Wisconsin Senate approves calling constitutional convention (state #16)

news8000.com ^ | 1/25/22

[cotton1706]

Wisconsin has become the 16th state to call for a convention of the states to consider making a variety of changes to the U.S. Constitution, a move that drew bipartisan opposition in the state Senate but not enough to block its approval.

The resolution had passed 15 states, mostly in the South, before Wisconsin became the first since Mississippi in 2019 to approve it. Congress must receive requests from 34 states to convene a convention of the states.

[Jacquerie]

The states will send delegates/commissioners with detailed instructions and not reps with plenary power to vote as they wish.

[PIF]

a write up that argues that the convention would be limited in scope and any proposed amendments coming out of the convention must be ratified by 38 states.
—

Do you know of any incidence that liberals did not cheat?

Gun rights - gone
Freedom of speech - gone
Freedom of religion - gone
Voter ID - gone.
Voting drop boxes - in

Basically, the first 10 Amendments will be eliminated or rendered harmless. The Media will gleefully pile on the liberal agenda here.

[Basket_of_Deplorables]

The FR COS Disinformation Squad will be all over this thread.

The Deep Stae fears a COS more than anything, and they have an army of Useless Idiots ready to spam threads.

“It will be the end of the US!” they claim, but cannot explain exactly how.

All: Read the Constitution, Article V.

[PIF]

Repeal the 17th would be the place to start.

—
Right after the liberal activists and the media repeal the first 10 ...

[redgolum]

So....

How well has that worked in the past? I seem to remember something called “The contract with America.”

[PIF]

The states will send delegates/commissioners with detailed instructions and not reps with plenary power to vote as they wish.

Sure they will /s ... and the liberals and assistant democrats will rule - all stops will be pulled out like the 2020 election. The USA will become a one party state under a lifetime dictator.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I said that in my previous posts. I was just responding to a post to me.

[GingisK]

This might be a blessing in disguise. Maybe THEN people will get off their butts and take action. I doubt it though.

[Bob434]

[[great opportunity to split up the country. They can have most of it]]

We will give them minesota- The rest is ours

[DannyTN]

And I'm not sure that it would or could be limited in scope.

It helps if 38 states do have to ratify each and every amendment that comes out of it.

Republicans control more state legislatures.

[jjotto]

So you prefer the current arrangement, where unelected judges gradually reduce Americans to medieval serfdom?

[who_would_fardels_bear]

After the Supreme Court stupidly decided that states weren’t allowed to have legislative assemblies based on regions rather than population, Nebraska is the only state smart enough to have a unicameral system.

[Jacquerie]

Must revolution be violent? Must men meet on the battlefield to affect change? Must revolution upend an older society and replace it with a new one? Wouldn’t a 21st century restoration of free American government without resort to violence be revolutionary?

Pennsylvania’s Framer James Wilson thought so:

This revolution principle–that, the sovereign power residing in the people, they may change their constitution and government whenever they please–is not a principle of discord, rancor, or war: it is a principle of melioration, contentment, and peace. It is a principle not recommended merely by a flattering theory: it is a principle recommended by happy experience. To the testimony of Pennsylvania–to the testimony of the United States I appeal for the truth of what I say.

Article V and Rational Revolution.

[Publius]

This is the usual boilerplate that I post to these threads to explain the Article V process. I've had this information vetted by a retired professor of constitutional law.

***

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

[no-to-illegals]

I don’t belong to JBS. I do see where liberals steal elections. Don’t you ?

[dljordan]

” They can have most of it if we can just get them out of our hair.”

No.

[no-to-illegals]

You may want to think on that comment

[PIF]

So you prefer the current arrangement, where unelected judges gradually reduce Americans to medieval serfdom?

—

So you would prefer to live under a dictatorship?

[Jacquerie]

Count on it.

[jjotto]

If 38 state legislatures are willing to impose “dictatorship”, there’s no hope anyway.