Posted on 10/22/2015 3:22:05 AM PDT by Fhios
Has any of the Republican primary candidates mention support or no support of Article V convention? I'm disappointed it's not part of somebodies Stump speech.
Is it that the issue is little understood? Any ideas on how any of the candidates stand on the issue?
” I dont bring the Constitution into it”.... Dt 2015
No need to refer me to huldah... I’ve already read a ton of it (did so over a year ago... is anything new?), and weighing against COS, reject what I carefully read. COS aligns with all my other readings on the founders, and the framers.
Firstly, they did not do this in a vacuum. It was authorized by the states. This is well documented by Mark Levin.
"Same thing could happen here"
The convention would have no power to change anything - only to propose changes. Ratification is still required, just as it was in 1789.
Your Tea Party class sounds as if it came directly from the John Birch Society. Why the JBS puts out this leftist propaganda is a mystery to me.
I read this at your Publius Huldah link, and it is just bunk. Article V does not give Congress such powers; rather it secures them to the States, who direct their own delegations; select their own delegates; and, meeting in a called Convention, determine all procedural and voting rules, by a simple majority vote, one vote per State delegation.
Indeed, a good deal of spadework has already been done WRT specifying Article V COS rules. See here. We have the American Legislative Executive Council and Professor Robert Natelson to thank for this.
Who is this "Huldah" person??? Does he/she/it perchance work for George Soros?
I crossed w/Huldah or a surrogate here at FR a couple years ago and shredded him/her.
One day, these people are going to wake up and realize they waited too long. The screws are tightening on conservative dissent every day, and our grand experiment in liberty will be over the moment we are prevented from communicating and coordinating opposition.
I expect planned civil disorder will be the excuse to shut us down.
The Huldah site gets its information from the 1973 ABA Report. In my e-mail correspondence with Rob Natelson a few months ago, he characterized the ABA Report as “first generation research which has since been discredited.”
"Planned civil disorder?" You mean, as instigated by The Other Side ("TOS"), which does't want to see its own cushy status quo disturbed by dissent from the States and the People? Or do you mean a resort to arms by the citizenry, against their own government?
We are on a runaway train. Only the States and the People can stop it. But if we don't, the American political and cultural order that we know and love will dissolve into total disorder, and then chaos.
I believe that statement down to my bones. For me, the main corollary is: The absolutely best corrective of the current widespread, systemic public disorder is an Article V Convention of the States for the Purpose of Proposing Amendments to the U.S.Constitution. The main thrust of which would — hopefully — deal with the long-time problem of the aggrandizement of power by the federal government at the expense of the powers of the several sovereign States (i.e., the retained Tenth Amendment powers).
I hope and pray for an Article V COS, soonest. But I recognize that a whole lot of "I's" have to be dotted, and "T's" to be crossed, before we can get there.
Hopefully, this issue will get on the front burner of American consciousness — AFTER the 2016 presidential election.
"First generation research" — conducted by whom? The American Bar Association??? Which is mainly a pack of jurisprudential leftists, with zero respect for our foundational law, the U.S. Constitution; who find the Constitution too constraining on their practice of law, in terms of their own personal remuneration purposes and prospects?
I'm glad to hear their "research" has been "discredited." I only hope this view of the matter prevails.
Lois Lerner already accomplished that.
-PJ
I posted its 1973 report to FR and linked to it in my boilerplate that I usually post to these threads. But after my e-mail colloquy with Dr. Natelson, I removed the link and asked JimRob to remove the keywords so that it could be blissfully forgotten. More recent research has superseded it.
When Phyllis Schlafly fulminates against a Convention of the States, her arguments are drawn verbatim from the 1973 ABA Report. I'm also sure that there are copies of that report sitting in filing cabinets in a government warehouse that looks like the one in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" where the government stored the Ark of the Covenant.
If you examine earlier threads on this topic, you'll see posts where I state that once the 34 state threshold is reached for the COS project, and Congress is forced to set the time and place for the convention, copies of the 1973 report will come out of those dusty filing cabinets and Congress will attempt to hijack the process. This is what Ms. Schlafly fears.
If you examine the Convention of the States project, Dr. Natelson's work, and the results of the preliminary meetings involving the state delegations, you'll see how the states are attempting to occupy that legal ground before Congress can lay claim to it.
But Congress doesn't intend to be blindsided this time, as it was in 1992 with the 27th Amendment. That's why Rep. Stivers (R-OH) wrote that provision that puts the Clerk of the House on the same page as the Archivist of the United States when it comes to tabulating applications for a convention. When the COS project reaches around 30 state applications, expect maneuvering in Congress to authorize Congress to supervise and even hijack the process. I suggest you go back to some of the earlier threads with a huge amount of replies to see the scenarios I sketched. Congress cannot be trusted in this matter no matter which party controls it, which is why the COS project is working with the states to seize the legal high ground before Congress awakens to the threat.
I think the Constitutional argument has to be that Congress already has sole Article V power to propose amendments, so any intrusion on state powers to propose amendments would have been considered by the Framers to be redundant and against the doctrines of separation of powers and checks and balances.
-PJ
Nicely and succinctly stated.
Well, that would be loverly. But don't hold your breath 'til one is CALLED.
Congress has no motivation at ALL to CALL one, not under Article V. But it does indeed have a DUTY to CALL one, upon the satisfaction of certain requirements. Preeminently, the two-thirds of the States requirement expressing some common purpose(s) for the CALLING of an Article V COS.
It is the working of common purpose(s), across the States, that provides the basis for the aggregation rules. On what other reasonable basis can one found the entire idea of "aggregation" if not from some idea of common purpose?
Or is the entire future of the United States of America to be left to the tender mercies of "expert readings" of "random 'citizen' behavior," as ascertained by constant, day-to-day public polling; the tallies of which are recorded by elite professional "bean-counters?" Thus to be recorded, transmitted, and accepted as some kind of public "truth?"
* * * * * * *
I share your passion to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments. It seems to me that both were the products of the populist, "progressive" passion that had gripped "mainstream America" at the time. Government, in principle, is corrupt: The popular supposition then was that all government at all levels was thoroughly corrupt; and as a consequence, all virtue was thought to reside wherever the People decide....
NOT!!! As PUBLIUS [Madison, Hamilton, and Jay] exhorts us in The Federalist: ALWAYS recriminate, and ever resist the "spirit of faction."
Methinks Left Progressivism — as embodied in our sitting Mesmer-in-Chief with all his legions of cohorts and enablers, all of whom seem to live under some kind of unworldly spell, or enchantment — legitimately falls into a class that we can describe as "faction."
"Faction," from the Latin root, facere, meaning: "To do" or "to make."
Left Progressives are very busy bees nowadays, with their "makings." Among other things, they grind out (nonsensical) propaganda about The Nature of Things Politic and Why You Need to Get on Board Right Now [or Else].
But again, I'm probably digressing....
Before I sign off, let me just add this. What I passionately want is a COS that is NOT limited to a single subject. It seems to me a single-subject constitutional amendment proceeding from the States is easy for Congress to co-opt, as arguably happened WRT the 17th Amendment.
At the time, some 32 States had applied for an Article V COS on the subject matter of direct election of federal Senators. That meant two more States to go to reach the two-thirds requirement, a quorum that would leave Congress with no choice but to CALL an Article V COS.
So what did Congress do? When Congress got word that two more States were on the verge of applying for direct election of Senators, it obviated the "call" from the States, and took it upon itself to propose an Amendment calling for direct election of Senators. Thereby co-opting the States' call for a COS.
I'm very afraid that the call from the States for a balanced budget amendment would be dealt with by Congress similarly. The current aggregated tally of States applying for an Article V COS on balanced-budget amendment grounds now stands at 26 States. Formerly, it had been as many as 32 States; but the recent "clean-up" of the Congressional Record tally reduced the number to 26 (ostensibly because of aged or rescinded applications, etc.) — leaving eight more States to go before Congress is CONSTITUTIONALLY OBLIGATED to CALL a COS.
We must recognize, and expect, that Congress has no institutional interest in doing such a thing. So, if the time ever were to come when there are close to 34 State Applications for an Article V COS on the subject matter of a balanced-budget amendment, if past is any guide to the future, Congress would step in to obviate the States' initiative and assert its own right to pass constitutional amendments without consultation with the States. [Thus continuing the federal penchant for overwhelming States' rights wherever possible.] Though Congress still has to get its amendment ratified by three-quarters of the States (38) before the amendment can be adopted as constitutional law. However, given the prevailing pubic sentiment at the time of the 17th Amendment controversy, the congressionally-drafted amendment for direct election of Senators was easily ratified....
I gather that few people at the time realized that this meant that the sovereign States thereby would lose representation in the federal Congress.... Oh, so very sad....
The point is, Congress has no interest in "power-sharing" with the States. It always wants to be the "big dog" in the fight....
Which is why I so love the recent Georgia Application: It is not "single-issue," thus difficult for Congress to co-opt. It specifies a range of interest, a sort of "mission statement," that encompasses three main lines of concern: (1) The balance of power as between the federal government vis-a-vis the States; (2) federal fiscal responsibility; (3) federal term limits.
The Georgia Application also has the virtue of informing Congress of two things that Congress must respect: (1) The Georgia Application is not time-limited. Rather it is perpetual, until such time as 33 other States agree with it. (2) It informs the Clerk of Congress that the Georgia Application is to be aggregated with all other State Applications on the same subject matter.
BTW central–va, the thought strikes me that repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments clearly falls within the purview of the Georgia Application.
The good news is: The Georgia Application has been followed by State Applications from three other States by now, all using the same language. There is no way they can't be "aggregated"; rather they must be aggregated, on epistemological and logical grounds.
The bad news is: We need another 30 States to get on-board with the splendid Georgia COS Application effort....
I hope liberty-loving Americans, petitioning their State governments, will adopt the Georgia Application as the "model" application that they want their State to emulate in framing their own Application — as close as can be — for the restoration of American public order, the order of human liberty under equal and just law. And then hold their State's feet to the fire, to apply for an Article V COS on the particular grounds of the Georgia Application.
We live in interesting, fascinating, and yet somehow joyful times, my friend. Never lose hope!
Thank you, Publius — I'll do that.
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.