Posted on 05/02/2015 1:35:55 PM PDT by Jacquerie
A couple of prominent conservatives have expressed concern over the possibility of a ‘runaway’ Article V state amendments convention. Such is their anxiety that runaway tyranny from Rome-on-the-Potomac pales in comparison to the possible horrors of the states getting together to relieve their people from oppression. Are these concerns fact based or irrational or somewhere in between?
An important, and likewise extra-congressional vestige of the federal system of 1787, and quite similar to an Article V state amendments convention in its constitutional foundation remains in force today. It is the familiar Electoral College (EC). Like the state amendments convention, the EC is also a specific grant of constitutional authority distinct from congress, courts and presidents. Both the EC and Article V convention are temporary, and neither can be made subservient to any branch of the government. This renders the EC and state amendments convention separate from, and superior to the three branches of government. The state amendments convention process is created by Article V; it is not a component of any of the three branches of government created by the first three articles. The limits to congressional involvement and duties are in Article V. Congress must call a convention upon applications from two thirds of the states, and determine the mode of ratification. That is all.
The EC is also loathed by liberals. Witness the National Popular Vote movement. The EC and state amendments convention processes represent end runs around liberals’ wholly owned government in Washington DC and media. The EC and an Article V convention are federal and therefore anti-democratic, which is why libs despise the EC and are working toward complete nationalization of presidential voting. Libs love democracy. Recall the 17th Amendment which turned ambassadors from the states into three-term, democratic and demagogic congressmen.
The EC and state amendments convention processes are federal remnants of a more perfect union that placed liberty preserving institutions ahead of fuzzy pablum populism, and democracy.
If you oppose a state amendments convention, do you also fear the Electoral College?
The EC is extra-congressional and completely controlled by the states. If the states are so wild and politically insane, why haven’t we had ‘runaway’ sessions of the EC? For whomever the states cast their votes is entirely up to the individual states. They can split their votes between Uniparty candidates or cast votes for Joe Blow down the street. States can modify their statutes such that their legislatures may determine for whom to vote with zero input from their citizens. The EC confab is a one-day event. Isn’t that dangerous? There is no subsequent meeting that requires approval of three fourths of attendees to implement the results. Why haven’t we experienced a runaway Electoral College?
Why hasn’t congress set down the rules the states and EC must follow? Answer: Congress has no more authority to participate in the deliberations of the EC than it does to participate in, or set the rules for an Article V state amendments convention.
No state EC delegation ever ‘ran away’ because the simple fact is that the duties of electors are defined by state statute. Replace the term ‘elector’ with ‘delegate,’ and you have a situation identical to that of an Article V amendments convention.
Delegates will serve their states. They will have no attachment to any statutory authority under the US.
Article V now, while we can.
Is it hard to type with your tongue planted on the sole of the Federal boot?
You’ve said your peace no go back into the fetal position an let patriots do the right thing.
Coleman vs Miller (307 U.S. 433) 1939
Case quotes:
* * * * *
"The Constitution grants Congress exclusive power to control submission of constitutional amendments. ..."
"The Court here treats the amending process of the Constitution in some respects as a subject to judicial construction, in others as subject to the final authority of Congress. There is no disapproval of the conclusion arrived at in Dillon v. Glass, that the Constitution impliedly requires that a properly submitted amendment must die unless ratified with a 'reasonable time.' Nor does the Court now disapprove of its prior assumption of power to make such a pronouncement. And it is not made clear that only Congress has constitutional power to determine if there is any such implication in Article V of the Constitution. On the other hand, the Court's opinion declares that Congress has the exclusive power to decide the 'political questions' of whether a State whose legislature has once acted upon a proposed amendment may subsequently reverse its position, and whether, in the circumstances of such a case as this, an amendment is dead because an 'unreasonable' time has elapsed. Such division between the political and judicial branches of the government is made by Article V which grants power over the amending of the Constitution to Congress alone. Undivided control of that process has been given by the Article exclusively and completely to Congress. The process itself is 'political' in its entirety, from submission until an amendment becomes part of the Constitution, and is not subject to judicial guidance, control or inference at any point.
Since Congress has sole and complete control over the amending process, subject to no judicial review, the views of any court upon this process cannot be binding upon Congress, and insofar as Dillon v. Glass, supra, attempts judicially to impose a limitation upon the right of Congress to determine final adoption of an amendment, its should be disapproved." ...Congress, possessing exclusive power over the amending process, cannot be bound by and is under no duty to accept the pronouncements upon that exclusive power by this Court... Neither State nor federal court can review that power. Therefore, any judicial expression amounting to more than mere acknowledgment of exclusive Congressional power over the political process of amendment is a mere admonition to the Congress in the nature of an advisory opinion, given wholly without constitutional authority."
Don’t judge every state by the standardd of the cow humpers in Iowa.
Well, I pinged Article V opponents to inform them of the foundational and federal similarity between the electoral college and an amendments convention.
We have never had a ‘runaway’ electoral college because electors are statutorily responsible to their states. For the very same reason there is no reason to fear a runaway amendments convention.
But yes, the wild comments from those who claim to support free, republican government while they simultaneously oppose an amendments convention is ridiculous.
Whether they realize or not those that oppose Art V are just fascists. Simple as that. What they are saying is the status quo must be maintained.
I had hoped that Publius' post 199 would also be directed to LibertyBorn to resolve diametrically opposite positions.
-PJ
As I already pointed out in my first post here, the Electoral Collage is not even close to a valid comparison with the authority delegates have at a convention.
However, if one recalls, the last Republican Primary, the intent by Ron Paul proponents as to subvert the electoral process and the primaries, and to stack the delegates with Ron Paul supporters.
Paul supporters were denied there obscene perversion by the GOP at the Convention, but at a Convention of the States, there will be no such authority applicable.
http://tinyurl.com/9q9u6pw (profanity)
I judge each of the states on their own merits. And even those that are known as the most conservative are primarily controlled by RINOs and their Democrat compadres.
Anyone who thinks that the GOP establishment consists only of those inside the Beltway have no idea what’s really going on. They’re just as bad at the state level as in DC, and the problem extends all the way down to the counties and precincts. As I’ve said several times on this thread, the only difference is scale.
<>Vanity (A good one)<>
I misspoke. This vanity is a particularly good one.
I’m no Ron Paul fan, but I don’t see your example the same way you do, apparently.
What happened in Tampa was the perfect example of how the RINO Republicans will pull out any stop to stack the deck and control the outcome.
Which is exactly what they would do with any constitutional convention. I don’t see how anyone could doubt that, based on their recent history.
They would rather ally themselves with the Democrats than let anything that is actually conservative occur.
How come it is Article V supporters who have felt the need to act like rhetorical jackbooted thugs throughout this thread, then?
What they are saying is the status quo must be maintained.
A pure invention of your imagination.
The status quo is going to destroy this free republic.
But the problem isn't primarily the defects of the Constitution. It's the intellectual and character defects of those who take the oath to support and defend it.
You know, the same people who would be selecting delegates to your convention.
If there is going to be tyranny then it is better at the state level. You just don’t understand, you are intellectually incapable of understanding the Constitutions is flawed simply because of our current situation. None are so blind as those that cannot see. You are defending a fascist system with a Constitutional fig leaf.
Coward.
This thread is depressing. Freepers acting so stupidly towards our current Constitutional crises. I don’t get it. “Normalcy bias” I guess.
But the people behind the COS movement have done their homework. They know about the Dillon and Coleman decisions, and how Congress will try to take control of the process using them as a pretext. They also know that if Congress tried that, it would violate the original intent of the Framers when they wrote Article V. Dr. Natelson, ALEC and the COS movement are working to occupy that legal ground before Congress can. The organizational meetings that COS has held are putting together the legal grounds for freezing Congress out of the process, which is what the Framers wanted.
The first thing that frightens the Birchers and Eagle Forum types is the possibility that the DC power structure will pervert original intent and hand the convention's organization, staffing and supervision over to Congress. The second thing they fear is the Left's plans to pervert an Amendments Convention, which shouldn't be a surprise because a successful convention would roll the federal government back to 1860. The third thing is their fear of the moral character of the American people, the fear that we are long past any capacity for self-government. I handled that directly in an earlier post.
I understand their fears, but I'm willing to try this solution. The alternative is bloodshed.
I’m sure you’re going to win lots more supporters with that approach.
/s
Honestly, EternaVigilance, how do you not see a problem with what the Ron Paul supporters did acting as delegates, presumed to recognize their responsibility to vote for the primary candidate elected in their state, but planning an delegate coup?
And you honestly consider this to be a “perfect example of how the RINO Republicans” control the outcome? Seriously?
The Paul supporters’ intent was to make a sham out of the primary process. I can understand how they felt their candidate deserved better treatment, but the fact is Ron Paul didn’t have anywhere close to the support to be a Republican candidate, and there’s a reason for that far more directly tied to Ron Paul than the excuse of the GOP.
Furthermore, if the Paul Supporters really want more legitimate government, de-legitimizing the primary process isn’t a very auspicious start.
Yes, people will corrupt the Convention of the States by similar methods, and that was my point. However my point nowhere involves the GOP allying themselves with the Democrats, as both parties are controlled by Progressive Statists.
Bookmark...
Missed this the first time around.
Thank you..
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.