Posted on 02/04/2014 3:08:58 PM PST by cotton1706
This just in! The Georgia Senate has passed the COS application by a vote of 37-17, becoming the first state legislative body to do so.
The resolution has six sponsors: Majority Whip Cecil Staton (R-Macon) of the 18th District, Senate President Pro Tempore David Shafer (R-Duluth) of the 48th District, Ronnie Chance (R-Tyrone) of the 16th District, Butch Miller (R-Gainesville) of the 49th District, Judson Hill (R-Marietta) of the 32nd District and Steve Gooch (R-Dahlonega) of the 51st District.
Both state senators representing Bartow County, Chuck Hufstetler (R-Rome) and Bruce Thompson (R-White), are among the resolution’s co-signers.
We'll post more details soon. For now, share the good news!
(Excerpt) Read more at conventionofstates.com ...
I simply misunderstood your statement.
Go back to Post #17. Congress will determine whether the states will ratify by the State Legislature Method or the State Ratifying Convention Method. Congress could require the states to execute ratification via State Ratifying Conventions, and that would be the alternate method.
Convention of States - Alabama Way to go Alabama! A good introduction.
'Convention of states' to rein in government? Another great summary explanation.
The Case for an Article V. Convention. Fantastic explanation of Article V convention to the Mass State Legislature.
I would recommend watching the above three videos first and then on to:
Convention of States Lots of information here.
A Summary of Mark Levin’s Proposed Amendments by Jacquerie
Chapter 1 of Mark Levin’s Book, The Liberty Amendments
Mark Levin, Constitution Article V, and the Liberty Amendments
Article V Project to Restore Liberty
Rep. Bill Taylor introduces a Convention of States
Mark Levin Article V, Liberty Amendments youtube video hub
Three hour video of C-Span interview with Mark Levin
Gaining Steam? Nearly 100 Lawmakers Descend on Mount Vernon to Talk Convention of States The beginning.
Convention to Propose Amendments to the United States Constitution
The Other Way to Amend the Constitution: The Article V Constitutional Convention Amendment Process
Friends of Article V Convention Links
Article V Convention: Path of Least Resistance By Robert Berry
Article V Handbook - for State Legislators
State Legislators Article V Caucus State Legislators, Join up at this site!
Send this list of links to your State Representatives and Senators here: Contact your State Legislators.
Sample Letter to state Representatives regarding the Convention of States Project and also, Talking Points. Both from Here.
Let’s all work together to get this going.
The Federal Government is broken. We owe it to The Founders and ourselves to attempt a rational Article V amendment process. If it doesn't work, or is hijacked, then fine, it's on to what we're all expecting anyway, revolution. It's your call America.
State Ratifying Conventions were used in 1933 to ratify the 21st Amendment which repealed Prohibition. We have precedent on hand from that, so there are in fact rules.
"If we explore the potential of a Constitutional Convention called by the state legislatures in this session of the Idaho Legislature, I will keep your views in mind. However, this is a complex issue that will likely not be undertaken in the current session." Am going to contact him again.
To the Con-Con naysayers and "runaway convention" people, Publius's comment bears repeating:
"Implicitly forbidden:
"Throwing out the Constitution of 1787 and replacing it 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."
Georgia first. Who's next? Contact your state representative and senator with the link above.
We have Just Begun to Fight!
That’s good to know. Where would those rules be found today, with the requirement that they be followed for all future conventions? (You seem well informed on the topic.)
Change the actors not the structure.
The “fair tax” with it’s gimmick “prebate” is radio show snake oil.
Then each district of the more numerous (lower) house of the legislature elected a delegate to the convention. Delegates ran for the job on whether they supported or opposed the repeal of Prohibition.
When the convention met, there was debate, and then a vote was taken on an up-or-down basis as to whether that state should ratify.
Which is little different than the Convention called by Congress on February 21, 1787 (obviously not an art. V convention as that did not yet exist) which specified that states were to choose delegates for the “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. Those delegates threw out the Articles of Confederation.
Being dismissive of risks does not mitigate them nor strengthen your position, it demonstrates that being desirous of particular ends may blind some to those risks.
Well said. The mechanics of the convention of states will have to be very well thought out and solely restricted towards amendments to the "untouchable" Constitution. (Indiana has proposed strict guidelines for their potential members.) Any variance from said guidelines would make the convention "null and void" and, as a safeguard, any "rogue" amendments hopefully would not be ratified by 38 states.
The whole process is not without risk. If mainly the conservative states get behind the whole process, then hopefully there will be some ethics and 'good intentions' with a narrowly defined set of amendment proposals.
If somehow the process gets hijacked and they propose a 'new' constitution, then it will be time to water the tree of liberty.
My summary feeling is we're near that anyway, so let's give the Article V Convention of States our best effort with strict oversight and intention. . and Pray.
That’s a great list of links you’ve kept up, and perfect for these Article V threads. A real service.
The common contention that congress had authority over the 1787 convention is another example of deceit making its way around the globe before the truth gets its boots on.
There was going to be a federal convention in Philadelphia regardless of what congress did or did not do. Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress had no power over a convention. There was nothing to prevent congress from proposing amendments, which it did, regarding taxes and trade a couple of times in the early 1780s. Why did congress need a convention to propose amendments, when it had already done so in the previous few years?
Timeline:
1786.
November 23, Virginia authorizes election of delegates.
November 23, New Jersey elects delegates.
December 4, Virginia elects delegates.
December 30, Pennsylvania elects delegates.
1787.
January 6, North Carolina elects delegates.
January 17, New Hampshire elects delegates.
February 3, Delaware elects delegates.
February 10, Georgia elects delegates.
February 21, Congress calls for a federal convention.
Just as the federal convention of 1787 was extra-congressional, our future amendment convention of the states will also be extra-congressional. Unlike nullification, the state amendment convention will be constitutional.
You are very ignorant about the FairTax and its Rebate.
When you’re ready to drop your ignorance, let me know. Until then, do not bother me here.
“Sorry for being incomplete. There’s an alternate method of ratification, not dependent on state legislatures. It may receive ratification by state convention. So, some may ask, What is this state convention? The answer is, THERE ARE NO RULES, except as CONGRESS may set forth. Which may be well if one trusts Congress to limit, restrict, or reduce their own power.”
Oh, I see what you mean. You’re right. The prohibition repeal amendment went through conventions instead of the legislature.
You stating it doesn’t make it so. I read it and listened to Bortz go on about it.
Boortz is an idiot and a poor spokes person for anything.
If you listen to Boortz, then you don’t have a life.
I know the architects of the legislation and I knew the founder of the FairTax movement Leo Linbeck Jr. who recently passed.
When you are ready to listen about the true nature of the Rebate, let me know. Otherwise as I said previously, don’t bother me on this.
“Bortz is an idiot”
He wrote the book: http://www.amazon.com/The-FairTax-Book-Neal-Boortz/dp/0060875410
He did not write the legislation, you understand?
None of the backers and researchers of the FairTax asked Boortz for any of his commentary, understand.
You listened to garbage and you believed it.
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.