Iowa House Panels Advance Resolutions Calling for Constitutional Convention

iowatorch.com ^ | 2/17/21 | Shane Vander Hart

[cotton1706]

DES MOINES, Iowa – Two Iowa House subcommittees on Wednesday advanced resolutions calling for an Article V Convention of the States to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides two ways to amend the Constitution; the first is for Congress to pass a constitutional amendment that would, the second is through two-thirds of state legislatures (34 states) petitioning for a convention to propose amendments. Whether by Congress or through a convention process, any amendments passed would require three-fourths of the states to ratify.

So far, 15 states – Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Tennessee, and Utah – have had their state legislatures pass resolutions.

[cotton1706]

Ping

[PGalt]

Asymmetric PUSHBACK!

[Highest Authority]

Could be an extremely dangerous thing to do, unless the convention is very limited in scope.

[Rurudyne]

Even then. No way to keep the so-called progressives out.

[DugwayDuke]

What a total waste of time. Considering how narrow the vote was in November there is no reason to think a constitutional convention would produce anything worthwhile.

[Bob434]

Is this pro for gop or con for gop?

[patriot torch]

Two words “Pandora’s box”

[Publius]

15: AL, AK, AR, AZ, FL, GA, IN, LA, MO, MS, ND, OK, TN, TX, UT.

For a Convention of the States dedicated to Georgia’s application language, which would re-balance citizens’ rights versus federal power and state power, the count is 15 down, 19 to go.

For a Convention of the States dedicated to a balanced budget amendment only, the count is 30 down, 4 to go.

[Pez149]

About Time....
Let’s see who believes that they’re owed more benefits for serving in Politics.

[theoilpainter]

Amend the Constitution in what respects? The left wants to abolish the 1st Amendment. What else? Why do this?

[napscoordinator]

And the second. I can see them giving republicans something they want to abolish the second amendment and past events don’t make me comfortable saying they won’t make the trade.

[SkyDancer]

Because they want to do the same to the 2nd. - abolish it.

[Political Junkie Too]

It's not a "Constitutional Convention."

It's a "Convention for proposing Amendments."

The former created a Constitution, the latter only proposes amendments that must be sent to the states for ratification.

-PJ

[2aProtectsTheRest]

If they ever actually succeeded, they’d propose 300 amendments and half of them would be abolishing the first or second amendments.

[PeteB570]

Be careful what you wish for.

Once that door is opened anything is fair game.

You could come out the other end with a repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

[Publius]

This is the usual pedantic boilerplate that I post to these threads. It explains the process to newcomers to this issue.

***

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 fourths 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:

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

[Amendment10]

"Could be an extremely dangerous thing to do, unless the convention is very limited in scope."

---

Hello Highest Authority.

Would you be a little more specific about why a convention can be dangerous? After all, the product of a convention is never a new amendment to the Constitution, only a proposed amendment that the states can choose not to ratify, the convention arguably a waste of time if states reject proposed amendment.

That being said, if next convention proposes an amendment to repeal the 16th and ill-conceived 17th Amendments (16&17), with provision for recall of lawmakers, then let’s do it!

Repeal 16&17 amendment should also require future federal senators to first serve in state houses in order to become familiar with state budgets, particularly if states wise up and put a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes, taxes that Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.

• "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.

• ”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

Being a lawmaker in state houses should help future federal senators kill unconstitutional bills in the federal congress, bills that not only steal state powers, but also steal state revenues uniquely associated with those powers.

[Political Junkie Too]

You could come out the other end with a repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

You would come out the other end with a proposed repeal of the 2nd amendment.

Thirty-eight states would still have to ratify it.

-PJ

[DoughtyOne]

While I appreciate the fervor with which folks push this thing,
folks getting involved and all, in a climate where the U. S.
Constitution is being flowted across the board, this is a very
foolish time to get crafty.

There’s no telling what will be tried, and what our current
SCOTUS would rule on any challenges.

We couldn’t get a clean election. We couldn’t get judges
to look at the problem in real time. We now have a Marxist
government looking to pounce.

All this is unConstitutional. Now we’re planning on claiming
the Constitution determines this and that.

LMAO

Next folks will tell me we can have all this, and a slightly
used Brooklyn Bridge to boot.