Posted on 01/09/2015 1:14:34 PM PST by dontreadthis
Edited on 01/09/2015 2:38:17 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Article VYou can bet there will be a fight as we get closer to a Convention of States. Check it out:The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Rep. Steve Stivers’ (R-OH) amendment to the House Rules passed by a vote on the House Floor this week, according to a press release published by Rep. Stivers’ office. The rule will provide a system with which to track, count, and organize Article V applications to Congress.
“I am pleased my colleagues supported my addition to the House Rules this week,” Stivers said. “I believe a Balanced Budget Amendment is the only way to stop out-of-control government spending. I hope the passage of this rule will put us one step closer to fiscal responsibility and the inclusion of the BBA in the United States Constitution.”
Rep. Stivers’ press release went on to explain the rule in detail:
“Specifically, the rule creates a process for the intake of the petitions through the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and gives the Clerk’s Office the responsibility of making the petitions electronically available and organized by the subject, state of origin and year of receipt. This will allow Congress, as well as the American people, to better track the progress of specific Article V efforts. Prior to Stivers’ rule update, no formal process for cataloging the petitions existed.”
If one would actually read the existing laws (Title 26 & 27 USC) they would find out that it only applies to Government employees, not to “We the People”
> “Some believe that an appeal to the Supreme Court could force Congress to do its duty. This is based on the Powell decision from the late Sixties when the Court ordered the House to admit Adam Clayton Powell. Others believe that the Court would declare it a political question, saying that if the people want an Amendments Convention so badly, they will vote out the scoundrels that are standing in their way.”
The language of Article V is clear and unambiguous. Reading through the Powell decision that you referenced, it seems clear that a case where Congress refuses, impedes or sabotages efforts to call a Convention is ‘justiciable’ and not political, and that the US Supreme Court has the ‘textually demonstrable commitment’ to interpret Article V clauses, and because as stated in the Powell ruling that “no branch is supreme” and it is the duty of the court to ensure that all branches conform to the Constitution.
In such a justiciable case as described above, that case would be even more clear and simpler than the many arguable issues of the Powell case; strikingly so.
But as you said, and especially given the present makeup of the Supreme Court, it could go either way. And given that the trend of all three branches of federal government is to reinforce each other rather than check each other, it is frightening to think that Supreme Court would refuse to hear or rule against an Article V case for simple interpretation based on non-justiciability. But it could happen.
I am not sure I agree with your prognosis that a ‘shooting war’ would ensue should SCOTUS decide such a case was not justiciable. Given such a decision, if 34 or more states had applied for a convention=meeting, and Congress stymied them, I believe states would continue to fight in Courts and in Congress to establish their standing on the matter and as you alluded to citizens would fight to turn their members of Congress around or elect new ones.
These prospects are loaded with frightening thoughts all around.
Given last year’s primary and general election skulduggery, and this year’s recent ‘Speaker’ vote, the only thing I can see that would have a substantial effect on such an unfolding process would be for a massive rally in Washington DC before the US Supreme Court, not Congress as they have shown deaf ears to the public recently. For example, the Pat Caddell poll showing 60% of the American people wanting Boehner out and the meltdown of the Capitol Hill switchboard on that matter. None of the efforts persuaded enough Members to vote against Boehner. So I don’t think we can rely on a massive rally before Congress but rather before the Supreme Court.
And if all that fails, Article V is essentially a dead article for states. A shooting war I think would not ensue even then, but states could continue to challenge a ruling of non-justiciability or petition the Court to reconsider. And conservatives would have to increase their efforts to elect Conservatives to Congress.
Once Congress’ composition is favorable to do its duty to call an Article V convention=meeting of states, THEN it establishes a precedent that will be hard to reverse.
So Conservatives should never give up. Ironically, the Adam Clayton Powell of the Powell vs. McCormack case was a singular individual that never gave up but kept at pushing his agenda until it was established in law.
Good highlighting on the similarity of whack-job ideas in Congress as an ongoing convention and the same to be seen in an Article V convention.
The disadvantage now for Article V proponents is the Article V movement is nascent and not yet broadly known among voters.
The good news is that it takes on average 3,000 activists to successfully influence their member of Congress for each congressional District (CD). Assuming that this occurs for both House and Senate members, then a majority 218 of the 435 CDs are needed so 3,000 X 218 CDs = 654,000 activists are needed. That’s certainly doable but it gets better because certain CDs can be relied on already to vote with states for an Article V convention=meeting.
I am without information presently as to how many such CDs are reliably with the states on Article V but assume only 180 CDs need to be targeted for activism, then only 540,000 activists are needed in total but regardless the geographic demographics are such that activists should reside in the targeted CDs, weighted to the population and demographic makeup of those CDs.
Say then that 540,000 activists are needed. How many organizers are needed to organize and maintain 3,000 activists? For discussion say 100 organizers or 1-in-30 are needed for the 3,000. Then 100 organizers X 180 CDs per organizer = 1,800 organizers.
A wild ballpark figure to turn the country around boil down to about 1,800 persons. Throw in slop, treachery and mafia tactics etc. and likely 2000 such people would need to form the core of movement.
How much would it cost? For yearly salaries, travel and media overhead, allocate $250,000 per organizer or 250,000 X 2000 = $250 million. $250,000 per organizer may seem high but I am thinking of media materials, advertising, event promotion, etc. Maybe it’s too low. Certainly some organizers will be very efficient and manage at less than half that level of funding.
Is this insurmountable? Don’t know, but 540,000 committed activists donating about $480 over a year would do the trick. That’s $40 a month, the price of 3 one-pound bargain NY Strip steaks.
Seed money to get the organizer commitment should be no more than about 10% of the total needed or $25 million.
$25,000,000 to start the process of turning the country around, how’s that?
Now the question comes up as to why we should bother to organize state legislators at all if we can influence Congress to observe and respect state-sponsored Article V applications? Why not just petition the members of Congress to propose the amendments?
The answer is because of the the Senate rules. Because a minority in the Senate can tank resolutions.
So this makes the above analysis incomplete. We need funding to overcome Senate intransigence. Now we’re up against K Street and K street is backed by billionaires, even trillionaires such as Prince Alwaleed of Saudi Arabia. But I am overblowing this concern because of the election cycle. Schedule Article V resolution votes in the Senate before general elections and there’s a chance to get the vote from a Senator for fear of losing the general; maybe.
Prospects for passing a resolution in the Senate are lowered by the existence of McConnell as the bagman for K Street. I’m not sure what argument McConnell would use to ensure defeat of an Article V resolution. I know he’s a tricky bastard and will likely argue the 34 Article V applications are to be ‘respected’ and are an ‘admirable’ effort on the part of its organizers but that the Senate body needs time to deliberate as to whether the Article V process is even necessary as Congress itself can take up the proposed amendments.
If the amendments are unknown, and they need not be revealed in an application, someone like McConnell could tie up the process saying the amendments should be known to Congress.
If certain amendments are known, then McConnell can introduce those amendments in Congress itself but then organize behind the scenes to deny cloture.
Article V looks like it’s going to be a prolonged massive fight but the good news is, once people wake up as they did last November and January brought about by Executive Amnesty, Obamacare, Ebola and the skulduggery of Boehner who used his K-street backing to buy member’s votes for him, once people are enraged, the election cycle can bring great pressure to bear for an Article V resolution in Congress and then the matter is settled.
Amen. I wish to second GopherIt's expression of gratitude. I am learning much from these discussions.
Well, THAT settles it. How could I have been SO wrong? *rolls eyes*
Say, you didn’t work for the Romney debate team for the 2nd in the series, did you?
I’m all for the 1st part as well, but I fail to see how a (STILL) involuntary, ‘loose net’ (nothing ‘under the table’, no ‘poor’, no ‘retired’, no unemployed, etc.) is somehow BETTER than a tax at the consumption level (where EVERYONE pays...old/young/poor/rich AND completely VOLUNTARY)
Aside from the pre-bate, the ‘Fair tax’ (yeah, I concur), which I don’t like, the rest of your concerns are taken into account.
- 16th would FIRST be repealed
- IIRC - the tax is at the final point of sale. No ‘re-sale/used/ taxes either. Barter/trade would come into play as well I’d hope.
- The tax is noted on each receipt (unlike the income/flat tax), so people are more informed. Though, IMHO, the 23% (revenue neutral) is too high since gov’t is extra-constitutional already.
Better, the employed get a GROSS payday (again), NO exemptions, no carve-outs, no special interests and no more bureaucracy of ANY type (sales x % = $$).
And, BEST of all, any up/down in the % affects EVERYONE; so there will be a LOT more watchful eyes from the voting populace.
The consumption tax scares me because no one has clearly stated where the tax is levied. For example, Friedman stated that there are 67 stages in the production of a loaf of bread, from seed grain to the table. Some consumption taxes seem that they would tax all 67 stages, so when you buy it at the store, you pay tax on the 66 taxes that have already been collected. Just as bad, think of the bureaucracy needed to police and administer all 67 tax steps. Some VAT taxes (Value Added Taxes) work this way.
The consumption tax sounds great, but until I see an operational definition of what it means, a flat tax on income is a better choice because it known and easily administered.
No, I say a flat tax, no exceptions. Once you allow on iota of wiggle room, the flood gates are open and we're right back where we are now.
So, how do you fund the gov’t or are you saying there should be no gov’t?
I can live with the Fair Tax if you throw out the prebate and provide explicit details on what constitutes “consumption”. If I buy some wood to make furniture which I plan to resell, do I pay a Fair Tax on the wood, or does the tax only come on the furniture? I have seen the answer “Yes” to both positions. Until I see an operational way to remove the sale of intermediate goods, the Fair Tax is a train wreck waiting to happen.
The duration is not up to Congress, only the date and location. So, it could be Nome on Christmas, though remember, Congress will answer for it to the states after the convention convenes.
However, I am intrigued at what you present as a watershed event (Post October 1, 2015):
I believe Martin Armstrong to be right. Due to the failure of an ideologue President and Congress to come to terms on the budget, we will see not only a government shutdown, but a default on our national debt. This will set off a worldwide financial panic because our bonds are the collateral of the world banking system.
Obama will cite a clause in the 14th Amendment about the debt of the US not being questioned to assert that he can spend as he wishes without going to Congress. This will be King Charles I versus Parliament all over again. Congress will go to court, and the House will impeach Obama. Some 30 Democrats in the House will vote for impeachment to assert the rights of Congress according to the Constitution. Power will trump party.
I am uncertain as to whether you are positing this as a serious expectation, or just using it as "for example, this could happen" type of scenario. I have read Armstrong on and off for sometime, but may have missed something that he has posted on this scenario, is there a reference?
The reason that I am asking is that I simply don't see such a scenario unfolding around 10/1/15 (or anytime soon). Maybe I am missing something big (and please correct me if I am), but I just see more business as usual coming down the pike.
Whether the Congress and the Ideologue agree on a budget or not, whether there is a brief nominal "government shutdown" or not, I see no plausible scenario in which there is a default on the national debt. Current revenues are at the level that support servicing the debt without fail (it won't always be the case, but it is currently). The Executive would have to make a deliberate decision to order Treasury to *NOT* make the required payments, it would not happen because the funds were not available. (Is this what you expect to happen?)
Additionally, I don't think that the Ideologue will ever have to flail at using that clause of the 14th Amendment as a justification for continued spending, since I believe that the Executive and Congress have found a nifty little method of getting around that whole messiness of a "debt ceiling." Haven't they decided the last 2 (or has it been 3 at this point?) times that they would not bother getting their hands dirty with having to actually vote to raise the debt ceiling? Haven't they decided each time to vote to merely "suspend" the effect of having a debt ceiling?
Maybe I am jaded and cynical (well, no maybes about that!), but I expect that they will follow the same course for the foreseeable future. Hence there will be no default, and spending will continue apace, unrestricted by any anachronistic construct such as a "theoretical debt ceiling!" Hence, there will be no precipitating event occurring around 10/1/2015. (Unless I am really missing something here, if so, please clue me in!!)
But as I said, I do appreciate your scenario and ALL of the contributions that you make here on this vital subject. In short, I suppose that I am saying that I agree that your scenario likely contains a lot of what we will see come to the fore, but I think the timeframe will be much extended, absent some type of precipitating event.
"Regular" Constitutional Convention? The difference is in name and expectations only. No matter what you call it, any change would require ratification by 38 states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacq I completely agree with your opinion on sameness of the petitions. Logic alone tells us the framers would have never intended for all applications to have to be identical and even worse have congress determine sameness as that would be a near impossible bar to attain.
I would also note there appears to be no time limit so once 34 states have applied a convention must be called.
If we allow congress to start tabulating the applications we are wasting time with this as you can rest assured one way or another the number 34 will never be reached.
Pubs, scenario requires an economic meltdown due to US default to trigger a convention. If that's what we are depending on then it's time to make other plans.
I totally agree with you about citing the ABA and such. I'm not impressed and also do not trust their motives. The constitution was not written for lawyers it was written for the people. Congress Shall call means exactly what it says. The threshold has been reached and it's time to convene.
In progress. See Assembly of State Legislatures and The Jefferson Statement.
He refers to October 1, 2015 as the "Big Bang." He sees that as the bursting of a 33 year bubble in bonds that will cause money to flee into stocks. Why? Because most money is electronic bits and bytes, and it will go from one electronic investment medium to another. Gold will catch a bid eventually, but not soon.
He expects the first bubble-bursting to occur in Europe as the Eurozone collapses. He sees the next problem to occur here.
I meant what I said literally. I expect Obama and Congress to play a game of "chicken" that causes the US dollar to lose reserve currency status. That will knock the props off everything. At that point, it will all be about pointing fingers, but this time even the Mainstream Media will not be able to save Obama's skinny butt with their slavish coverage.
This is when the states will finally say, "Enough! We're taking over!" This is when the 35 to 39 applications will come to Congress, and Congress will be put in a very difficult position.
My solution is for the states to claim the high ground quickly, and I'm thankful that the Convention of the States movement is doing just that.
> “I’ve read both Fair Tax books and still prefer the flat tax.”
I haven’t read either, don’t plan to and don’t need to.
> “Simply saying the current Code has morphed over the years is really a commentary on a political grab for power, which the people weren’t in favor of.”
Simply saying people grow old and die is really a commentary on a personal grab for reality, which people aren’t in favor of.
There will always be a political grab for power and it will always happen as surely as the sun rises everyday.
> “The Fair Tax and suffers the same issues you mention, but opens the whole even wider with the prebate invitation to corruption.”
Name one realistic example of how the FairTax can morph and one realistic example of how the Prebate invites corruption.
> “You don’t think politicians won’t use the prebate to buy votes just like they do now with the free cell phones? How many of you voted for the free cell phone plan?”
The Prebate has nothing to do with free anything. It is a return of taxes already paid and represents a tax cut.
A politician can buy my vote with a tax cut eight days a week.
> “No, I say a flat tax, no exceptions. Once you allow on iota of wiggle room, the flood gates are open and we’re right back where we are now.”
‘You’ say? Once ‘I’ allow? Who are you talking about?
There’s a new session of Congress every two years. What’s to stop a future session of Congress from changing a flat tax rate from 15% to 15.0025% to fund a widows and orphan fund? Or to allow military medal of honor winners a mortgage deduction? Or victims of a devastating hurricane an emergency deduction for home rebuilding?
Are you going to stop it? I don’t think so. No one can stop it once it starts and IT WILL START!
What will stop it? A Dictator?
So let’s see you answer the two questions on the FairTax above and then come back and answer how you propose to stop a Flat Tax from having its rate increased or to stop deductions.
No state attorney general, who by the way would have standing, is going to go to federal court and make that claim, and no federal court will order Congress to call a convention based on the legal thinking of the two authors of that legal piece. That's just how the world of politics, law and power works. I'm not talking legal theory, I'm talking legal facts on the ground.
By concentrating on this item, you're taking your eye off the ball. Keep your eye on the ball!
The "ball" here is to get a minimum of 34 states to apply for a convention using Georgia's language which was extracted from Mark Levin's book. Once we have that, Congress will call a convention, if for no other reason because of the optics of openly defying the Constitution.
By the way, I don't "detest" Hamilton. I don't know where you got that, but it's a cheap shot. You're a good enough debater to skip such foolishness.
Consider this anecdote on the subject of Davy Crockett & the Constitution, to appreciate how completely off-base is the Obama Administration; and how immoral it is to fund some of its antics: Sockdolager.
William Flax
If gov stayed within its proper and legitimate role the voracious need for money would be greatly reduced. The gov survived without an income tax and we built the greatest nation the earth has ever seen. So mighty that its inertia withstood the early assaults of the “progressives”, but their cancer grew and has stagnated us and is now killing us.
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.