Posted on 04/16/2015 6:00:55 AM PDT by cotton1706
A resolution enlisting Nebraska in a call for a convention of the states to propose constitutional limits on the power of the federal government remained stuck in committee Wednesday.
An effort to dislodge LR35, introduced by Sen. Laura Ebke of Crete, failed on a 3-1 vote, with three members of the Government, Military and Affairs Committee who participated in the executive session declining to vote.
Five votes are required to send the proposal to the floor of the Legislature for debate.
The convention of the states would be limited to proposing constitutional amendments to impose fiscal restraints, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and require term limits.
Any proposed constitutional amendments would require ratification by three-fourths of the states.
Ebke, a Republican who is state chairwoman of the Republican Liberty Caucus, told the committee during a public hearing on the proposal in February that she originally had been reluctant to support a convention of the states because of her fear of "a crazy runaway convention."
But she said the limited role of the proposed convention -- already approved by Florida, Georgia and Alaska -- is crafted in a way to prevent that.
Mark Meckler, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, testified at the hearing, arguing that state legislators are "the last line of defense for liberty."
Wednesday's refusal to move the resolution forward presumably sealed its fate for the reminder of the 2015 legislative session, but it will remain in the committee.
(Excerpt) Read more at journalstar.com ...
Oh, I am a federalist — probably more now than I ever have been. I am also conservative, which means I view with suspicion something that has not been done in 230 years and already is covered in other processes that have been used more recently.
The difference between the Congress putting up the suggestion and a state convention is that the convention can look at EVERYTHING. The output for a convention could be something that does not even look like limited government, but looks more like a police state.
Please do not misunderstand my first comment — I was simply trying to point out the reluctance to open the door to a wholesale edit job as opposed to the piecemeal approach that has been used for the last 225 years is not crazy. I think we need a shake up, but I am not so optimistic these days as to believe that we can get enough blue states to go along with reigning in government. I am concerned that there may be closer to 38 that would choose to become east Germany if it meant they got the goodies they want out of the deal.
We often accuse the left of not taking into consideration human behavior when they make new laws and rules. They assume that everyone in the electorate will abide by those laws without question.
The right does the same thing by assuming that the humans in control of the government will abide by the laws and rules made by the right.
Case in point: The current administration picks and chooses which laws they want to uphold and ignores any others.
Never underestimate the left’s desire to take full control of the country and destroy any and all opposition...............
[ Yes, but I’m hammering the STUPID notion that the states submitting an amendment to themselves for 3/4 ratification is scarier than Congress submitting an amendment to 3/4 of the states for ratification. ]
What happens when the Federal Senate proposes an amendment making it illegal for the states to propose amendments...?
They will do this if they could get away with it.
What prevents Congress from looking at everything?
Harry Roid tried to push an amendment to pretty much ban the first.
[ Lets see. No Convention, civil war.
Convention, fedgov abides, peace.
Convention, fedgov doesn’t abide, civil war.
Where’s the negative? ]
The order of things:
1. elect more republican, failed
2. Article V, in progress
3. State Nullification, in progress, may or may not work
4. Mutual state breakup, if 1-3 fail.
5. Full blown civil war, if 4 fails.
Article V is one of the last exit ramps we have to avoid the cliff of CW-II....
no thanx!
look wha hoppen @ the con-con of 1787...nothing more than a coup d’etat! leading to the second american revolution of 1789 (our present con that is the enabling document 4- big gubmint, big biz, etc.!!!!!!
our first constitution was fine and it saw us through to victory over the then primo mil force in the world—england!
the DOI was fine, whether authored by jefferson OR paine???
that, together w/the AOCAPU wasall needed, then as now.........
Semper FIDELIS!
Dick.G: AMERICAN
aka: Gunny G
Semper FIDELIS
*****
It comes from the people in power through their lackeys. The last thing they want is limits on their power.
Because there’s a possibility someone will break a law you don’t think we should pass one?
“Never underestimate the left’s desire to take full control of the country and destroy any and all opposition...............”
I don’t. I’m well aware that those in power will attempt to defy any limits to their power:
” the love of power, which has been so often the cause of slavery, — has, whenever freedom has existed, been the cause of freedom. If it is this principle that has always prompted the princes and nobles of the earth, by every species of fraud and violence to shake off all the limitations of their power, it is the same that has always stimulated the common people to aspire at independency, and to endeavor at confining the power of the great within the limits of equity and reason.” - John Adams, 1765
If the existing limits to power have proven insufficient, then the people, through their legislatures, need to limit power further. The Article V provision in the Constitution exists for just this purpose.
No, pass it, if possible, by all means.
Just don’t think that the left will lie down and take it without a fight...................
Yes, and I predict that if the number of required states approval gets close, then there will be all out electoral war in those states yet to be decided.
Where are those newly arrived ‘children’ from south of the border being taken, housed and fed?
They are pawns for the left to use....................
“What happens when the Federal Senate proposes an amendment making it illegal for the states to propose amendments...?”
It would need to also get through the House, and then THROUGH the state legislatures. Do you honestly think that would happen?
The states did adopt the 17th....
If the states ratified an amendment repealing the 17th amendment or the 16th amendment, how would the Federal government NOT abide by it?If you're going to open the can of worms repealing/re-writing amendments, the first ones to go on the chopping block on day one of the "Con-Con" clusterf%^k will be the 1st and 2nd amendments...NOT the 17th, 16th or 13th...guaranteed.
You are still not hearing me or are being deliberately obtuse — Congressional Amendment proposals are done one at a time. No such limit on an Article V convention.
Again, I generally like the idea, but that does not stop me from being uneasy about it.
I would hope that the 13th does not get repealed — I personally despise slavery. The 14th may need some clarification between public and private “rights and privileges” though.
Article V ping.
First, why do you think the 2A is still fairly well respected by our Uniparty oppressors when other rights and constitutional clauses are not?
I betcha the state I live in...Oregon will have no part in this.
Hope most states apply!
Tha is not how an Article 5 works. The State call the convention, the States select and send delegates, 3/4ths of the States ratify the Amendment(s). Congress and The executive Branch don’t get a vote. That is the beauty of it.
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.