Posted on 04/02/2014 11:45:21 AM PDT by 12th_Monkey
We often hear talk about pressing for a constitutional convention as a means to address issues that Congress keeps avoiding, especially on debt and spending levels as well as intrusion on states’ rights. States have that option, as long as two-thirds agree on a demand for such a meeting — which hasn’t taken place since the US Constitution was put forward more than 220 years ago. Did a recent call from Michigan for action on balancing the budget hit the two-thirds mark?
A similar issue came up during the debate over the Equal Rights Amendment, which stalled and died in the 1980s. Some states voted to ratify the amendment but then changed their collective minds, and voted to rescind their ratification. The Supreme Court ruled that the rescissions were valid in Idaho v Freeman in 1982, and the ERA ended up dying on the vine partly as a result. The first arbiter of this question will be Congress itself, but any legal action challenging the validity of the count at 34 would likely refer back to the 1982 decision. It’s more likely that the count is 23 rather than 34, in practical terms.
Should we encourage the move to a Constitutional convention? Mark Levin is the most prominent advocate for it, and his reasoning is solid. The option exists as a check on federal power so that it allows states to rein in an acquisitive Congress or executive. After ObamaCare and the borrowing sprees of the last several years in particular, it’s all but impossible to argue that those conditions don’t exist at the moment.
Still, it’s an interesting debate, if still a bit academic at the moment. We’ll see what Congress thinks of the count, and see whether it ends up going through the judiciary.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Unfortunately very few people today hold to the philosophy of the founding fathers. So whatever comes out of a constitutional convention is not likely to reflect their ideals.
It is more likely than not that what will come out of a 21st Century convention will be a repeal of the second amendment and the free exercise clause and an affirmation of women's rights to equal pay and abortion and things like that.
Yes, I read his book. It was interesting philosophy, but it is a dream. Too many people are satisfied with the status quo to be interested in amending the constitution backwards. They want more government rather than less. Too many people love the nanny state and all it gives them. They will want to amend the constitution in the wrong direction.
You will not be happy with what comes out of a new COS. be careful what you wish for.
What I have italicized above IS the text of the US Constitution's rules for a convention of the states for considering amendments to the Constitution.
The underlined is to show the authority of Congress over the process to include the Mode of Ratification.
Harry Reid and John Boehner would be in charge of deciding on your freedoms, Jacquerie.
Is it remotely possible that you are OK with that? Reid & Boehner?
“no place in the Constitution that requires a budget...
...a constitutionally required budget each year...”
-
There is only this vague reference in Article 1 Section 9:
“a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time”
I would like to see an approval of an annual budget required as the first order of business of congress.
Agreed. I was pointing out that it might take an amendment to undo Reynolds v. Sims and offered the suggestion as a way of illustrating the principle.
What did you think of the "cedo" in the hands of the VP (the last item in post 36)? I first thought of it back in 1985 when reading Farrand's Record. I think it could do a lot to make the Congress more accountable.
Mark's book threw out some ideas to help get the ball rolling. He never intended for his ideas to be copy/paste to a convention of states, and he has often stated that.
Good; I'm glad he's expressed the circumspection. I don't have the time to listen to his show and I'm doing too much research work to read his book. In fact, IMO what he is doing here is dangerous.
I was not impressed with those ideas and would not disparage my reputation going to press with half baked ideas on something so critical. I do think what I've offered here is simpler, perhaps more powerful, and more likely to get done. Still, I haven't published on the topic because I have not researched how I would construct such amendments. I don't think one should go to press and get THAT ball rolling without a clearer idea of what should be done how, and why.
Yes, I agree with you. The constitution, as you point out, requires a ledger of past expenditures.
A budget, on the other hand, is a plan on how to spend income/money prior to its being spent.
That’s why a “budget amendment” would be a good thing.
I think there’s already a law requiring a budget, but the politicians have done all kinds of “off budget” shenanigans, and the dreaded “spending cap” that has to get increased every few months or the world will explode, is one effort in the past to bring the discipline of a budget back to spending. It hasn’t worked either.
A budget amendment needs to include all income, all planned expenditures, and it needs solid, unbreakable spending targets, and it needs clarity regarding borrowing authority. (Those are off the top of my head, and based on a simple family budget.)
“... giving the Vice President the power to divide
spending bills into pieces to force a vote on the pieces...”
-
I don’t like it.
The legislative branch can do this right now without ceding any more power to the executive branch.
Do you think these ideas are too broad or too detailed?
“All bills passed by the Congress an enacted into law must be considered in their entirety and no lesser parts of that bill may be severed from the whole. Once a bill has been agreed upon and passed by congress, and has been enacted into law, Congress shall not amend, repeal, or otherwise alter any portion of that bill, but must first vote to repeal that bill in its entirety and then replace it with a new bill.”
“If the Supreme Court finds any portion of a bill, law, legislation, or regulation to be unconstitutional, that ruling must be applied to the entire bill, law, legislation, or regulation. The Supreme Court has no authority to write, re-write, alter, or amend congressional legislation or administrative law.”
The legislative propensity is to avoid single issue votes, rolling many together that makes them unaccountable and impossible to track. It needs to be fixed, but arguments as to what belongs in a particular bill v. what does not is a waste of time. In many respects, what I am suggesting is equivalent to a line-item veto but better. Think about it.
All bills passed by the Congress an enacted into law must be considered in their entirety and no lesser parts of that bill may be severed from the whole.
It is the magnitude of effort and contention in determining the lines of distinction that the idea fails. There are elements upon which everyone agrees that can be lumped. So, accept the streamlining and except the items of contention for a separate vote. Cedo!
“If the Supreme Court finds any portion of a bill, law, legislation, or regulation to be unconstitutional, that ruling must be applied to the entire bill, law, legislation, or regulation. The Supreme Court has no authority to write, re-write, alter, or amend congressional legislation or administrative law.”
The first part is not bad at all. The second is extraneous. They would deny that they do that. Who then would judge?
Just an off the top of the head idea. I'd like to see a state try it first.
“...a nationally elected office out of the “Attorney General”
with which to enforce the laws against the officers of the government...”
Then add “violation of oath of office, neglect of duties,
refusal to perform duties, or misuse of office”
to the valid reasons for impeachment in Article II Section 4:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States,
shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of,
Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Of course, I could go on and on, and I am sure that you could too.
If you and I can think of and run these few things up the flagpole,
just imagine the conversations there will be at the convention of States!
They have another planning session coming up in June; at Indianapolis this time.
>> What do you think of making a separate nationally elected office out of the “Attorney General” with which to enforce the laws against the officers of the government? <<
.
If they can steal the presidency, they could use the same means to steal any other office.
.
Uh, no thanks, I don't want to imagine the conversations. I don't want a convention of the States. I'd rather see these amendments proposed individually through the usual channels.
Obviously. We have an elected AG here in California too.
Article V Constitutional Convention: Establishes qualifications of delegates & alternate delegates to Article V constitutional convention; provides for appointment of delegates by Legislature; authorizes Legislature to recall delegate & fill vacancy; authorizes presiding officers to call special legislative session to carry out certain provisions relating to appointments; requires delegates to sign oath; provides for instructions to delegates; establishes circumstances under which convention vote is declared void; provides circumstances under which delegate's appointment is forfeited; establishes circumstances under which application to call Article V convention ceases to be continuing application & is deemed to have no effect; provides penalties; establishes delegate advisory group.
For P-Marlowe, If You Think Presidential Elections Matter.
Do you oppose other sections or clauses of the constitution?
No one cares what your silly "posting record" - as you call it - is. Try to stay on topic.
By your own admission you came to the present discussion poorly researched, and licking your perceived "lowly FReeper" wounds, because Levin doesn't have to time answer eMails and letters from people about positions he takes in his book, when his detractor admits he hasn't even read the book himself.
Does your "posting record" include to ones where you blew up your own argument, too?
And what difference do delegate rules make if Congress decides to ratify by Legislatures instead of by conventions and the delegates just become clerks doing work at an amendment convention without possessing a vote on the final passage of any proposed amendment?
The country has changed a lot from the time of our founding. Patriotism and godliness are no longer considered virtues. Today tolerance and acceptance of sexual depravity are considered virtues and righteousness is viewed as a vice.
I do not trust our States or the people they would send to represent them to amend the Constitution in a way that will restore our liberties and represent the virtues of our founders.
Mark Levin is dreaming if he thinks a covention will restore the founding principles. I firmly believe that what could come out of there would be much much worse than what we have now.
The original Constitutional Convention was held behind closed doors and in secret. They did not want public opinion to sway them from their positions. That will not happen again. Instead the MSM will smear each and every delegate that doesn't toe the progressive line.
This will never work until we have a strong majority of conservatives in both houses of Congress and in the Oval Office. Then congress can propose the kinds of reforms that Levin proposes and send them out to the states. If we can achieve that solid majority in both houses, then I would expect we can get the states to follow.
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.