Posted on 05/02/2015 1:35:55 PM PDT by Jacquerie
It’ll never happen. I don’t support it. At this time I have no assurance that such a process would be controlled by trustworthy people. It has never been done before and how it might pan out is murky.
Indeed it is long passed time
Read Mark’s book
ALEC says that the state legislatures would appoint delegates. ABA says they would be elected by the state's voters.
ALEC says that an Amendments Convention is the property of the states and that Congress has no say in the matter. ABA says that Congress can regulate the amendatory process due to two Supreme Court decisions from the early 20th Century, and thus Congress can regulate an Amendments Convention.
I side with ALEC, and I'll tell you why.
According to James Madison, the Constitution and the Union were formed by the Whole People via their separate political societies, the states, as their agents. Thus, the right to alter and abolish is at all times retained by the Whole People through their states. The Constitution created Congress; Congress did not create the Constitution. Therefore, Congress has no purview in this case and no right to interfere with the Whole People should they convene the states to alter or abolish the present arrangements. An Amendments Convention is a sovereign body during the brief term of its existence, and it is beyond the regulation of Congress because it represents the sovereignty of the people, a sovereignty that supersedes that of Congress.
All you need now to “override a Supreme Court decision” is for those who serve in the other branches, who have taken an oath to SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION, not an oath to obey judges, to tell out-of-control judges to go to hell, and thereby keep said oath.
Levin’s proposed amendment is fundamentally flawed, and dangerous. It would solemnize the judiciary as the supreme branch, when the framers of the Constitution intended them to be the weakest.
As I explained and asked in my vanity, why have we never had a runaway electoral college? Both the EC and state amendments convention are entirely under state control.
Also, read post #12.
Show me something from the founders that would demonstrate their willingness and intention to give the judiciary ultimate veto and lawmaking powers.
So the out of control national politicians that drove us to this point can be counted on to reign in out of control judges.
Gotcha. Makes sense.
Obviously we’re not in trouble at all then.
Ohhhhhhhhh. Just like Congress cannot be made subservient to a President with a pen and a phone. Whew. I feel much better now.
The purpose of an Amendments Convention would be to make structural changes that would empower the states to rein in the federal entity. The government will not and can not ignore this. As a rule, it takes the federal government about a century to twist the words of the Constitution to meet its desires. This is a way to plug the holes.
At this point in time that’s irrelevant. Anything they proposed wouldn’t pass 38 states...
You have far more confidence in the state governments than I do.
I believe the state governments to be just as corrupt at this point, and just as unwilling to follow the Constitution, as the general government. The only difference is scale.
And oathbreakers will pick delegates like themselves, I think.
1 state gets 1 vote. Doesn’t matter if they send a million delegates...
So you don’t believe in federalism?
Don’t put words in my mouth. It’s dishonest.
Do you even know what federalism is?
Oh no, I was absolutely wrong. You’re totally right.
The system is not broken at all.
We just gotta reelect Boehnor, McCain, Graham, Alexander, Ayotte, Collins, Cochrane, Scalise, Hatch, Flake, McCarthy....
More Republicans, right?
Quite right.
My point is that every four years we experience an extra-congressional confab of state delegates called the Electoral College.
There is no external check on the EC.
No EC has ever ‘runaway.’
Therefore, experience shows there is little to fear from a convention of state delegates in convention.
Wouldn’t it be better use of all the money, time, and energy that is being expended on this to instead expend it electing people who will keep their oaths?
If they won’t keep their oaths now, what makes you think they will keep their oaths to keep an amended version?
Very inventive. But certainly not expressive of anything I’ve said, or anything I believe.
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.