Posted on 02/14/2015 11:21:12 AM PST by Publius
A state-level campaign to rein in the federal government by calling an unprecedented convention to amend the U.S. Constitution is gaining steam, picking up support from two high-profile Republicans as more states explore the idea.
Coburn, a legendary government-waste watchdog, announced this week that he has joined the effort by becoming a senior adviser for the group Convention of States Action, which wants states, not just Congress, to pass constitutional amendments.
Article V of the Constitution states amendments can be ratified either by Congress or by states if two-thirds of them petition Congress to call a convention. Then, any amendment proposed at the convention must be ratified by three-fourth, or 38, states.
So far, the Alaska, Florida and Georgia legislatures have each passed a resolution in support of a convention, and 25 more are considering one, according to group.
Our founders anticipated the federal government might get out of control, Coburn said Tuesday. And they gave us a constitutional mechanism to rein it in.
Meanwhile, Ohio GOP Gov. John Kasich, a potential 2016 White House candidate, has recently concluded a six-state tour in which he has asked legislators to support the convention, largely to push the balanced budget idea.
Who the heck thinks we should keep spending without any regard to the consequences? Kasich, a fiscal hawk and former House Budget Committee chairman, asked in South Dakota. I dont care if youre a Republican, a Democrat or a Martian. This is not what we should be doing as a nation. Its irresponsible.
Kasich, who claims credit for crafting a balanced federal budget before leaving Congress in 2000, gave a similar pitch week last month in Utah, urging state lawmakers to pass a convention resolution, which has failed there in past years.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
From what I read, it seems the other way around ... regarding the other side ... :-) ...
That’s why he wrote the warning, saying don’t do it again ... :-) ...
I know democrats who are concerned about the national debt — it's not unreasonable to think that they would oppose an amendment which corrected that problem.
Article V doesnt give any power to the states to propose constitutional amendments, or to decide which amendments will be considered by the convention. Article V doesnt give any power to the courts to correct what does or does not happen.
And?
Any amendment coming from an Article V convention is a proposed amendment, still in need of ratification.
Do you really believe that 38+ States would ratify a totally bad amendment like (e.g.) repealing the Second Amendment?
No, it's far more likely that the States would fail to ratify a good amendment.
“The states may request a single-subject convention or a general convention open to all subjects.”
First of all, thank you Publius for explaining this is a way that I, a legal layman, could understand.
IF a “general” convention was called, and multiple amendments were proposed. Then must each amendment be individually ratified? If this is the case, then I would not be adverse to a convention. Because, IF each amendment had to be individually considered, then it would keep something “wacky” from slipping through.
The Archivist of the United States is the current location for tabulation of applications from the states and also for ratifications, but thanks to Cong. Stivers, the Clerk of the House is now in the loop. This is because the Archivist's procedures do not require him to keep Congress abreast of what is going on until a threshold is reached: two-thirds for a convention, and three-fourths for ratification. Now the House can be kept up to speed as to how close we are to a convention call.
The gray areas are being occupied and defined by the Convention of the States movement. The idea is that by the time Congress is required to set a time, place and purview for the convention that everything will be known.
One more question. Would a simple majority of the delegates to a convention be required to send the proposed amendment to the states for ratification...or 2/3rds?
Even a convention dedicated to a single subject may produce more than one amendment. For example, the Convention of the States movement wishes to address certain topics listed in Mark Levin's book. I could see 4 or 5 proposed amendments being reported to Congress by the convention. Congress would then decide which method the states would use to ratify for each individual amendment.
Exactly so.
Here's two graphics illustrating it.
Well ... you won’t be getting me behind the move. I’ll be working the other side ... :-) ...
Good luck, because I think it would be the luck of a Lotto win to get it done.
IF a general convention was to be convened, I would like to see the power of the SCOTUS to radically reinterpret the COTUS to be limited.
For instance, anytime the SCOTUS creates a “landmark” ruling that effectively changes the way things have been done previously. I would want their ruling subject to “ratification” by the states as any other constitutional amendment is. I am tried of the SCOTUS being able to rule something as “unconstitutional” (like the soon to come usurpation of a state’s ability to define marriage) and it being called “the law of the land” without it being ratified by each state first. I know this cuts both ways, but limits on the SCOTUS are way overdue.
Note that after Congress decides on how the states will ratify, it will take the three-fourths of the state legislatures (or state ratifying conventions, if Congress so chooses) to ratify a proposed amendment and get it into the Constitution.
A picture is worth 10,000 words. Thanks. Especially my long, pedantic words.
You don’t need a general convention for that. Mark Levin’s book, and the Convention of the States movement, are working for “structural” amendments that would permit Congress, or the states, to overturn Supreme Court decisions. The movement is also looking for a method of giving the states the ability to nullify federal law. This movement is already in motion, and it has gotten 3 states to apply for a convention using Georgia’s language about balancing state and federal authority,
Isn't that essentially what happened in 1913 with the 16th and 17th amendments?
There are going to be a whole lot of people out there that are going to say, “Now that we’re doing this, this other thing over here needs to be changed, too!”
And that is the beginning of the end of our US Constitution as we know it and have it.
Good luck with that one ... :-) ...
By “revolution”, Blackstone is talking about violence and the shedding of blood. The events of 1775-83 would be a good definition of “revolution”.
By the use of logic and reason, I will eventually convert you to the cause.
3/4 of states would have to ratify anything proposed..
I think the chicken came first.
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.