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.

[Jacquerie]

Do you think a COS would force fag marriage on society? Jo Blow wants teenage boys to shower with our granddaughters. Would a COS pass such an amendment? Would a COS grant regulatory agencies supremacy? Would a COS okay a graduated income tax despite the Constitution's clear wording on equal protection? Would a COS mandate Obamacare and minimum wages?

Of course, a COS mandates nothing. It sends its proposals to the states.

Should any of the above be ratified and not work out, subsequent conventions can repeal them, just as we did with the noble but improper 18th Amendment.

We are no longer self-governing. We can start reclaiming our sovereignty through Article V. There is no other peaceful path.

[DoodleDawg]

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

Not dangerous at all since nothing can come out of it. Last year 25 states went for Trump and 25 went for Biden. Anything coming out of the convention will take 37 states to ratify. Not a chance of 37 states agreeing on anything.

[Jacquerie]

To protect rat congressmen from being unelected next year, El Presidente Obiden considers a totalitarian diktat to ban guns:

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3935130/posts

[Dr. Franklin]

The difference is that there wasn't a Constitution in place the first time, and there is one now.

The present constitution was created in violation of the previous Articles of Confederation, which required unanimous agreement to change them. That prevented nothing.

The justification for the Convention to propose amendments is Article V. There was no Article V before.

Irrelevant. The only limitation in Article V is that a state cannot be denied equal representation in the Senate.

If you think the Convention to propose amendments can just scrap the Constitution outright, then you must believe that they won't need to have any states ratify it, since ratification is in the Article V that was just scrapped?

Certainly it could. It appears that it would require 3/4's of states to vote to secede, and then create a new union to avoid the only limitation in Article V, denying equal representation in the Senate. (By present standards, Rhode Island is too small to be a state. It should be joined with Connecticut.) The dissenting states would then need to decide if they wanted to remain in a rump Old United States, join with Canada, or join the new union. With that caveat, anything goes.

Furthermore, how do you address the fact that the states are still sovereign governments?

As a practical matter, states have not been sovereign since the expansion of the commerce clause. Since most everything is now considered to be in the "stream of commerce", state sovereignty has become mostly a vestigial right, more theoretical than real.

Do you believe that the legislatures of the several states would just sit back and let a Convention to propose amendments tell them that the Constitution has been voided and they are now in charge?

If 38 states ratify an amendment, the remaining states would need to accept the fact, because that's the constitution.

Since the states were sovereign governments that preexisted the Constitution, wouldn't scrapping the Constitution just revert the states back to individual sovereign governments? If the Convention for proposing amendments decides to ignore that Constitutional boundary on their powers and declare a new Constitution is now in force, what would behold the states to this new Constitution?
Even the first Constitution was submitted to the states for ratification. Are you suggesting that a new Constitution to replace the existing Constitution would not have ratification processes as well, and would be imposed on the sovereign states by Convention fiat?

A repetition of rhetorical questions already addressed. See above.

[Dr. Franklin]

Delegates to the convention will have detailed commissions that describe the extent of their authority.

OK, so if a state legislature only authorizes its delegates to participate in one amendment for a balanced budget, but the convention agrees to election reform and term limits. Then political pressure results in its subsequent approval by the legislature. Do you think SCOTUS would refuse to recognize the amendment on a technicality, or would that be a "political question" that the legislature cured?

[woodpusher]

The present constitution was created in violation of the previous Articles of Confederation, which required unanimous agreement to change them. That prevented nothing.

Another way to look at that is that eleven states seceded and adopted a new form of government more satisfactory to their desires. This resulted in the Congressional Register, Vol. 1 (1789) listing the member states by name on the title page.

The Congressional Register;
or,
History
of the
Proceedings and Debates
of the First
House of Representatives
of the
United States of America:
Namely,
New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut,
New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia,
South-Carolina and Georgia.

Being the Eleven States that have Ratified the Con-
stitution of the Government of the United States.

Vermont v. New Hampshire, 289 U.S. 593, 607-608 (1933)

In 1777, Vermont declared indepedence. The Supreme Court recognized that Vermont had achieved independence by successful revolution, and had been admitted to the union in 1791 as "an independent state with self-constituted boundaries."

As a practical matter, states have not been sovereign since the expansion of the commerce clause.

The states have not been truly sovereign since the adoption of the 14th Amendment which dictated to states who was a citizen of a state. After the 14th Amendment, states lost the power of self-determination, one of the hallmarks of sovereignty.

[Political Junkie Too]

Do you think SCOTUS would refuse to recognize the amendment on a technicality, or would that be a "political question" that the legislature cured?

Are you suggesting that SCOTUS has the power to throw out an amendment to the Constitution that was ratified by 3/4ths of the states?

If so, what is preventing them from throwing out the 2nd amendment tomorrow?

-PJ

[Jacquerie]

So the particular delegate(s) did not vote for the motions that passed the convention.

I’m not sure what you mean by, “Then political pressure results in its subsequent approval by the legislature.”

I don’t know about your state, but my state of FL doesn’t send proposed amendments to the legislature for approval but instead to a distinct convention for ratification.

Scotus has nothing to do with the process. Neither does congress nor el presidente Obiden.

[Dr. Franklin]

I’m not sure what you mean by, “Then political pressure results in its subsequent approval by the legislature.”

Meaning that even though the legislature only wanted a limited convention on one issue, it could be required to approve others due to political pressure from the electorate.

So the particular delegate(s) did not vote for the motions that passed the convention

Or they did, exceeding the authority given by the legislature, but the legislature is forced to yield to popular opinion after the fact in a fait accompli.

Scotus has nothing to do with the process. Neither does congress nor el presidente Obiden.

Since everything controversial gets resolved in the courts, any and all technical arguments about the method for amending the constitution that has never been attempted previously, would ultimately get decided by SCOTUS.

I don’t know about your state, but my state of FL doesn’t send proposed amendments to the legislature for approval but instead to a distinct convention for ratification.

The decision for how to ratify any proposed amendment is determined by Congress. Congress chooses that it should be either the state legislatures or state conventions that ratify amendments. See Article V.

[Dr. Franklin]

Are you suggesting that SCOTUS has the power to throw out an amendment to the Constitution that was ratified by 3/4ths of the states?
If so, what is preventing them from throwing out the 2nd amendment tomorrow?

For a guy who does nothing but post rhetorical questions, you appear not to be able to distinguish a question from a statement.
See above:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3935741/posts?page=49#49

[Political Junkie Too]

You're referring me to a future post? Why not just answer mine directly?

-PJ

[PGalt]

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

TRUE.

Let’s limit this one to controlling the ballot box. The founders couldn’t think of everything.

Asymmetric PUSHBACK

[Dr. Franklin]

You're referring me to a future post?

No.

Why not just answer mine directly?

Why ask why?

[familyop]

No. More people should write to state legislators and meet them on issues like no fault divorce and public education.

[Rurudyne]

Once the genie is let out of the bottle the mere presence of bad actors like the Left contains, the unreliability of supposed friends (a proven trend you must admit) and the general lawlessness that now characterizes the American people with respect to the Constitution as it now is should terrify even the most ardent optimist.

Yes, they will run amuck. They can do nothing else for the character of this people is eroded already by decades of FDR era lawlessness and all that has been built upon it, for the Court and Congress infected by Arbitrary government has not built a tower of jurisprudence or a bridge to the future but a shamble of a pier dangled out over the abyss of spendthrift, madness, and sentimentality posing as thoughts and reasons.

[Rurudyne]

Sadly, real life isn’t like an opera where you get your big scene and song after someone stabs you.

[Political Junkie Too]

The present constitution was created in violation of the previous Articles of Confederation, which required unanimous agreement to change them. That prevented nothing.

The previous Articles of Confederation did not create a federation with a formal structure that lasted over 200 years. The former colonies were still trying to figure out how to unite. The examples referring to the Articles of Confederation are moot at this point.

Irrelevant. The only limitation in Article V is that a state cannot be denied equal representation in the Senate.

Not irrelevant.

The limitation is that the convention can only propose amendments, not pass them. The supremacy clause in Article VI says so.

Certainly it could. It appears that it would require 3/4's of states to vote to secede...

Deflecting this to a debate on secession won't work. I would rather entertain a debate on the likelihood of a single amendment that says "Amendment 28: The prior six articles and 27 amendments are hereby repealed and replaced with this..."

We can discuss the impacts of repealing Article I, which would abolish Congress. We can discuss the impacts of repealing Article III, which would abolish the Supreme Court.

As a practical matter, states have not been sovereign since the expansion of the commerce clause.

States still have the power to tax. They still have the power to pass laws. They still have the power to imprison. And, apparently, some of them have the power to defy the federal government.

If 38 states ratify an amendment, the remaining states would need to accept the fact, because that's the constitution.

Nice deflection.

I didn't ask you whether the non-ratifying states would accept an amendment. I asked you whether the states would accept such radical an amendment as one that seeks to void the Constitution itself, which was the direct reference to your post that I replied to ("A convention could scrap the entire constitution and rewrite it.") Apparently, you don't wish to defend your own words.

A repetition of rhetorical questions already addressed. See above.

No. A deflection to avoid answering questions that are only rhetorical to you, who doesn't want to answer them.

-PJ

[Dr. Franklin]

Irrelevant. The only limitation in Article V is that a state cannot be denied equal representation in the Senate.
Not irrelevant.

Completely irrelevant, long on sophism, and not worth further response.

[Political Junkie Too]

I'm also amazed at the people who ride in on their high horse, drop extremely absurd scenarios, and then refuse to defend their words in debate, relying on ad hominems for daring to question their wisdom on the matter.

-PJ

[Dr. Franklin]

The only alternative argument I support is a halfway measure and that iss strong and AGRESSIVE nullification. Secession is just so adverse as to be the very, very, very last resort. We can corral, retard and contain the damn liberals without a Civil War...........in my humble opinion. Trump proved that.

Secession is more aggressive than nullification, but nullification is just one step away from it. Secession creates a constitutional crisis which can result in a declaration of the Insurrection Act, and occupation by federal troops. That leads to something like Lexington and Concord eventually. Who fires the first shot in a civil war is mostly a matter of image. The underlying intractable political dispute was already present.