Posted on 03/29/2016 3:09:01 PM PDT by cotton1706
ATLANTA – What if a supermajority of states could override a federal law or Supreme Court ruling?
That’s just one idea being proposed by advocates of a “convention of states” to amend the U.S. Constitution.
“The American people are mad and they’re looking for a way to say, ‘No more,’” said Brooke Rollins, president and CEO of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank. “Our founders, in their brilliance, gave us a tool to do that. And it’s Article V.”
Article V of the Constitution allows a minimum of two-thirds of the states to call for a convention to propose amendments, in turn going around Congress.
The push to do so has proceeded in fits and starts over the last several years, driven by a desire for states to debate a range of constitutional changes dealing with everything from campaign finance reform to balanced budgets. So far, six states have signed on — Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Florida, Indiana and Tennessee. Indiana was the latest to sign on, approving a resolution endorsing the effort earlier this month.
But organizers would need another 28 to bring their plan to fruition, and call the convention. If they reach that level of support, states would be entering uncharted territory.
“It has never happened before in the history of the United States,” said Robert Schapiro, dean of Emory University School of Law.
In an election cycle that has defied conventional wisdom, though, supporters of a convention of states believe right now may be the very best time to try something different.
“The mood of the public is tired of business as usual,” said Buzz Brockway, a Republican state representative who sponsored Georgia’s convention of states resolution.
(Excerpt) Read more at infoline.com.pk ...
Ping
Agreed. And they did so in a time when there was no uniparty...
Article V ping!
There are three branches in the Federal Government. The three real branches of government are Federal, the States and the People. This is a truth we lost years ago. The States or the People can nullify the Federal government as we will see in the years to come.
Its a fine article that article V but like any serious medicine it must be taken very very carefully lest you kill the patient.
The title is misleading. An Article V Convention/Convention of States can not propose a new constitution. It can only propose amendments to the Constitution, which would then be sent to the States for them to consider ratifying all, some, or none of the proposed amendments. The reference to a new constitution is either based in anti-convention bias or ignorance.
An Article V convention does not create a “new constitution.”
It’s purpose is to propose amendments that then have to be ratified.
“The mood of the public is tired of business as usual,”
said Buzz Brockway, a Republican state representative
who sponsored Georgia’s convention of states resolution.
-
Buzz is my State representative.
I have had many conversations with him.
If only more freepers would take similar time with their state legislators.
Those who think any good changes are likely to come out of an Article V need to watch what is going on with the Republican party and their top candidates right now.
Those are the same types who run the state parties — both Dem and GOP.
Those are the same types who will try to ensure their interests are weighed and considered.
Then, you have the Soros and lobbyists who will have their interests represented.
==
Be careful what you wish for.
Note how the Article V bypasses the citizenry.
It is the state legislatures who select the attendees and who write the proposed changes. Then, it is the state legislatures that can vote on those proposed changes.
The political parties still control things because they control the state legislatures.
IMO the 16th is just as bad as the 17th. They both need to go.
The enormity of an Article V state convention, whether congressionally sanctioned or not, cannot be overstated. It would be a gamechanging event.
In the weeks leading up, the nation will be consumed like never before in actual debate over the purpose of government and how far it has strayed from its designed purposes. A 21st century peaceful rising of the sovereign American people would be the equivalent of the 18th century “shot heard ‘round the world,” for it could mean the rebirth of the American tradition of free government.
Not seen since the ratification debates of 1787-1788, anticipation of a state amendments convention will engender national discussion over the foundational maxims of the American republic.
DOA (Dead On Arrival) misrepresentation of the objectives, risks, and potential outcomes.
Here is a good debate on the topic by Andy Schlfly and Dr. Michael Farris.(Audio Only)
While these people claim to know how a Cos would be carried out I have my doubts since there are no guidelines set up in the Constitution other than Congress will call the convention to order.
Minimum? That sounds more like a super-majority!
...in turn going around Congress.
And that's a bad thing? Both the states and Congress have to get three-fourths of the states to ratify a proposed amendment. What makes one proposed by Congress more worthy than one proposed via a convention of states?
-PJ
The 2nd Amendment is the only thing, in my opinion, standing between We the People and total dictatorship.
Oh my gosh !
Here’s at least a partial list of all the constitutional amendments that the states have already ratified to override a Supreme Court ruling.
11th Amendment overrode Chisholm v. Georgia
13th Amendment effectively overrode Dred Scott v. Sandford
16th Amendment overrode Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.
19th Amendment overrode Minor v. Happersett
24th Amendment overrode Breedlove v. Suttles
26th Amendment overrode Oregon v. Mitchell
Corrections welcome.
New constitutional amendments that the states need to consider are as follows.
Repeal the frigging 17th Amendment.
Give the state legislatures the same power to impeach and remove federal officials from office, including members of Congress, that corrupt Congress now has but refuses to use it.
The Founding States should never have allowed the feds to decide Supreme Court justices. Give that power to the states.
Allow individual states to decide how much to pay their federal lawmakers.
Make all candidates for federal office pass a Free Republic basic constitutional law test, the test emphasizing the fed’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers. Ivy League law school graduates, particularly Harvard, need not apply.
Amend the following excerpt from Gibbons v. Ogden to the Constitution.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment overruled the Dred Scott decision. The decision applied to Blacks generally, not just slaves, so the 13th Amendment was not enough.
You’re right. Got the wires crossed.
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.