Article V Now

[Jacquerie]

With sixty-six of ninety-nine state houses in GOP hands, the prospect for a successful state convention to propose amendments has never been, and likely never will be, better.

After all the back and forth at FR, one aspect of Article V hasn't been discussed very much. Although major elements of the national, central government predictably thinks otherwise, the language of Article V doesn't require the states to make identical applications to Congress. There is nothing to remotely infer the states must make identical applications.

From Federalist 85, just two thirds of them need to apply and Congress must call a convention. It is at the convention where amendments are proposed.

I won't assign comments to the Framers which I can't prove, but two thirds of the states to merely call a convention is not an especially high hurdle. I don't think it was designed to be as difficult, nearly impossible as the modern statists would have it. It is about what the Articles of Confederation required for major, weighty decisions.

However, three-fourths to ratify amendments is far higher, yet less than the unanimous consent required under the Articles, which BTW were never amended because of it, and in itself lead to the Federal Convention.

Based on the explicit wording of Article V, it is clear that congress must call a state convention to propose amendments when two thirds have applied, with or without justification in the form of amendments.

[Jacquerie]

I tried to search the Archivist of the United States website to determine how many states have applied. As expected of most government sites, it was useless. Perhaps a more determined and skilled Freeper can find out.

[Red Badger]

It’s those other 33 that’s the problem..................

[Interesting Times]

What’s the point in adding Amendments if we can’t enforce the existing ones?

[Crazieman]

KILL THE 17TH!

[Jacquerie]

Article V Ping!

[Jacquerie]

What’s the point in adding Amendments if we can’t enforce the existing ones?

That is a common concern and easily addressed.

The only worthwhile amendments are structural, like those proposed by Mark Levin, which cannot be ignored any easier than even year elections.

[Squantos]

Ditto that !!

Dont trust any polidiots to touch what they won’t enforce.

[Interesting Times]

The only worthwhile amendments are structural, like those proposed by Mark Levin, which cannot be ignored any easier than even year elections.

Okay, I'll buy that.

[katana]

If one reads about the last constitutional convention in 1787 one thing that's clear is the result may be quite different than anyone can anticipate. Fortunately (providentially), the Virginia delegation went in with a definite plan that formed a foundation for a viable national government. But even their program was substantially altered and improved through long drawn out discussion and a difficult series of tough compromises.

When someone brings up the idea of invoking Article V I always wonder what they hope or expect would come out of a convention that would be superior to the finely balanced original? And why do they believe the political class would obey a new constitution any better than one which has tradition, sanctity, and 225 years of proven durability and flexibility behind it?

[Jacquerie]

It’s those other 33 that’s the problem.................

I think there is more support than most assume.

Most states have part time legislatures, which meet for a couple or so months per year. Their members have outside work. Many are business owners who must take away valuable time away to serve for not very much. Such people know EXACTLY the threat posed by rampant statism.

What many probably still don't know, is anything about Article V.

We must change that.

[DownInFlames]

Along w the 16th, DOM, and ban abortion.

[rpage3]

I am glad you posted this as I was contemplating re-posting this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2956489/posts from the day after the 2012 election. Since then, Levin’s book came out and while he calls for a lot more than I did, I still think that at minimum we ought to make the amendments I proposed.

I expect folks will show up here saying this whole idea is very bad.

Thanks.

[Jacquerie]

#6 answers one of your questions.

As I implied in my post, the Framers didn't write Article V to render proposing amendments terribly difficult. However, ratification of amendments is an incredibly high hurdle and a terrific safeguard.

[Repeal The 17th]

Thanks!
Hoping for more states to come on board in 2015.

[SCHROLL]

Levin addresses several of the problems going on with D.C., but I fear that he doesn’t go far enough. I’d like to see amendments addressing the EPA (no regulatory authority without Congre$ional consent), the IRS (Flat or Fair tax), and an outright ban on Congressional or Executive amnesty for illegals.

[Jacquerie]

Yes, there is a cadre of sincere Freepers who believe all we need to do is send conservatives to congress. Experience has shown that to be insufficient.

[C210N]

about the last constitutional convention in 1787...

Does your entire post refer to constitutional conventions?

If so, note that this is the first and only reply here that does. All the others refer to an Article V Amendments convention.

I'd be fearful of a new Constitutional Convention, as you outline. But, I welcome with open arms an Amendments Convention.

[Jacquerie]

Actually, Levin addressed the administrative state in his book:

A Summary of Mark Levin’s Proposed Amendments

[Nifster]

Yes indeed. If you haven’t read Levin’s book get it

[Amendment10]

The states need to amend the Constitution to give themselves the power to make punitive recall laws to get rid of bad-apple, federal lawmakers, federal executives and justices. The states can remove justices on a 3/4 majority state vote, just like amendments are ratified.