Posted on 11/06/2014 10:22:11 AM PST by 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.
No, because we’re not enforcing the laws that are currently on the books. Enforce those laws. Personally, I think they’ll work, but I’m no scholar, so I say, let’s enforce the laws on the books. If that doesn’t work, then let’s talk Article V Convention. Again, I’m not opposed to it. I am, however, leery of passing NEW laws, when we aren’t enforcing the ones already on the books. Again, like immigration. Enforce the immigration laws we have. If that DOESN’T work (notice I didn’t say they don’t work), then let’s discuss the alternatives. But until the laws already on the books regarding immigration are actually enforced, how do we know that more laws, which will also be ignored, will work better?
dware, the smartest thing you just wrote was you are “no scholar”. Trust me, humility leads us to wisdom much faster than anything else.
Now there are brilliant scholars debating this subject and they have pointed out many many instances where the laws do not work and what can be done about it. Article V is something that can be done when Congress won’t do anything and that is what they are debating.
According to the last piece I read from Randy Barnett, it is still with the National Archives which makes sense as that is a non-partisan agency and all amendments must have an agency to facilitate the process among states.
You’re playing by leftist rules with the personal attacks. Forgive me if I’m concerned about your view on this issue. Anyone who thinks like a leftist isn’t thinking quite clearly. In this case, you are saying that amnesty, then, is also perfectly acceptable. After all, never mind that we’re not enforcing current immigration law, the fact is, they don’t work, so...AMNESTY! Yeah, that makes so much sense. So, perhaps instead of thinking like a leftist and making personal attacks every chance you get, perhaps you could try a coherent debate, which would mean, I dunno...maybe providing some specific examples of how I’m wrong. I do accept that I am wrong from time to time, but I won’t just accept a personal attack as something to debate by.
Again you are showing how confused you are.
Anyone that knows my posting history knows how passionate I am about stopping amnesty.
I hate to sound apocalyptic, but this is what I see.
Go back to some of the older posts I put on these threads, and you'll see how I carefully parsed these things. Likewise, print off those two documents to which I linked, and you'll see how the two schools of thought contend on this issue.
It is no surprise the institution that imposes fag marriage on an unwilling society would help circle the wagons with congress and attempt to make additional, unconstitutional demands to the simple wording of Article V.
If necessary, the states should meet in an extra-congressional convention to propose amendments. It could do no harm, and there is no law, natural or statutory, that can stop them from doing so.
The constitutional compact is fast falling apart. Lawyerly, weasel attempts to prevent the parties to the compact, the states, from repairing the constitutional structure is utter betrayal to the document the blackrobed clowns swore to defend.
If you want to know how the ruling class views these things from a constitutional, legal and procedural point of view, the ABA document gives it to you. It even lists all the applicable Supreme Court precedents. They call it "the ruling class" for a reason.
What the preparatory meetings for the Amendments Convention have done is finesse the ABA document.
Let's face it; if an Amendments Convention is called to redress the balance between the states and the federal government, it's good to have legal and procedural grounds for refusing to consider that inevitable amendment proposal from New York to repeal the 2nd Amendment. The single subject standard protects everyone from things getting out of control.
The movement is doing everything right, and it's best to dot the I's and cross the T's now rather than at the last minute.
He addresses it by allowing states to overturn regulations, but I’m talking about Congress taking back its lawmaking power from the bureaucracies here. Any regulation must receive Congressional approval before going into effect.
and you don’t need an amendment for that!
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:
Convention of States Lots of information here.
Article V Project to Restore Liberty Another good source.
Convention of States model Resolution
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
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
Ulysses at the Mast: Democracy, Federalism, and the Sirens' Song of the Seventeenth Amendment by Jay Bybee. Repeal the 17th!
Article V Convention: Path of Least Resistance by Robert Berry
Article V Handbook - for State Legislators An important resource.
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.
Excellent Article V Letter to a State Assemblyman by Jacquerie
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke. Let’s all work together to get this going.
btt
Why should the states regard the ABA as gospel? Their related Trial Lawyers association has congress in its pocket, and neither intends to relinquish power.
“ABA says that Congress can set the rules for an Amendments Convention within reason,” translates into no convention . . . ever.
“The Committee believes that judicial review of decisions made under Article V is desirable and feasible.” Of course. Submit the right will of the states to years of lawfare. No thank you.
Here's a good one: “Delegates to a convention should be elected and representation at the conventions should be in conformity with the principles of representative democracy as enunciated by the “one person, one vote” decisions of the Supreme Court.” Uh, bugger off. State legislatures have every power and right to determine the selection and commissions of their delegates.
It is time to disregard the statist, freedom denying ABA, fed courts, and hold a state convention.
... the prospect for a successful state convention to propose amendments has never been, and likely never will be, better...”
Absolutely. Now is the time. And I intend to help spice things up with exciting new ideas.
A lot of the state legislatures kick off their sessions in January. People, start writing your state representatives and senators to get this rolling. See the links for contact information and sample letters.
Jacquerie, BTW, I love your list of 'I believe' statements on your Jacquerie page. I recommend all Freepers read them. Amen to all of them.
Amen. I need to get off my rear end and submit letters to newspaper editors and other websites.
My home state of Florida is aboard, has applied to congress, and passed legislation necessary to appoint delegates.
We must strike!!!!!
“... it’s good to have legal and procedural grounds for refusing to consider that inevitable amendment proposal from New York to repeal the 2nd Amendment...”
New to your ‘boilerplate’, Publius, but I think I see where you’re coming from. You want us all forewarned and forearmed about the lingo.
Any ABA lawyer will say with full confidence that this-or-that ‘can’t be done because it violates the law.’ And sure enough there are laws in congress, legislation that seem to be ‘etched in stone’.
At the same time, a disorganized convention could provide a chance for stealth amendments. Actually though, I don’t think the states will let themselves get that disorganized. But would congress disorganize itself deliberately? That’s the question. We are not talking about honorable legislators anymore. They used to be, but not now.
GOP congress members are intimidated by the EPA and IRS. It’s ominous.
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.