proposal of certain amendments? What if Congress ignores these conditions in forming the convention?
Assuming the convention is valid and proposes an amendment, that proposal would then have to be ratified by 3/4ths of the state legislatures, or 38 states. That means, again assuming all 31 Republican-controlled legislatures ratify the amendment, ratification either would require at least 7 states where Democrats control at least one house.
As a result, any amendment would have to have very broad support just to be proposed by such a convention, let alone ratified. Which begs the question: If an amendment has broad enough support to be proposed through this national convention procedure, isn’t it likely that it would be proposed by Congress first? This is probably why no convention has ever been called.
There hasn’t been a controversial constitutional amendment proposed since the 1970s—the Equal Rights Amendment in 72 and the D.C. Voting Rights Amendment in 78. Neither was ratified, of course. The last controversial amendment ratified was the 24th Amendment prohibiting poll taxes, which was only controversial in the South. There are only eleven former-Confederate states—two too few to block an amendment.
This is all by design, of course. In rejecting Jefferson’s idea of allowing a convention to be called on the concurrence of two of the three branches of government, Madison warned in Federalist 49: “The danger of disturbing the public tranquillity by interesting too strongly the public passions, is a still more serious objection against a frequent reference of constitutional questions to the decision of the whole society.”
A convention is an interesting idea, but any discussion about it is either academic or wishful thinking at this point. It is certainly no shortcut past the hard work of winning elections and convincing the public to support your views, which is where the focus should be right now.
Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers
State Initiation of Constitutional Amendments: A Guide for Lawyers and Legislative Drafters
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.