Coopting Article V Convention and the resultant sabotage

11/13/2015 | vanity

[Fhios]

I read earlier today that part of the Campus million student march and one of their "demands" is a change in the constitution to benefit black people.

Two years ago I thought the Article V process was going too slow. Now I'm thinking that unless the Scope of the Article V convention is specific I.E changes to the 17th amendment regarding the election of Senators for Congress, then I rather not go forward at all.

What happens if say NY passes the Article V but includes demands for revisions to say the 2nd amendment, or VA or IL demanding changes to the 1st amendment?

If all the states are not on the same page and targeted within scope, then I just as soon as pass on the Article V.

In no way shape or form do I want even the potential for a full blown constitutional convention, not with our current party apparatus. We'll just get bulldozed over by the progressive and media. Are any of the Candidates specifically on board?

However with more individual States having conservative governors and conservative locks on their bicameral house's, an Article V can be done and can be limited? I think Kentucky is the only unicameral state.

If the Article V is limited in scope, it will be in a protective shell. It cannot be influenced from outside, and the scope cannot be changed from within, even by unanimous consent. I want the conventioneers, and their source legislatures, whoever they may be to sign off on that. Hell, even that doesn't sound safe at this point in time.

My question is: Is the Article V proposals coming from the States being limited in Scope? Or are conservatives going in 'at risk' to being coopted and sabotaged from outside and within?

[wita]

“No one has yet convinced me that even a few states-—let alone 34-—would structure the “state” response in a way beneficial to us.”

Typical class of ‘98 SPOT ON!!

Article V efforts are NOT to be trusted period.

The assessment of the John Birch Society, Concerned Women for America, and the Eagle Forum are absolutely 100 percent correct in regards the Article V. It is dangerous, potentially uncontrollable, and requires almost if not more consensus than the first Convention in an age of snakes, backstabbers, and politicians, who would do anything to gain control over the Republic.

IMHO the only way that requires far fewer states to be effective, is for ten to fifteen Western and Mid Western States to start exercising their Sovereignty and pushing back against every misstep by the Federal Leviathan. They would first have to steel themselves against the Federal Government cutting off funding, by having their citizens send tax money to and through the state treasury and the state then being the entity responsible for the tax if any.

Remaining comments self censored.

[Tonytitan]

The assessment of the John Birch Society, Concerned Women for America, and the Eagle Forum are absolutely 100 percent correct in regards the Article V

References, please.

[wita]

Pretty easy to look up. Each has a web address.

[nathanbedford]

The phony issue of a runaway Convention of the States has been litigated and relitigated so many times on these threads with the arithmetic being laid out time after time that it is impossible to credit any sentinent Freeper with being ignorant of the numbers. The numbers are so clear that it is necessary to suspend rational thinking to get to the place where we cannot find 13 House or Senate chambers from different states among the 99 house and Senate chambers which would be needed to block any leftist amendment.

In the wake of the recent by-election results of only a few days ago which strengthens even more the Republican and conservative positions in these 99 state legislative bodies, the absurdly remote possibility of a runaway convention becomes even more the product of fantasy-or purblindness.

Please note that much of the conservative resistance to a convention of the states comes from the gun lobby who would rather see the whole the Bill of Rights disappear into the maw of corrupt Washington if only they can retain their rights to go apackin'. It pains me to make this observation, but it is necessary to say that there is a minority who actually want armed strife to bring their resentments to the point of violence.

Some such as the poster of this vanity, Fhios, might be given the benefit of the doubt for having registered with us at Free Republic only very recently. But there can be no reasonable explanation for FReepers who have been exposed to the numbers which follow time after time but who time after time choose to ignore the numbers and simply regurgitate free-floating anxieties about what will never happen.

Meanwhile, what is really happening every day is that our rights are in fact disappearing in Washington, our Constitution is being amended every day by bureaucrats and judges, presidents and congressmen, treaty makers and K St. lobbyists. It is idle to believe that Donald Trump or any other charlatan, or even any new conservative president of goodwill, can stand against the vast array of forces and money propelling the country over the cliff. The Republic should turn to the Constitution to save the Constitution because we are in desperate need not of a man on horseback but of process reform which will certainly change the way Washington does business and restore liberty to the homeland because power will be taken out of the hands of the people who are presently destroying the Constitution.

Here, once again, are the numbers:

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.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Not to worry, the states themselves are addressing concerns of a runaway convention. Simply put, their delegates face criminal penalties for voting for anything other than the purpose of the convention.

Mathematics handles the rest. That is, 38 states are needed to ratify anything. This means that if just 13 states are opposed, whatever it is fails. In practical terms, this means that though red states are in the majority, they must get the support of perhaps three or four blue states, almost an impossible obstacle on the surface.

So doing anything that could cost the vote of a single state kills any prospect for an out of control convention.

[Tonytitan]

Once the Article V Convention proposes an amendment, the ratification process is identical to the ratification process for amendments proposed by Congress.

There are actually two pathways to Amendment ratification:

1)...by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or...

2)...by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress...

...which for me is the real issue. What are we to do if this corrupt Congress refuses to chose a method?

[Tonytitan]

...which restore the Constitution by invoking the Constitution.

Kind of like the Bible being its own best interpreter.

If the Congress of the United States elects to have the ratification procedures conducted by conventions rather than legislatures...

Can the Congress decline to chose a ratification method? I read the word may and desperately wish it were the word must. My read is that they have a way to opt out of the whole process and effectively shut it down.

I hope I'm wrong.

[nathanbedford]

The duty of Congress to call a convention of the states upon two thirds seeking it is mandatory.

The option whether the proposed amendment shall be ratified by state legislatures or by state conventions is optional and entirely at the discretion of Congress.

No fair reading of either procedure gives Congress the option not to act but history tells us that Congress has played games with its obligation to call a convention of the states and there does not appear to be an explicit remedy for that breach of duty outlined in the Constitution.

The judicial branch would likely not touch it. However, what would prevent the states themselves from proceeding?

In any event, these obstacles are obstacles toward enacting amendments and most of the criticisms which we confront have to do with a runaway convention, a situation precisely the opposite.

[Gaffer]

Please show me in the Article V sentence where it details exactly how the conduct of a state-called convention is accomplished once the initial application for convention has met the magic number 34. The fact is that you nor any other COSer can. It is also convenient to rely on sentiment, thoughts about attitudes and numbers and what would happen, but no modern amendment we currently have today that I can determine was brought about by a Convention of States method.

If I am wrong about this then show me where. Otherwise calling legitimate concerns “phony issues” and “the arithmetic prevents such and such” is just optimistic talk about something that has never occurred.

What the article states is a threshold for beginning a process it does not regulate throughout - only the requirements for passing.

To ridicule apprehension at an ill-defined and untried process is disingenuous at best and worthy of tactics the AGW lobby uses against what they call “deniers”. Given the government, political system, and society we have today, you should know better.

[Crazieman]

Those who oppose Article V and want the status quo support civil war. Period.

[nathanbedford]

Please show me in the Article V sentence where it details exactly how the conduct of a state-called convention is accomplished once the initial application for convention has met the magic number 34

There is a long series of historic precedents concerning how conventions are to be conducted which occurred in the states. Although there is no constitutional mandate that any form should be followed, it is reasonable to expect that Americans will observe their own history. Furthermore, it is reasonable to expect that every state legislature of 99 which is controlled by Republicans or at least by conservatives will pass authorizing legislation or at least resolutions concerning the behavior of the delegates and the scope of their authority. Finally, there are other structures which make a runaway convention quite unlikely.

It is also convenient to rely on sentiment, thoughts about attitudes and numbers and what would happen, but no modern amendment we currently have today that I can determine was brought about by a Convention of States method.

If I am wrong about this then show me where. Otherwise calling legitimate concerns “phony issues” and “the arithmetic prevents such and such” is just optimistic talk about something that has never occurred

You are wrong, the 21st amendment was enacted by conventions of the states.

The numbers are the numbers and they are not to be displaced by free-floating anxieties.

[LS]

Here is the only number you need to know: under the Articles of Confederation, ANY change had to be unanimous. So much for that. Those odds are hardly different than yours, yet you had a “runaway convention of states.”

[Gaffer]

Your explanation about precedents notwithstanding, there is no language in the controlling document with regard to conduct after the applications of 34 petitioners have been met.

I accept the 21st amendment reply but it is curious that it was solely to repeal the 18th amendment.

You can rely on your perceived ‘numbers’ but I know better. We’ve had ‘numbers’ controlling the Senate and House for more than enough time to have had substantive action of the good kind - we have not. We had the triumvirate under Bush; what did we get? We got DHS and TSA for one. We got a stronger Patriot act and resulting ubiquitous NSA spying on the other.

No one here or elsewhere can say with absolute certainty the delegates to such a convention would not be targeted relentlessly by the forces that work day in day out to derail all forms of decency in this country.

But you can rely on Republican Governors and State Legislatures with complete certainty. I can’t. I can’t from Governors like former Governor Jeb Bush, Kasich, Christie and more than a handful from the other states, and that doesn’t even consider the Democrat states involved.

[nathanbedford]

As much as I respect your chops as a lettered historian, I am compelled to say that there is an entirely different and respectable view of the constitutional convention which denies that it was runaway.

In any event it was unanimously ratified ultimately.

[nathanbedford]

Governors, like love, and got nothin' to do with it.

[LS]

Right about both. Not denying that. Just saying, most historians agree it was in fact a runaway.

I absolutely do not put any faith in the states to control what (so far) most have not been able to control in normal policy legislation.

[zeugma]

No one has yet convinced me that even a few states---let alone 34---would structure the "state" response in a way beneficial to us.

I'm in the same boat. very leery of the possibility of skulduggery by NWO interests.

We don't have enough statesmen in this country who have the understanding to make this anything but a train wreck to destroy our nation.

[Gaffer]

yeah..okay.

[nathanbedford]

Like the founders and the framers, I have no great faith in the virtue of politicians and seek instead to do what they did, create a structure which denies a tyrant his day while keeping the mob at bay. The article 5 remedy has a better chance of success in operating against Washington precisely because the players are not in Washington. They have a different set of agendas.

Nor am I naïve enough to believe that state legislators are inherently more virtuous than federal legislators, only that they have different self interests which for the present operate in favor of liberty. That is why it is important to know the players in a convention of the states would be, to understand the governors play no role as governors, to understand that the president of the United States plays no role whatsoever, to understand how article 5 limits severely the power of Congress to defend itself.

Against this we have business as usual. Here is an old post which sums up my view of continuing business as usual:

Nathan Bedford's first Maxim of the American Constitution:

The Constitution has become so distorted in interpretation and application that it has become at best ineffective in protecting liberty and at worst an instrument inflicting tyranny.

Nathan Bedford's second Maxim of the American Constitution:

The American Constitution is being amended everyday without the consent of the governed.

In order to believe that a Convention of the States presents a greater threat to liberty than our current state of politics one must believe:

1. The Constitution is not being amended by three women in black robes +1 liberal in black robes +1 swing vote on a case by case basis.

2. The Constitution is not being amended at the caprice of the president by executive order.

3. The Constitution is not being amended at the caprice of the president when he chooses which laws he will "faithfully" execute.

4. The Constitution is not being amended daily by regulation done by an unaccountable bureaucracy.

5. The Constitution is not being amended by simply being ignored.

6. The Constitution is not being amended by international treaty.

7. The Constitution is not being amended by Executive Order creating treaty powers depriving citizens of liberty as codified in the Bill of Rights.

8. The Constitution is not being amended by international bureaucracies such as, UN, GATT, World Bank, etc.

9. The Constitution is not being amended by the Federal Reserve Bank without reference to the will of the people.

10. The federal government under our current "constitutional" regime will contain the debt.

11. The national debt of the United States is sustainable and will not cause the American constitutional system and our economy to crash and with them our representative democracy, the rule of law, and the Constitution, such as it is, itself.

12. The Republican Party, presuming it gains a majority in the House and the Senate and gains the White House, will now do what is failed to do even under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush and balance the budget, reduce the debt, stop regulating, reform the tax system, end crony capitalism, appoint judges who will not betray us and, finally, listen to the people.

13. That a runaway Convention of the States will occur, that it will persuade the delegates from conservative states, that it will be ratified by three quarters of the states' legislatures among whom conservatives control a majority, and the end result will somehow be worse than what we have now.

14. If we do nothing everything will be fine; if we keep doing what we have been doing everything will be fine; we have all the time in the world.

[Gaffer]

yeah....you keep believing all that. Somehow a convention of well-intentioned souls will out measure all the ills you cite, untainted by any of its influence. No thanks. Good luck with it.