VICTORY: Louisiana becomes the eighth state to call for a Convention of States

cosaction.com ^ | 5/26/16 | Mark Meckler

[cotton1706]

The hard work of volunteers and supporters like you is making all the difference, and I'm thrilled to report yet another major victory.

Yesterday afternoon, the Louisiana state legislature became the eighth state in history to pass the Convention of States resolution!

For too long the “elite” in D.C. have acted with impunity, disregarding the will of We the People and crushing state sovereignty.

Now the people of Louisiana have joined with Florida, Georgia, Alaska, Alabama, Tennessee, Indiana, and Oklahoma in this historic fight to restore the rightful authority of the people and the states.

[Texas Eagle]

Now the people of Louisiana have joined with Florida, Georgia, Alaska, Alabama, Tennessee, Indiana, and Oklahoma in this historic fight to restore the rightful authority of the people and the states.

What do they mean by "restore the rightful authority of the people and the states" ?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Thank you for the link. Interesting comparison.

I especially liked this...

“(20) Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.”

[Texas Eagle]

Now the people of Louisiana have joined with Florida, Georgia, Alaska, Alabama, Tennessee, Indiana, and Oklahoma in this historic fight to restore the rightful authority of the people and the states.

Why do you need a whole new Constitution to restore what you already possess?

If your neighbor steals your child's bike and then you see it sitting in your neighbor's driveway, don't you have the right and the power to take it back or do you need to pass a whole new law to get it back?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

I’m for it.

There is no other solution to limit the federal government.

[Publius]

Nobody is talking about a whole new Constitution. Here is the boilerplate that I usually post to these threads to explain the Article V process to those who don't understand it.

***

The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps: Proposal, Disposal, and Ratification.

Proposal:

There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.

• The Congressional Method requires the House and Senate to pass an amendment by a two-thirds majority.
• The Amendments Convention Method requires the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to apply to Congress to call a Convention for Proposing Amendments. Once the two-thirds threshold is reached, Congress is required to set a time and place for the convention.

Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.

Disposal:

Once Congress, or an Amendments Convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:

• State Legislature Method, or the
• State Ratifying Convention Method.

The State Ratifying Convention Method has only been used twice: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.

Ratification:

Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three-quarters of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.

Forbidden Subjects:

Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and one implicitly forbidden subject.

Explicitly forbidden:

• No amendment may be added to the Constitution concerning slavery or capitation taxes until 1808. We’re well past that deadline.
• No amendment may be added to the Constitution to change the principle of equal representation in the Senate unless every state deprived of that right approves. If California wants five senators, every state must have five senators. To permit violation of this principle, every state would have to ratify the amendment, not just three-fourths.

Implicitly forbidden:

• The Constitution of 1787 may not be abrogated and replaced with a new document. Article V only authorizes “a convention for proposing amendments to this Constitution;” therefore, the Constitution of 1787 is locked in place forever. Congress and an Amendments Convention have exactly the same Proposal power; therefore, neither Congress nor an Amendments Convention can start over. Both bodies can only propose amendments.

Reference works:

Frequently Asked Questions About a Convention of the States

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

[Texas Eagle]

Thank you.

I'm still confused as to why it takes a Constitutional Convention for states to restore rights they already possess.

[Texas Eagle]

Doesn’t The Constitution already provide a means for proposing Amendments?

[Publius]

Those rights were taken piecemeal by the federal entity starting in 1866 and accelerating after 1933. The states have very few rights that the federal entity respects.

The Constitution of original intent, referred to by the late Robert Bork as "the Constitution in Exile," has been superseded by the Living Constitution. This is the Constitution of penumbras and emanations, the Constitution whose meaning changes even though the words don't change.

So far, 8 states have piled on to Georgia's application language. What these states are applying for is a Convention for Proposing Amendments in which state delegations will formulate structural amendments that will permit the states to take back what the federal entity took from them over the years. There is absolutely no chance that Congress would formulate and pass such amendments on to the states for ratification. Congress will never willingly reduce its own power, for that would violate human nature. Only the states assembled in convention can write the amendments that would strip power from the federal entity and return it to the states where it belongs.

Georgia's application language is the charter for what the states wish to accomplish, and that language was extracted from Mark Levin's book The Liberty Amendments.

[Publius]

Please read Post #25 carefully for the answer to your question.

[proud American in Canada]

That would be my worry, too. Once you open the barn door...it seems to me that anything could happen.

Although I may be wrong.

In any case, it is a very serious step.

[lewislynn]

Only the states assembled in convention can write the amendments that would strip power from the federal entity and return it to the states where it belongs.

What amendments exactly? The hope and change amendments?...Could you be more vague?

What a bunch of double-speak hogwash.

Why would I want the state to have the power the feds had?...the power needs to be returned to the people WHERE IT BELONGS.

I don't trust state government any more than I trust the fed.

If you fools think state legislators are going to do YOU any favors at a COS, you're stupider than you act.

that language was extracted from Mark Levin's book

You might not be helping your cause around here with that backing.

[Texas Eagle]

We can't even find politicians who can understand, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" but somehow we're supposed to expect them to understand all that gobbledygook?

The states "delegated" powers to the federal government, they didn't "abdicate" them.

As with any power that has been delegated, the entity that delegated those powers have the right to take them back when necessary.

[reed13k]

The convention can only propose ammendments just like Congress - it cannot ratify them. ANything proposed must then go to the states for ratification.

[Nateman]

I have a theory why the GOP is allied with HUD on this War on the Suburbs. They are afraid of Article V. We already know our vote matters little when it comes to the mastermind overlords infesting the District of Corruption . Why wouldn't they be afraid of the one thing that can bring their lying-looting comfy scam to a screeching halt? They are trying to hand back control of the state houses to the RATS to make sure the gravy train is not stopped.

[Jacquerie]

Just Enforce the Constitution We Have.

[Jacquerie]

I address your concerns and more: The John Birch Society vs. Article V.

[Psalm 144]

Pretty much off point entirely, except as to an abstract in a fact vacuum.

I maintain that there does not appear to be any individual, group, or movement active today which would not reflect a diminished intellect, morality or both compared to the existing document. Is the engine out of tune? Yes. Do I want repairs effected by chimpanzees? No.

[Edward.Fish]

It is not a “constitutional convention” but instead a “convention for proposing amendments to the constitution” — there’s a pretty huge difference there, especially because there still needs to be ratification.

[Edward.Fish]

I maintain that there does not appear to be any individual, group, or movement active today which would not reflect a diminished intellect, morality or both compared to the existing document.

You're wring: it doesn't have to be the exact [or exceeding of the] moral character or intelligence of the founders, but merely above those who declare this is what the constitution means (supreme court, constitutional political lawyers) or those who ignore the constitution (the executive and the legislative)… which is not hard to do. Granted, the higher one is in their moral character (and intelligence) the better for governance.

PS — What do you think of these?

[terycarl]

It is not a “constitutional convention” but instead a “convention for proposing amendments to the constitution” — there’s a pretty huge difference there, especially because there still needs to be ratification.

DOA as far as I'm concerned....I watch enough TV and am involved in enough politics to realize that out current crop of nitwits should come nowhere near the Constitution. There was an article on Fox tonight which pointed out that 95+% of the faculty at a prominent NY university supported the Democrat party.....I sincerely hope that most of them do not vote.