Posted on 01/29/2024 1:03:48 PM PST by Jacquerie
It’s the Article V opponent’s favorite scare tactic: “This has never happened before…we can’t possibly know what the delegates will do! They could rewrite the entire Constitution.” [Cue ominous music.] In fact, the states have met in convention dozens of times, and none of these meetings exceeded its mandate, including the Constitutional Convention of 1787. These folks are misinformed…or they hope you are.
Columnist Dick Evans marked the 90th anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition on December 5 with a guest column in the Daily Hampshire Gazette, “When volunteer lawyers saved us from Prohibition.” Evans pulls back the curtain to reveal preparations for the first round of conventions called under the authority of Article V in American history: the ratification of the 21st Amendment. Calling it “the best-kept secret in American constitutional law,” he describes the activities of the Voluntary Committee of Lawyers (VCL). Formed to provide a forum for attorneys to discuss concerns surrounding the criminalization of alcohol, the VCL anticipated that state ratification conventions would be necessary to get around the special interests that controlled state legislatures. They set about drafting model legislation featuring elected delegates pledged to vote “yes” or “no.” As a result of their efforts, the 21st Amendment was ratified in just 10 months…one of the fastest ratifications in American history.
Similar efforts are underway to prepare for the next convention to be held under the authority of Article V. Advocates, state legislators, and legislatively authorized delegates have been working for over a decade hosting dry runs and drafting convention rules proposals, model legislation, and delegate selection and oversight (DSO) statutes. At least 19 states have DSO statutes in place with more in the pipeline, and the rest will have plenty of model legislation from which to choose. Even the Supreme Court has weighed in on whether states can control their delegates in the 9-0 Ciafolo v. Washington opinion authored by Justice Elena Kagan.
Yes, it has happened before. Yes, we have a pretty good idea what will happen. Yes, the delegates can be controlled. Yes, Republicans and Democrats will have to rise to the occasion and cooperate if they’re going to accomplish anything meaningful for their constituents. Don’t be fooled by the naysayers: an Article V Convention isn’t nearly as scary as our out-of-control federal government. Say “yes” to constitutional reform using Article V. Like our 21st Amendment forebears, yes…our grandchildren will thank us.
Plan for the worst this November.
Article V ping!
“Yes, Republicans and Democrats will have to rise to the occasion and cooperate if they’re going to accomplish anything meaningful for their constituents.”
Well, that’s not going to happen. None of them care about their constituents.
tell that to the Articles of Confederation supporters.
I did.
If it did that it would acting outside of Article V and would be legally ignored. All such a Convention can do is propose Amendments which are then sent to the states for ratification. It’s fundamentally no different then Congress passing an Amendment bill and sending it to the states for ratification. The difference this it comes directly from the states through the Article V convention bypasses Congress. ( Why do you trust Congress more then the States?) If it send stupid dangerous ones out they won’t get the required super-majority of states for ratification.
I’m sure there is a Texas delegation available for a convention.
5.56mm
And, all such must be limited to the goals expressed at the beginning. No “just add this while we are at it” crappola.
Not sure what you mean but ok!
Texas submitted its latest COS application in 2017.
For a Convention of the States dedicated to Georgia’s application language, which would re-balance citizens’ rights and state powers versus federal power, the count is 19 down, 15 to go.
For a Convention of the States dedicated to a balanced budget amendment only, the count is 30 down, 4 to go.
"But It’s Never Happened Before! (Article V)"
Regarding scare tactics for Constitutional Conventions, anybody see a problem with a convention where the proposed amendment is strictly limited to repealing amendments, the 16th (16A) direct taxes) and 17th (17A: popular voting for federal senators) Amendments for example?
I don't.
Repealing 16&17A would not only put a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes, but would also effectively “secede” ALL the states from unconstitutionally big federal government imo.
"16th Amendment : The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
"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.
“ If the tax be not proposed for the common defence, or general welfare, but for other objects, wholly extraneous, (as for instance, for propagating Mahometanism among the Turks, or giving aids and subsidies to a foreign nation, to build palaces for its kings, or erect monuments to its heroes,) it would be wholly indefensible upon constitutional principles [emphases added].” — Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2 (1833).
From the congressional record:
”Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government [emphases added]. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country.” —John Bingham, Congressional. Globe. 1866, page 1292 (see top half of third column)
“Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattetive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves [emphasis added]. It seems to be the law of our general nature.” - Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Edward Carrington January 16, 1787)
Pelosi: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." (non-FR; 6 sec.)
Democrats [and RINOs] Are Terrified Of An Educated And Informed Public (3.12.23)
When it was really needed, like the issue of slavery , both sides were afraid the other would win. War settled the matter and the Constitution got amended that way instead.
How about we skip another bloody Republican-Democrat War this time around and actually use Article V?
um, you did?
The people the commenter referred to are all dead.
Articles of Confederation got wiped out in the last convention in the 1700s when those attending convention overstepped their authority in meeting, and made a new Constitution without one state, Rhode Island, even being in present! which was against the rules of the time - all were to be present for any such consideration of changes to Articles of Confederation the US had last the time.
No way would it work out smooth, should there be another one, especially in this increasingly wacked out country with the Dems and Rinos we got now.
Articles of Confederation got wiped out in the last convention in the 1700s when those attending convention overstepped their authority in meeting, and made a new Constitution without one state, Rhode Island, even being in present! which was against the rules of the time - all were to be present for any such consideration of changes to Articles of Confederation the US had last the time.
Although it was their assignment, the Convention did not propose changes to the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution resulted in the dissolution of the thirteen state union and the formation of a new eleven state union. When Washington was inaugurated, eleven states had ratified. The Constitution created a new union of those that had ratified. NC held out for six months, and RI for over a year.
Any change to the Articles required a unanimous vote of consent. That was not happening. The Convention settled upon nine states changing the entire system of government. What was done could not be accomplished within the Articles. It functioned as the secession of eleven states. Previously, in 1777 Vermont had seceded from New York and the union and set itself up as a free, sovereign and independent state.
The only states in the constitutional union, per the Constitution, were those that ratified. North Carolina and Rhode Island had not ratified. They had not joined the new union and were not members of it. When Washington was inaugurated, the new union had ELEVEN members.
The Congressional Register, Vol I, II, and III made it exquisitely clear.
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.Containing an Impartial Account of
The Most interesting Speeches and Motions; and accurate Copies of remarkable
Papers laid before and offered to the House.Taken in short hand,
By Thomas LloydVolume I
New York:
Printed for the Editor, by Harrisson and Purdy
M,DCC,LXXXIX.
The United States of America, the ELEVEN states that had ratified the Constitution.
Congressional Register, Volume I, 1789,
Page 412, Mr. SHERMAN, June 5, 1789:
But all we are now to consider, I believe, is, that we invite the state of Rhode Island to join our confederacy, what will be the effect of such a measure we cannot tell till we try it.
Page 413, Mr. MADISON, June 5, 1789:
My idea on the subject now before the House is, that it would be improper in this body to expose themselves to have such a proposition rejected by the legislature of the state of Rhode Island
Page 413, Mr. AMES, June 5, 1789:
I should be glad to know if any gentleman contemplates the state of Rhode Island, dissevered from the union; a maritime state, situated in the most convenient manner for the purpose of smuggling and defrauding our revenue. Surely a moment's reflection will induce the house to take measures to secure this object. Do gentlemen imagine that state will join the union? ... If a wish of congress will bring them into the union, why shall we decline to express such a wish?
Page 424, Mr. MADISON, June 8, 1789:
It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this house that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it....
Page 438, Mr. JACKSON, June 8, 1789:
I hold, mr. speaker, that the present is not a proper time for considering of amendments. The States of Rhode-Island and North-Carolina are not in the Union. As to the latter, we have every presumption that they will come in. But in Rhode-Island I think the antifederal interest yet prevails. ...But to return to my argument. It being the case that those states are not yet come into the Union, when they join us we shall have another list of amendments to consider, and another bill of rights to frame.
Page 441, Mr. GERRY, June 8, 1789:
There are two states not in the union; it would be a very desirable circumstance to gain them. I should therefore be in favor of such amendments as might tend to invite them and gain their confidence; good policy will dictate to use to expedite that event. Gentlemen say, that we shall not obtain the consent of two-thirds of both houses to amendments. Are gentlemen willing then to throw Rhode-Island and North-Carolina into the situation of foreign nations. They have told you, that they cannot accede to the union unless certain amendments are made to the constitution; if you deny a compliance with their request in this particular, you refuse an accomodation to bring about that desirable event, and leave them detached from the union.
Do we have any specific goals for what a Convention will give to us?
Also: Convention of States.
The states are stupid enough to muck it up
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.