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.”
Thanks for the ping.
Do you know the origin of the “same subject” fallacy?
(see post 7 and 13)
“We are now firmly and perhaps irretrievably on the path toward Constitutional Convention.”
fortunately, not so.
It’s just a routine Convention of the States to propose amendments to the Constitution.
From day one I’ve been concerned about that little “Congress...shall call a Convention” clause in Article V. It’s been dismissed as a non-issue, but ANYTHING having to do with the feds involvement, especially something with the potential of crippling current federal power, is not a non-issue IMO and is potential for delay and mischief.
Thanks Publius for the clarification.
Nice to have a cool head around while other heads are exploding.
Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be closely watching every move these potential jackals make.
Well, you could choose to not work...OR, just figure out how to be born to a rich daddy and be a trustafarian and never actually pay taxes on income. But, mostly you are right. We are "hypothecated". Obamacare has made it even worse, for now we live in a suzerainty. Do you breathe? Then pay tribute to Aetna.
If it looks like an Article V is about to reach the level of fruition with ‘conservative’ amendment proposals, look for the political elites of both parties to circumvent it by calling for a regular Constitutional Convention, where they can offer changes to existing, as well as proposals for new, amendments.
==
Then, they can finally water down or get rid of those pesky First and Second Amendments.
bfl
Should Congress legislate the Single Subject Standard and the Contemporaneousness Standard into law? Yes. Even the American Bar Association says so in their document that examined all the gray areas in the amendatory process.
There are two Supreme Court decisions, Dillon v. Gloss in 1921 and Coleman v. Miller in 1939, where the Court gave wide latitude to Congress to control and supervise the amendatory process, provided such control does not violate the clear language of Article V. Congress is within its rights to uphold the Single Subject Standard and the Contemporaneousness Standard even though it is arbitrary, i.e., not written into law.
The basis for the Single Subject Standard is contract law. In the Amendments Convention situation, the states are the principals, the agent is the convention, and the agency agreement is the language in the petitions from the states to Congress for the convention. When Congress "calls" the convention, it states the date, place and subject. The subject is the agency agreement which is extracted from the language in the petitions. This is intended to prevent a convention from straying outside the scope of its subject. It's to avoid "scope creep".
There is also the matter of precedent. Single subject conventions and general conventions were held under the Articles of Confederation, and the precedent for that goes back to English Common Law as delineated by Blackstone.
If you were to ask any member of Congress about the Single Subject Standard, you would get an explanation similar to the one I just gave. If you asked a federal jurist, you'd get the same explanation. If you asked a professor of constitutional law, 99% would give the same answer, and only 1% would argue that the subject is irrelevant, as several on these threads argue. Walker v. US attempted to challenge this state of affairs in 2000, a worthy effort, but Walker was denied cert by the federal courts. This is considered settled law and a time-honored custom. But the ABA is correct that Congress should legislate this, not apply it arbitrarily, so that the states, who do have standing, can test this in court.
Let's try 12%.
“Well, you could choose to not work”
Nope. Can’t do that, either. ObamaCare taxes you for not buying health insurance. Gotta have money to pay those taxes.
“Harry Reid says it’s voluntary:”
Now you are just being stupid.
If you think the only way to fund a government is by using slavery, a government that went 120+ years without income taxes, then perhaps you’d be better suited in a communist country.
Thank you.
Can’t say that I like your answer, but I will try to absorb it.
From: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No3_Rogersonline.pdf
A related concern is whether States’ applications that are limited to a particular subject should be considered jointly regardless of subject or tallied separately by subject matter to reach the two‐thirds threshold necessary for the calling of a conven&tion. This is an important question because if all applications are considered jointly regardless of subject matter, Congress may have the duty to call a convention immediately based on the number of presently outstanding applications from states on single issues. If the above arguments about the States’ power to limit a convention are valid, however, then applica&tions for a convention for different subjects should be counted separately. This would ensure that the intent of the States’ applications is given proper effect. An application for an amendment addressing a particular issue, therefore, could not be used to call a convention that ends up proposing an amendment about a subject matter the state did not request be addressed. These fears, however, are mitigated by the States’ own powers over ratification. If it were established that applications on different topics are considered jointly when determining if the two thirds threshold has been reached, states would almost certainly rescind their outstanding applications to prevent a general Convention Amendment Process It follows from this argument that Congress’s ministerial duty to call a convention also includes the duty to group applications according to subject matter. Once a sufficient number of applications have been reached, Congress must call a convention limited in scope to what the States have requested.
Dirksen's announcement of 32 petitions ignited a firestorm in the Senate.
Senators Daniel Brewster (D-MD) and Joseph Tydings (D-MD) argued that some of the legislatures that generated those 32 petitions were mal-apportioned by the standards of Reynolds, so those petitions could be safely ignored by Congress. Sen. Charles Percy (R-IL) said that Congress should refuse to call a convention because "the convention would be under the control of the worst elements in American politics", by which he meant conservatives.
There was a lot on the nation's plate in 1967, and Dirksen's bill went nowhere. When Dirksen died in 1969, the wind went out of the sails of the movement.
Congress wants to be kept abreast of what is going on, which the current procedures of the Archivist of the United States don't permit. That is what this is all about.
You may remember that when the 27th Amendment, first proposed by Madison in 1789, achieved its 38th ratification in 1992, Congress was blindsided by the Archivist. At first, congressional leadership tried to bully the Archivist into withdrawing his memorandum to Congress on the grounds that the initial ratifications from the 1790's were "stale". The Archivist stood his ground, replied to Congress and listed every Supreme Court precedent on the amendatory process. Congress briefly considered suing the Archivist in federal court to get a definitive reading on the age of ratifications, but 1992 was an election year with a strong anti-incumbent bias. Congress decided that the optics of defying the Constitution in such a year was political suicide. So Congress swallowed hard and passed the Joint Congressional Resolution necessary to accept a new amendment into the Constitution. The resolution and amendment were transmitted to the Archivist, President, Supreme Court and the Secretaries of State of the 50 states.
I've considered what mischief Congress may try when the petitions reach the two-thirds threshold. Because of the bad optics, I don't think Congress will try to weasel out of a convention call, which is its solemn constitutional duty.
Congress is more likely to try to enact legislation which would give it control of an Amendments Convention. I don't see them having much luck at that, either.
Despite all of the applications stacked up in some file with the Archivist, I suspect the judiciary committee counter has been set to zero.
Again, I hope I am wrong.
And who would you trust to do those calculations?
The problem with fixing spending, or taxation, or both to a percentage of "revenues", or "GDP", is that these are artificial numbers derived from a complex set of struggles in the bureaucracy or in Congress.
Once these numbers mean something - like how much the government can spend, or, God forbid, which Members of Congress have to get real jobs - they will become entirely artificial, instead of mostly artificial as they are now.
All of your concerns are addressed at the links in post #30. From Article XIII of the Confederation through Federalist #85, the history of Article V is there.
The Clerk of the House needs to copy the Archivist's spreadsheet into his own spreadsheet, else he will be starting from zero. I believe two petitions for Mark Levin's amendments have been already been generated and are sitting in a file cabinet in the Archivist's office.
“This will allow Congress to keep track of any Article Vs. No rule or formal process existed, because no Article V Convention has ever been requested under the current Constitution. “
that is actually not true there have been numerous calls from 48 of the 50 states as of a few years ago. Im not sure but if Alaska has made a call that may make 49.
The problem with Convention has always been that until now congress has largely ignored the calls for convention, and our states have not been keeping track of it themselves.
The question we need to keep an eye on is how they are counting the calls for Convention. Frankly I can see us having the required 34 States with in a decade or so. But will Congress count those 34 calls together or declare them separate?
At least with a formal and public process established we have something against which to argue legitimacy should they choose not to count every call. We have never really had that before.
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.