South Carolina House OKs constitutional convention call

southcarolinapublicradio.org ^ | 5/12/21 | Jeffrey Collins

[cotton1706]

The state House approved Tuesday a proposal that would add South Carolina to a list of states calling for a convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The proposal passed 66-42. It would have South Carolina limit its call for the convention to a few items — spending checks on the federal government, limiting the federal government’s jurisdiction and power, and setting term limits for Congress.

A group of a few dozen enthusiastic supporters waved signs at cars as they entered the Statehouse garage and then settled into the second floor lobby for several hours of debate Tuesday.

Rep. Bill Taylor, who has pushed for the proposal for years, told members they have the power to change Washington, D.C., by voting for the resolution.

“They will never, ever, ever limit their own power,” the Aiken Republican said of the federal government. “It’s human nature.”

[cotton1706]

Banner week. First the Wisconsin Assembly, now the South Carolina House.

[cotton1706]

Ping

[Savage Beast]

Democrats said there was no way to protect amendments that provided the rights to free speech, the prohibition of slavery and the guarantee of full citizenship and rights to anyone born in the country.

Certainly the abolition of anchor-baby abuses would be an excellent amendment, but such a convention would be very dangerous. If the 2020 election could be stolen by fraud--which it was--and with the sanction of the US Supreme Court--a Constitutional Convention could also be stolen--and the results disastrous.

[DoodleDawg]

What possible amendments can this convention produce that would be ratified by 38 states?

[Iowa Slim]

I really don’t get the horror over the thought of a convention to amend the Constitution. The amendment feature is integral to the genius of the original Constitution. The people who assembled the Constitution set to work amending it within a few months of its adoption, and the results were ratified in less than three years from initial adoption.

The Convention of States movement is motivated by a desire to put the central government back on its constitutional leash. A convention could theoretically open the floor to bad apples who want to take things in the other direction, but there’s no way that three-fourths of the states would ratify such action. This is the best news I’ve seen all week. I’d like to see the momentum build.

[Iowa Slim]

I really don’t get the horror over the thought of a convention to amend the Constitution. The amendment feature is integral to the genius of the original Constitution. The people who assembled the Constitution set to work amending it within a few months of its adoption, and the results were ratified in less than three years from initial adoption.

The Convention of States movement is motivated by a desire to put the national government back on its constitutional leash. A convention could theoretically open the floor to bad apples who want to take things in the other direction, but there’s no way that three-fourths of the states would ratify such action. This is the best news I’ve seen all week. I’d like to see the momentum build.

[cotton1706]

I think a term limits amendment would fly through the legislatures.

[DoodleDawg]

Even that would likely run into trouble once their congressmen and senators weighed in. There is zero support for term limits in Congress. Even those who promise to abide by self-imposed term limits backtrack when those limits arrive.

[cotton1706]

I disagree. State senators and representatives often move into congressional and US Senate seats when incumbents vacate them. I think state legislatures would be more than willing to open up positions for themselves.

[DoodleDawg]

I disagree. State senators and representatives often move into congressional and US Senate seats when incumbents vacate them. I think state legislatures would be more than willing to open up positions for themselves.

And once in those positions they would love to stay for decades. Term limits would prevent that.

[Publius]

The South Carolina House has passed a convention call resolution, but the Senate probably won't have enough time to consider it until next year.

[Publius]

This is the usual pedantic boilerplate that I append to these threads for those who don't understand the Article V process.

***

THE ARTICLE V AMENDATORY PROCESS

The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps:

1. Proposal;
2. Direction;
3. 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 of each house.
• The amendments convention method requires the legislatures of two thirds of the states to pass resolutions directing Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments. These resolutions are called applications. 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, except that a convention is limited to proposing amendments specified in the application and there is no such limit on Congress.

Direction:

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 once: to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition. A similar procedure was used to ratify the Constitution itself.

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 two implicitly forbidden subjects.

Explicitly forbidden:

1. No amendment may be added to the Constitution concerning the slave trade or direct taxes until 1808. We’re well past that deadline.
2. 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:

1. 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;” so the Constitution of 1787 is locked in place.
2. A convention for proposing amendments is limited to the topics authorized by state applications.

Reference works:

Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers

[rfp1234]

Six months not enough? Wow, nice work if you can get it...

[Jacquerie]

I don’t expect the first COS to accomplish anything, which wouldn’t be a bad thing at all.

Meet, and not get a majority vote to send any proposed amendments would put to rest the silly fear of a “runaway” convention.

[Jacquerie]

Are you familiar with Mark Levin's Liberty Amendments?

They are superb. If ratified, his amendments will restore the balance of power between the people, the states, and a newly invigorated federal system of government.

Mark Levin's Liberty Amendments Part IV.

[Jacquerie]

Thanks!

[DoodleDawg]

Are you familiar with Mark Levin's Liberty Amendments?

They have far less chance of being ratified than the term limits one does.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Article V Convention of the States explained in 3.5 minutes...