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 havent 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. Isnt that dangerous? There is no subsequent meeting that requires approval of three fourths of attendees to implement the results. Why havent we experienced a runaway Electoral College?
Why hasnt 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.
Well, mostly because it was late and I wanted to make it a quick post — but look here, you've revealed yourself as not only willing, but eager, to impute upon me unthinking
/brainwashed (and ill-will?). Something I suspected given your post #239 wherein you talk out of both sides of your mouth regarding incorporation.
But, since you ask about why I disagree it is this: your assertion that wages are merely equivalent exchange of labor for money is actually the model wherein a person's labor has no intrinsic worth. You see, given a pile of wood, tools, and a laborer the resultant dog-house's value is not merely cost+labor, but cost+labor+utility. This is to say that the usefulness of the work is also a factor and why a brain-surgeon's wage is not going to be equal to a short-order cook's. — moreover, there is also the agreement with the employer (who in essence judges the utility of the laborer), there is a parable in the bible where a group of people were operating under your:
(Matthew 20:1-16)
For the Kingdom of Heaven is like the landowner who went out early one morning to hire workers for his vineyard. He agreed to pay the normal daily wage and sent them out to work.
At nine oclock in the morning he was passing through the marketplace and saw some people standing around doing nothing. So he hired them, telling them he would pay them whatever was right at the end of the day. So they went to work in the vineyard. At noon and again at three oclock he did the same thing.
At five oclock that afternoon he was in town again and saw some more people standing around. He asked them, Why havent you been working today?
They replied, Because no one hired us.
The landowner told them, Then go out and join the others in my vineyard.
That evening he told the foreman to call the workers in and pay them, beginning with the last workers first. When those hired at five oclock were paid, each received a full days wage. When those hired first came to get their pay, they assumed they would receive more. But they, too, were paid a days wage. When they received their pay, they protested to the owner, Those people worked only one hour, and yet youve paid them just as much as you paid us who worked all day in the scorching heat.
He answered one of them, Friend, I havent been unfair! Didnt you agree to work all day for the usual wage? Take your money and go. I wanted to pay this last worker the same as you. Is it against the law for me to do what I want with my money? Should you be jealous because I am kind to others?
So those who are last now will be first then, and those who are first will be last.
To assert that there is only the fundamental exchange equivalency WRT work and wage is to set up the foundation for a framework of labor-laws which would strip the hirer of the ability (a) to evaluate the utility of the labor [and laborer] and [when aggressively enforced] (b) to be generous.
A sales tax is not the same thing as a tax on personal income, and by that we've already invited the federal government "into every financial transaction" and also enabled the Social Engineering of the welfare state.
Again, I disagree — the income tax is a single point: when the laborer is paid — the sales tax is essentially every financial transaction in the commercial sector. (Also note, I've not said anything about the welfare state — that would be resolved by the move to a physically-based currency and limitation on the amount of debt that could be assumed and so becomes a non-issue in light of such an amendment.)
A tax on income is undeniably a direct tax to the individual, and as required by the Constitution, even after the 16th Amendment, all (other) direct taxes must be applied the States proportionally.
The graduated/progressive income tax is therefore a violation — while it could be argued that a flat tax rate is proportional (on income, rather than the debt's amount). Amendment 16 says: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. — by that, it seems that a income tax may indeed be without proportion.
Ah, and does that not stink more? After all the power of presentment is mentioned in Amendment 5, so to remove it should require a Constitutional amendment, no?
Much like the decision of Sparf, the right of nullification by the jury exists but there's no obligation to inform of the right... and the judge can apparently declare a mistrial if it is brought up by an officer of the court. So, by forced ignorance, the right is lost.
But, in short, I do not believe that the current relation of the government to the jury (either grand or petite) is healthy or as it should be. You yourself brought up the indict a ham sandwich
saying, and that is directly a result of stripping away the power of presentment because all that leaves the Grand Jury with is the indictment. So, like the Federal Reserve whose only tool is print money!
the grand jury can only indict under this system. As for petite juries, nullification was mentioned, but there's also the will you convict even if you disagree with the law?
questionnaire and judges have been known to deny them access to the text of the law.
In short, I do not believe that the juries should be subordinate/dependent on the government — to do so is to make them into rubber-stamp appearance-of-legitimacy style organizations beholden to the government [which even you must agree is corrupt] rather than actually being about justice.
First off, Section V of the proposal means that this is not an ad hoc group, but rather sets forth the means by which a valid grand jury is to be instituted. Moreover, Section 4 obviously does not prohibit the members of a Grand Jury from facing justice as well as preventing the courts from meddling with the composition thereof. — As far as I can tell you wish that the grand jury is placed squarely in subordination to the judiciary.
If the grand jury's composition and actions are restricted to those acts and members which the judiciary approves, is it at all unreasonable to assume that their actions and membership will be constrained to that which profits the judge? And if so, then is it not exceedingly unlikely that a criminal wearing a black robe, wrapping himself in law, will ever be brought to justice (especially as they gather to themselves more and more power)?
OneWingedShark: "Again, I disagree the income tax is a single point: when the laborer is paid the sales tax is essentially every financial transaction in the commercial sector. (Also note, I've not said anything about the welfare state that would be resolved by the move to a physically-based currency and limitation on the amount of debt that could be assumed and so becomes a non-issue in light of such an amendment."
Congratulations, you've just presented the federal government's own rationalization by which it not only enslaved every one of us, but also reduced our labor to having no value.
As I've indicated, in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, despite the existence of the 16th Amendment
Either a constitutional amendment alters the Constitution or it does not, if the former then to say The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
means that the Congress has that power regardless of what the previous state of the Constitution was, correct? Now, given that it says without apportionment
this means that the power so referred is not bound by apportionment; and to say without regard to any census or enumeration
means that it is without regard to census or enumeration.
That the court says it gave no new powers is irrelevant and misleading — the removal of qualifications/restrictions on the power of taxation is technically not granting a new power… but it certainly is expanding the power into scopes it previously was not and to those areas which it was previously forbidden the power is new
. (Just like breaking a dam and letting water into a new area does not create new water might indeed create a new lake which is, indeed, water.)
I would be fascinated to hear specifically HOW I might be "talking out of both sides of my mouth" regarding 14th Amendment incorporation.
Where you say: That doctrine of "incorporation" was only the "magic" fabrication by which the Federal government justified its usurpation of an authority to police rights when those rights were specifically listed in the Constitution to exclude any federal government action whatsoever. However those rights themselves are also equally applicable to the States themselves.
What you are doing is validating the textual transformation of the Constitution and applying it w/o an amendment. — i.e. the "magic" of a living constitution
as 'enlivened' by judicial activism rather than actual amendment. *spit*
In short, words mean things, to take the 1st and alter "Congress" to mean any portion of government, federal or state
is to deny the possible necessity of an actual amendment. (After all, if it is based on a preexisting right, and all such rights are applicable to both federal and state then that right must apply to the State as well, right? So, if there is, eg, a right to marriage then the Courts can obviously impose homosexual marriage, right?) Not at all.
Or, to put it another way, not all of the preexisting rights are natural. The 7th amendment provides a jury trial for common law controversies exceeding $20 — is there some human property that makes $20 relevant? Is there some magic to a jury trial? (The primary advantage of the jury is, in fact, that they are distinct and separate from the judge and, as they decide the verdict, removing from them a large temptation towards corruption.)
Moreover, the Bill of Rights was a creation of the states to be applied "against" the federal government — this is obvious from the preamble:THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added
Finally, incorporation is terrible because it elevates the courts above the Constitution. We've already seen that they elevate themselves above the law, so why not the supreme law?
I believe it would be a difficult debate to argue we are not all habituated to dutifully pay income tax, with both politicians and private individuals telling us it is our patriotic duty. I merely indicated that your argument seemed (at that point) to be inured to paying income tax by your indication that it should be limited at a certain percentage, and then followed up by an argument of what I strongly believe the founder's original intent to have been: that taxation on wages was a direct tax and that had to be applied to the states according to the census of enumeration. Not only does this deliberate hurdle prevent the federal government from exercising agendas involving individuals, but it also protects the fact that only the States themselves have direct authority on the citizenry.
Hm, I see what you mean.
I still believe that a national sales-tax would be setting up for something far, far worse.
I wouldn't be opposed to the federal government taxing the states who then collect in the manner they chose, but even with that I believe that their power should be limited: no graduated rates, no seizing of property prior to conviction, a limit to the maximum any income tax might have — IOW, the things addressed in my proposed amendment.
OneWingedShark: "First off, Section V of the proposal means that this is not an ad hoc group, but rather sets forth the means by which a valid grand jury is to be instituted. Moreover, Section 4 obviously does not prohibit the members of a Grand Jury from facing justice as well as preventing the courts from meddling with the composition thereof. As far as I can tell you wish that the grand jury is placed squarely in subordination to the judiciary."Malarkey! Section V of your proposed Grand Jury amendment indicates that, "The local Sheriff of each county shall appoint the members of the federal Grand Jury for that county.." If somehow you imagine that the Sheriff appointing them makes this group not be any sort of "ad hoc" group, and one deliberately chosen for their beliefs, you're off your rocker! What you've provided license for is those angry mobs in Ferguson to be their own grand jury, provided they only can force someone of like-mind into the office of Sheriff. Then you further worsen an extremely bad idea by making the duration of that Grand Jury, appointed by a single person, be the duration of that Sheriff's own term in office -- creating nothing but a "King's Court". Nice job! We need more tiny fiefdoms; that will surely fix everything!
OneWingedShark: "Either a constitutional amendment alters the Constitution or it does not, if the former then to sayThe Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.means that the Congress has that power regardless of what the previous state of the Constitution was, correct? Now, given that it sayswithout apportionmentthis means that the power so referred is not bound by apportionment; and to saywithout regard to any census or enumerationmeans that it is without regard to census or enumeration."
OneWingedShark writes about the "incorporation" of Rights to be applicable to the States, "What you are doing is validating the textual transformation of the Constitution and applying it w/o an amendment. i.e. the "magic" of a living constitution as 'enlivened' by judicial activism rather than actual amendment. *spit* "
OneWingedShark: "Or, to put it another way, not all of the preexisting rights are natural. The 7th amendment provides a jury trial for common law controversies exceeding $20 is there some human property that makes $20 relevant? Is there some magic to a jury trial? (The primary advantage of the jury is, in fact, that they are distinct and separate from the judge and, as they decide the verdict, removing from them a large temptation towards corruption.) "
OneWingedShark: "Finally, incorporation is terrible because it elevates the courts above the Constitution. We've already seen that they elevate themselves above the law, so why not the supreme law? "
By basing your currency on a physical item you necessarily constrain the maximum availability to that which exists and the difficulty of obtaining the material — scarcity is exactly that realization.
If the amount of debt which can be accumulated is tied to the amount of that physical commodity, then the amount which can come into welfare is necessarily constrained.
However the Article V proponents entirely IGNORE those existing enumerated powers, instead implicitly validating unrestrained government operating outside the prescribed limits of those powers by their proposed amendments. That is unconscionable, exceedingly ignorant and creates an unrecoverable destruction to our Liberty.
Really?
If, for example, the courts usurp the power to regulate intrastate commerce and it becomes entrenched into the legal-system to such a degree that it becomes enshrined into laws — how does one turn that back? Especially when the tainted poison has been accepted to all branches of the government and dissenting views are essentially denied because it lacks standing
. (Shut up, peon: the constitution means what we say it does! Get back in line and quit rocking the boat!
)
There's no direct correlation whatsoever between the existence of a welfare state and the currency not being tied to a commodity.
But there is a correlation between incurring debt to support welfare and the welfare state. Granted, if you limit what is spent on welfare to payable income you can have some sort of welfare state, but limited… but having an actual limit keeps means that some welfare program cannot be expanded to the "unsustainable" proportions that define a welfare state
. In that manner limiting the amount of debt, and the currency, constrains the beast that is welfare.
OneWingedShark: "First off, Section V of the proposal means that this is not an ad hoc group, but rather sets forth the means by which a valid grand jury is to be instituted. Moreover, Section 4 obviously does not prohibit the members of a Grand Jury from facing justice as well as preventing the courts from meddling with the composition thereof. As far as I can tell you wish that the grand jury is placed squarely in subordination to the judiciary."Malarkey! Section V of your proposed Grand Jury amendment indicates that, "The local Sheriff of each county shall appoint the members of the federal Grand Jury for that county.." If somehow you imagine that the Sheriff appointing them makes this group not be any sort of "ad hoc" group, and one deliberately chosen for their beliefs, you're off your rocker!
Oh, does this mean that the cabinet is ad hoc because the President makes the appointments? Ridiculous!
What you've provided license for is those angry mobs in Ferguson to be their own grand jury, provided they only can force someone of like-mind into the office of Sheriff.
First, the Sheriff is one of the biggest checks against contraconstitutional government there is, he can stop federal agents and send them packing. (Link)
Second, given that this moves the grand jury from the purview of the federal courts to that of local law-enforcement this makes cases against the federal government enter the realm of possibility again.
Third, I've not said anywhere that any of my ideas are without danger — but given that without changes those in power are disinclined to surrender that power [and likely will need to have it wrested away by force of arms] the dangers are minimal compared to rolling over and accepting the status quo even as it slides ever towards tyranny.
I apologize for my lack of diplomacy in needing to state this so directly, but this idea is nothing short of galactically stupid.
No, continuing to allow the federal government to reign in supremacy especially where the supremacy clause gives no legitimacy is galactically stupid. In order to change that, we need to unchain the institutions they have bound up and bind up the tyrannies that their usurpations have unbound.
Your side comment section on the Grand Juries, already shows you do not understand grand juries, the legal system, common law, and the Magna Carta, all while fabricating your own history of this country. This is only part of why having an Article V convention right now is such an extremely bad idea, ignoring those who fully intend the overthrow of our form of government, not just doing so by unintended ignorance.
Then enlighten me; all you've done so far is assert that I'm wrong.
I do not want an appeal to what we're doing now, I don't even want an appeal to what we've done for 50 or 100 years.
Show me where the Magna Carta and the history there is wrong.
No, the recognition of Rights being applicable to the States involves no such "textual transformation of the Constitution", but rather only necessitates a valid understanding of that document. In FACT the Bill of Rights does not CREATE those rights, but only references them in regard to the construction of the federal government itself, which is the business of the Constitution! Even as indicated in the 9th Amendment itself, there are further rights not so enumerated by the Constitution.
Nowhere did I assert that rights just come from the Bill of Rights.
In fact, your constant assertion that I do assert this, even implicitly, makes me question your intellectual honesty in this discussion.
I believe natural rights exist, and I believe that the Bill of Rights is a codification of the guarantee of recognition of those rights — but, again, not all of those rights mentioned therein are natural rights. A Jury-trial, for example, is not a natural right because it is not inherent in the nature of man — the right to have an opinion and make it known, that is a natural right... the right not to have the law's changes applied retroactively is a natural right, because man is not recognizance and adhering to the whole law today even should it change tomorrow is the best that man can do and man cannot [in general] see in the future what is legal today that might be illegal tomorrow.
But I have not been talking about natural rights, in general, though they do underlie many of the proposed changes:
No tax, fee, fine, or judgement federal, State, or subdivision of either shall ever be withheld from any wage.— acknowledges the right a worker has to his wage.
No property shall be seized for failure to pay taxes until after conviction in a jury trial; the right of the jury to nullify (and thereby forgive) this debt shall never be questioned or denied.— Reiterates what the 5th Amendment recognizes: that the stripping of property w/o conviction is unjust.
No income tax levied by the federal government, the several States, or any subdivision of either shall ever apply varying rates to those in its jurisdiction.and
No federal employee, representative, senator, judge, justice or agent shall ever be exempt from any tax, fine, or fee by virtue of their position.— reiterates the classical jurisprudence maxim that all are equal before the law.
OneWingedShark: "By basing your currency on a physical item you necessarily constrain the maximum availability to that which exists and the difficulty of obtaining the material scarcity is exactly that realization."
"Really?
If, for example, the courts usurp the power to regulate intrastate commerce and it becomes entrenched into the legal-system to such a degree that it becomes enshrined into laws how does one turn that back? Especially when the tainted poison has been accepted to all branches of the government and dissenting views are essentially denied because itlacks standing. (Shut up, peon: the constitution means what we say it does! Get back in line and quit rocking the boat!)"
OneWingedShark: "But there is a correlation between incurring debt to support welfare and the welfare state. Granted, if you limit what is spent on welfare to payable income you can have some sort of welfare state, but limited but having an actual limit keeps means that some welfare program cannot be expanded to the "unsustainable" proportions that define awelfare state. In that manner limiting the amount of debt, and the currency, constrains the beast that is welfare. "
OneWingedShark: "Oh, does this mean that the cabinet is ad hoc because the President makes the appointments? Ridiculous! "
OneSingedWhark: "First, the Sheriff is one of the biggest checks against contraconstitutional government there is, he can stop federal agents and send them packing. (Link)
Second, given that this moves the grand jury from the purview of the federal courts to that of local law-enforcement this makes cases against the federal government enter the realm of possibility again.
Third, I've not said anywhere that any of my ideas are without danger but given that without changes those in power are disinclined to surrender that power [and likely will need to have it wrested away by force of arms] the dangers are minimal compared to rolling over and accepting the status quo even as it slides ever towards tyranny. "
OneWingedShark: "No, continuing to allow the federal government to reign in supremacy especially where the supremacy clause gives no legitimacy is galactically stupid. In order to change that, we need to unchain the institutions they have bound up and bind up the tyrannies that their usurpations have unbound."
OneWIngedShark (regarding Grand Juries): "Then enlighten me; all you've done so far is assert that I'm wrong.
I do not want an appeal to what we're doing now, I don't even want an appeal to what we've done for 50 or 100 years.
Show me where the Magna Carta and the history there is wrong."
OneWingedShark (In reference to 14th Amendment's "incorporation" of rights for the States): "Nowhere did I assert that rights just come from the Bill of Rights.
In fact, your constant assertion that I do assert this, even implicitly, makes me question your intellectual honesty in this discussion."
OneWIngedShark: "I believe natural rights exist, and I believe that the Bill of Rights is a codification of the guarantee of recognition of those rights but, again, not all of those rights mentioned therein are natural rights. A Jury-trial, for example, is not a natural right because it is not inherent in the nature of man the right to have an opinion and make it known, that is a natural right... the right not to have the law's changes applied retroactively is a natural right, because man is not recognizance and adhering to the whole law today even should it change tomorrow is the best that man can do and man cannot [in general] see in the future what is legal today that might be illegal tomorrow."It's great that you believe natural rights exist, but what your personal belief may be is irrelevant to my certainty I will not have those rights forfeit by others ignorant actions.
OneWingedShark: "But I have not been talking about natural rights, in general, though they do underlie many of the proposed changes:
No tax, fee, fine, or judgement federal, State, or subdivision of either shall ever be withheld from any wage. acknowledges the right a worker has to his wage. No property shall be seized for failure to pay taxes until after conviction in a jury trial; the right of the jury to nullify (and thereby forgive) this debt shall never be questioned or denied. Reiterates what the 5th Amendment recognizes: that the stripping of property w/o conviction is unjust. No income tax levied by the federal government, the several States, or any subdivision of either shall ever apply varying rates to those in its jurisdiction.andNo federal employee, representative, senator, judge, justice or agent shall ever be exempt from any tax, fine, or fee by virtue of their position. reiterates the classical jurisprudence maxim that all are equal before the law.- Fiscal Responsibility Amendment Limits what another can do in you name, preventing them from inbebting you to the point of slavery.
- Commerce Clause Amendment Sets limits on a power that has been taken wildly out of context. (Have you ever noticed that the interstate commerce lies betwixt foreign and domestic nations? This means that it is the same power over import/export.)
OneWingedShark: "In fact, I find it interesting that you are so vehement against the Grand Jury amendment are you perchance a judge or lawyer? &mdsah; and instead of being at all constructive in your criticism, you seek to tear down and quite frankly insult me and my work. "
OneWingedShark: "By basing your currency on a physical item you necessarily constrain the maximum availability to that which exists and the difficulty of obtaining the material scarcity is exactly that realization."
"Really?
If, for example, the courts usurp the power to regulate intrastate commerce and it becomes entrenched into the legal-system to such a degree that it becomes enshrined into laws how does one turn that back? Especially when the tainted poison has been accepted to all branches of the government and dissenting views are essentially denied because itlacks standing. (Shut up, peon: the constitution means what we say it does! Get back in line and quit rocking the boat!)"
OneWingedShark: "But there is a correlation between incurring debt to support welfare and the welfare state. Granted, if you limit what is spent on welfare to payable income you can have some sort of welfare state, but limited but having an actual limit keeps means that some welfare program cannot be expanded to the "unsustainable" proportions that define awelfare state. In that manner limiting the amount of debt, and the currency, constrains the beast that is welfare. "
OneWingedShark: "Oh, does this mean that the cabinet is ad hoc because the President makes the appointments? Ridiculous! "
OneSingedWhark: "First, the Sheriff is one of the biggest checks against contraconstitutional government there is, he can stop federal agents and send them packing. (Link)
Second, given that this moves the grand jury from the purview of the federal courts to that of local law-enforcement this makes cases against the federal government enter the realm of possibility again.
Third, I've not said anywhere that any of my ideas are without danger but given that without changes those in power are disinclined to surrender that power [and likely will need to have it wrested away by force of arms] the dangers are minimal compared to rolling over and accepting the status quo even as it slides ever towards tyranny. "
OneWingedShark: "No, continuing to allow the federal government to reign in supremacy especially where the supremacy clause gives no legitimacy is galactically stupid. In order to change that, we need to unchain the institutions they have bound up and bind up the tyrannies that their usurpations have unbound."
OneWIngedShark (regarding Grand Juries): "Then enlighten me; all you've done so far is assert that I'm wrong.
I do not want an appeal to what we're doing now, I don't even want an appeal to what we've done for 50 or 100 years.
Show me where the Magna Carta and the history there is wrong."
OneWingedShark (In reference to 14th Amendment's "incorporation" of rights for the States): "Nowhere did I assert that rights just come from the Bill of Rights.
In fact, your constant assertion that I do assert this, even implicitly, makes me question your intellectual honesty in this discussion."
OneWIngedShark: "I believe natural rights exist, and I believe that the Bill of Rights is a codification of the guarantee of recognition of those rights but, again, not all of those rights mentioned therein are natural rights. A Jury-trial, for example, is not a natural right because it is not inherent in the nature of man the right to have an opinion and make it known, that is a natural right... the right not to have the law's changes applied retroactively is a natural right, because man is not recognizance and adhering to the whole law today even should it change tomorrow is the best that man can do and man cannot [in general] see in the future what is legal today that might be illegal tomorrow."It's great that you believe natural rights exist, but what your personal belief may be is irrelevant to my certainty I will not have those rights forfeit by others ignorant actions.
OneWingedShark: "But I have not been talking about natural rights, in general, though they do underlie many of the proposed changes:
No tax, fee, fine, or judgement federal, State, or subdivision of either shall ever be withheld from any wage. acknowledges the right a worker has to his wage. No property shall be seized for failure to pay taxes until after conviction in a jury trial; the right of the jury to nullify (and thereby forgive) this debt shall never be questioned or denied. Reiterates what the 5th Amendment recognizes: that the stripping of property w/o conviction is unjust. No income tax levied by the federal government, the several States, or any subdivision of either shall ever apply varying rates to those in its jurisdiction.andNo federal employee, representative, senator, judge, justice or agent shall ever be exempt from any tax, fine, or fee by virtue of their position. reiterates the classical jurisprudence maxim that all are equal before the law.- Fiscal Responsibility Amendment Limits what another can do in you name, preventing them from inbebting you to the point of slavery.
- Commerce Clause Amendment Sets limits on a power that has been taken wildly out of context. (Have you ever noticed that the interstate commerce lies betwixt foreign and domestic nations? This means that it is the same power over import/export.)
OneWingedShark: "In fact, I find it interesting that you are so vehement against the Grand Jury amendment are you perchance a judge or lawyer? &mdsah; and instead of being at all constructive in your criticism, you seek to tear down and quite frankly insult me and my work. "
Alaska (2014), Arizona(1996), Arkansas(1977), Delaware(1994), Colorado(1992), Georgia(2014), Idaho(1989), Indiana(1979), Iowa(1979), Kansas(1978), Maryland(1977), Mississippi(1979), Missouri(1994), Nebraska(2010), Nevada(1996), New Hampshire(2012), New Mexico(1979), North Carolina(1979), North Dakota(2015), Oklahoma(1980), Oregon(1979), Pennsylvania(1979), South Carolina(1979), South Dakota(2015), Tennessee(2014), Texas(1979), Utah(1979), Virginia(1977), Wyoming(1963)Take note, most of these calls are 35 years or older. (Imagine the anger to ensue if the Constitution were overthrown under these terms.)
State | Issue/Subject | Date of State's Approval | Reference to Proposal's Text | Class |
---|---|---|---|---|
Virginia | Bill of Rights | November 14, 1788 | AC V.1 258-259 | (II) |
New York | Bill of Rights | February 5, 1789 | AC V.1 282Text | (II) |
Georgia | Clarify Amendment X | December 12, 1832 | J HR V22.2 270-271 | |
South Carolina | Clarify Amendment X | December 19, 1832 | J HR V22.2 219-220 | |
Alabama | Limitation on Tariffs | January 12, 1833 | J HR V22.2 361-362 | II |
New Jersey | Final Resolution for Slavery | February 1, 1861 | CG V. 36.2 p. 681 | (II) |
Kentucky | Final Resolution for Slavery | February 5, 1861 | CG V.36.2 p. 773 | (II) |
Illinois | Final Resolution for Slavery | February 28, 1861 | CG V.36.2 p. 1270 | (??) |
Indiana | General | March 13, 1861? | CG V.37.S 1465-6 | I |
Ohio | General | March 20, 1861 | 1861 Ohio Laws 181 | I |
Nebraska | Direct Election of Senators, Other | April 14, 1893 | 1893 Neb. Laws 466-7 | III |
Texas | General Convention | June 5, 1899 | CR V.33 p.219 | I |
Minnesota | Direct Election of Senators, Other | February 13, 1901 | CR V.34 p.2561 | (III) |
Pennsylvania | Direct Election of Senators, II | February 13, 1901 | CR V.45 p.7118 | (III) |
Idaho | Direct Election of President, Vice-President and Senators | February 14, 1901 | CR V.45 p.7114 | |
Montana | Direct Election of Senators, II Direct Election of Senators, II |
February 21, 1901 January 31, 1905 |
CR V.35 p.208 CR V.39 p.2447 |
|
Oregon | Direct Election of Senators, Other Direct Election of Senators, I Direct Election of Senators, Other |
February 23, 1901 March 10, 1903 January 26, 1909 |
CR V.35 p.117 CR V.45 p.7118 CR V.43 p.2025 |
|
Tennessee | Direct Election of Senators, II Direct Election of Senators, Other |
March 27, 1901 March 14, 1905 |
CR V.35 p.2344 CR V.45 p.7119 |
|
Colorado | Direct Election of Senators, I | April 1, 1901 | CR V.45 p.7113 | (II) |
Michigan | Direct Election of Senators, Other | April 9, 1901 | CR V.35 p.117 | (III) |
Texas | Direct Election of Senators, I | April 17, 1901 | CR V.45 p.7119 | (II) |
Arkansas | Direct Election of Senators, Other | April 25, 1901 | CR V.45 p.7113 | (III) |
Kentucky | Direct Election of Senators, II | February 10, 1902 | CR V.45 p.7115 | (III) |
Illinois | Direct Election of Senators, I Direct Election of Senators, Other |
February 10, 1903 May 23, 1907 |
CR V.45 p.7114 CR V.42 p.164 |
(II) (III) |
Nevada | Direct Election of Senators, II | February 25, 1903 | CR V.37 p.24 | (III) |
Utah | Direct Election of Senators, I | March 12, 1903 | CR V.45 p.7119 | |
Washington | Direct Election of Senators, Other | March 12, 1903 | CR V.45 p.7119 | (II) |
Nebraska | Direct Election of Senators, I | March 25, 1903 | CR V.45 p.7116-7 | (III) |
Iowa | Direct Election of Senators, I | March 24, 1904 | CR V.38 p.4959 | (III) |
Missouri | Direct Election of Senators, II | March 18, 1905 | CR V.40 p.1905 | (III) |
South Dakota | Direct Election of Senators, Other Direct Election of Senators, I |
February 2, 1907 February 9, 1909 |
CR V.41 p.1907 CR V.43 p.2667-2668 |
(III) (III) |
Delaware | Anti-Polygamy | February 11, 1907 | CR V.41 p.3011 | III |
Missouri | General Convention | March 6, 1907 | CR V.45 p.7116 | I |
Indiana | Direct Election of Senators, Other | March 11, 1907 | CR V.45 p.7114 | (II) |
Iowa | Direct Election of Senators, Other | March 12, 1907 | CR V.45 p.7114-5 | (II) |
Nevada | Direct Election of Senators, I | March 23, 1907 | CR V.42 p.163 | (II) |
New Jersey | Direct Election of Senators, I | May 28, 1907 | CR V.42 p.164 | (III) |
Louisiana | Direct Election of Senators, Other | November 25, 1907 | CR V.42 p.5906 | |
Oklahoma | Direct Election of Senators, Other | January 20, 1908 | CR V.45 p.7117-8 | |
South Dakota | Anti-Polygamy | February 6, 1909 | CR V.43 p.2670 | III |
Kansas | Direct Election of Senators, I | March 6, 1909 | CR V.45 p.7115 | (II) |
Wisconsin | Direct Election of Senators, I | May 31, 1910? | CR V.45 p.7119-20 | (III) |
Washington | Anti-Polygamy | September 1, 1910 | CR V.46 p.651 | III |
Montana | Direct Election of Senators, Other | January 20, 1911? | CR V.46 p.2411 | |
Tennessee | Anti-Polygamy | February 17, 1911 | CR V.47 p.187 | |
Maine | Direct Election of Senators, Other | February 22, 1911 | CR V.46 p.4280 | (III) |
Montana | Anti-Polygamy | March 1, 1911 | CR V.47 p.98-9 | |
Nebraska | Anti-Polygamy | March 14, 1911 | CR V.47 p.99 | III |
Ohio | Anti-Polygamy | March 15, 1911 | CR V.47 p.660-1 | III |
Illinois | Anti-Monopoly | May 11, 1911 | CR V.47 p.1298 | III |
Wisconsin | General Convention | June 12, 1911? | CR V.47 p.1873 | I |
California | Direct Election of Senators, I | June 13, 1911? | CR V.47 p.2000 | (??) |
Vermont | Anti-Polygamy | December 18, 1912 | CR V.49 p.1433 | III |
Oregon | Anti-Polygamy | January 20, 1913 | CR V.49 p.2463 | |
Illinois | Anti-Polygamy | March 12, 1913 | CR V.50 p.121 | III |
Wisconsin | Anti-Polygamy | March 26, 1913 | CR V.50 p.42-3 | III |
Missouri | Supreme Court Jurisdiction | April 15, 1913 | CR V.50 p.2428 | III |
Michigan | Anti-Polygamy | July 2, 1913 | CR V.50 p.2290 | III |
South Carolina | Anti-Polygamy | February 15, 1915 | CR V.53 p.242 | |
Louisiana | Mode of Amendment, Other | January 12, 1920? | CR V.60 p.31 | |
Nevada | Anti-Prohibition | December 7, 1925? | CR V.67 p.458 | (??) |
Wisconsin | Direct Election of President and VP | December 7, 1925? | CR V.67 p.458 | ?? |
Wisconsin | Article V Conditions Met | September 23, 1929? | CR V.71 p.3856 |
|
New Jersey | Anti-Prohibition | February 1, 1931? | CR V.75 p.3299 | (III) |
Massachusetts | Anti-Prohibition | March 13, 1931? | CR V.75 p.45 | (III) |
New York | Anti-Prohibition | December 8, 1931? | CR V.75 p.48 | (IV) |
Wisconsin | Anti-Prohibition | December 23, 1931? | CR V.75 p.57 | (III) |
California | Tax on Government Securities | January 7, 1935 | CR V.79 p.10814 | III |
California | Federal Labor Laws | January 7, 1935 | CR V.79 p.10814 | III |
Oregon | General Welfare Act of 1937 | January 7, 1939? | CR V.84 p.985 | |
Wyoming | Income Tax, Limit II | March 8, 1939? | CR V.84 p.2509-10 | |
Maryland | Income Tax, Limit II | March 27, 1939? | CR V.84 p.3320 | III |
Rhode Island | Income Tax, Limit I | March 26, 1940? | CR V.86 p.3407 | III |
Maine | Income Tax, Limit I | April 17, 1941 | CR V.87 p.3370-1 | |
Iowa | Income Tax, Limit II | April 18, 1941? | CR V.87 p.3172 | III |
Massachusetts | Income Tax, Limit I | April 29, 1941 | CR V.87 p.3812-3 | |
Michigan | Income Tax, Limit I | May 16, 1941? | CR V.87 p.4537 | III |
Iowa | Presidential Term Limits | March 26, 1943? | CR V.89 p.2516 | (III) |
Illinois | Presidential Term Limits | March 26, 1943? | CR V.89 p.2516-7 | (III) |
Michigan | Presidential Term Limits | March 26, 1943? | CR V.89 p.2944 | (III) |
New Hampshire | Income Tax, II | April 29, 1943? | CR V.89 p.3761-2 | |
Delaware | Income Tax, Limit I | May 3, 1943? | CR V.89 p.4017 | III |
Illinois | Income Tax, Limit II | May 26, 1943 | CR V.98 p.742-3 | |
Pennsylvania | Limited Funding Mandates, Various | May 27, 1943 | CR V.89 p.8220 | III |
Pennsylvania | Income Tax, Limit II | May 27, 1943? | CR V.89 p.8220 | III |
Alabama | Income Tax, Limit I | June 8, 1943 | CR V.89 p.7523-4 | III |
Wisconsin | Presidential Term Limits | September 14, 1943? | CR V.89 p.7525 | (III) |
Wisconsin | Income Tax, Limit I | September 14, 1943? | CR V.89 p.7524 | III |
New Jersey | Income Tax, Limit I | February 25, 1944 | CR V.97 p.10973 | |
Kentucky | Income Tax, Limit I | March 20, 1944 | CR V.90 p.4040-1 | |
Arkansas | Income Tax, Limit II | March 28, 1945 | CR V.98 p.742 | III |
California | World Federation | April 19, 1949? | CR V.95 p.4568-9 | IV |
North Carolina | World Federation | April 20, 1949 | CR V.95 p.6587-8 | IV |
New Jersey | World Federation | April 20, 1949? | CR V.95 p.4571 | IV |
Michigan | Revenue Sharing, II | May 5, 1949? | CR V.89 p.5628-9 | IV |
Florida | World Federation | May 16, 1949 | CR V.95 p.7000 | |
Nebraska | Revenue Sharing, II | May 25, 1949 | CR V.95 p.7893-4 | |
Connecticut | World Federation | June 1, 1949 | CR V.95 p.7689 | IV |
Kansas | Income Tax, Limit I | March 8, 1951 | CR V.97 p.2936 | III |
Iowa | Revenue Sharing, II | May 9, 1951? | CR V.97 p.3939-40 | IV |
Florida | Income Tax, Limit I | May 10, 1951? | CR V.97 p.5155-6 | |
Maine | Revenue Sharing, II | June 4, 1951? | CR V.97 p.6033-4 | IV |
New Hampshire | Revenue Sharing, II | August 28, 1951 | CR V.97 p.10716 | |
Georgia | Limited Treaty Powers, Various | January 29, 1952 | CR V.98 p.1057 | |
Georgia | Income Tax, Limit I | February 6, 1952 | CR V.98 p.1057 | |
New Mexico | Revenue Sharing, II | February 11, 1952? | CR V.98 p.947-8 | IV |
Utah | Income Tax, Limit I | February 11, 1952? | CR V.98 p.947 | |
Indiana | Income Tax, Limit II Income Tax, Limit II |
February 18, 1952? May 12, 1957 |
CR V.98 p.1056-7 CR V.103 p.6474 |
III III |
Virginia | Income Tax, Limit I | February 21, 1952 | CR V.98 p.1496 | III |
California | Motor Vehicle Tax Distribution | February 22, 1952? | CR V.98 p.4003-4 | III |
Louisiana | Income Tax, Limit I | January 13, 1953? | CR V.99 p.320 | |
South Dakota | Mode of Amendment, Other Mode of Amendment, by 12 States Mode of Amendment, Identical Text |
March 5, 1953 February 15, 1955 March 2, 1963 |
CR V.99 p.9180-1 CR V.101 p.2861-2 CR V.109 p.14638-9 |
|
Illinois | Mode of Amendment, Other Mode of Amendment, Identical Text |
June 25, 1953 March 5, 1963? |
CR V.97 p.9864 CR V.109 p.3788 |
IV III |
Georgia | School Management, States' Right School Management, States' Right School Management, States' Right |
January 31, 1955 February 5, 1959 March 4, 1965 |
CR V.101 p.1532 CR V.105 p.1834 CR V.111 p.5817 |
|
Texas | Mode of Amendment, by 12 States Mode of Amendment, Identical Text |
March 14, 1955? April 4, 1963 |
CR V.101 p.2770-1 CR V.109 p.11852 |
IV III |
Oklahoma | Income Tax, Limit Other | May 23, 1955 | CR V.101 p.8397-8 | |
Idaho | Mode of Amendment, by 12 States | April 1, 1956? | CR V.103 p.4831 | |
Michigan | Mode of Amendment, by 12 States | April 4, 1956 | CR V.102 p.7241 | IV |
Indiana | Mode of Amendment, by 12 States | March 12, 1957 | CR V.103 p.6471-2 | IV |
Indiana | Limited Treaty Powers, Various | May 12, 1957 | CR V.103 p.6472-3 | III |
Indiana | Proportional Electoral College, Other | May 12, 1957 | CR V.103 p.6473 | III |
Indiana | Balanced Budget, Other Balanced Budget, Other |
May 12, 1957 January 26, 1976? |
CR V.103 p.6475 CR V.122 p.931 |
III III |
Florida | Supreme Court Review, Other | June 5, 1957 | CR V.103 p.12787 | |
Alabama | Judicial Term Limits | June 25, 1957 | CR V.103 p.10863 | III |
Connecticut | Prohibit Interstate Income Tax | May 6, 1958? | CR V.104 p.8085-6 | III |
Alabama | Limited Federal Preemption | January 1, 1959? | CR V.105 p.3083 | III |
Wyoming | Limit Federal Powers | February 20, 1959? | CR V.105 p.3085 | |
Arkansas | Validity of 14th Amendment | March 18, 1959? | CR V.105 p.4398 | III |
Nevada | Limit Federal Powers | March 11, 1960 | CR V.105 p.10749 | III |
Louisiana | Limit Federal Powers | June 11, 1960? | CR V.105 p.14401 | |
Arkansas | Supreme Court Review, Other | February 2, 1961 | CR V.107 p.2154 | III |
Wyoming | Balanced Budget, Other Balanced Budget, Emergency |
February 21, 1961 February 8, 1979? |
CR V.107 p.2759 CR V.125 p.2116 |
|
Georgia | Supreme Court Review, Other | March 9, 1961? | CR V.107 p.4715 | |
South Carolina | Limit Federal Powers | March 11, 1962? | CR V.108 p.5051 | |
Oklahoma | Mode of Amendment, Identical Text | January 21, 1963 | CR V.109 p.1172 | |
Oklahoma | Apportionment of Legislature, I | January 21, 1963 | CR V.109 p.1172-3 | |
Kansas | Mode of Amendment, Identical Text | January 31, 1963 | CR V.109 p.2769 | |
Kansas | Apportionment of Legislature, I | January 31, 1963 | CR V.109 p.2769 | |
Florida | Supreme Court Review, Court of the Union | February 5, 1963 | CR V.109 p.2071-2 | |
Florida | Mode of Amendment, Identical Text | February 5, 1963 | CR V.109 p.2072 | |
Wyoming | Apportionment of Legislature, I | February 9, 1963 | CR V.109 p.4779 | |
Nevada | Apportionment of Legislature, I | February 12, 1963 February 17, 1965? |
CR V.109 p.9942 | III |
Wyoming | Supreme Court Review, Court of the Union | February 14, 1963 | CR V.109 p.4778-9 | |
Idaho | Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II |
February 14, 1963? January 26, 1965? |
CR V.109 p.2281 CR V.111 p.1229 |
|
Wyoming | Mode of Amendment, Identical Text | February 15, 1963 | CR V.109 p.4779 | |
Arkansas | Mode of Amendment, Identical Text | February 21, 1963? | CR V.109 p.2768 | III |
Arkansas | Supreme Court Review, Court of the Union | February 21, 1963? | CR V.109 p.2768-9 | III |
Arkansas | Proportional Electoral College, Other | February 21, 1963? | CR V.109 p.2769 | III |
Arkansas | Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II |
February 21, 1963? April 5, 1965? |
CR V.109 p.2769 CR V.111 p.6917-8 |
III III |
Wisconsin | Proportional Electoral College, I | March 2, 1963 | CR V.109 p.14808 | III |
South Dakota | Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II |
March 2, 1963 March 1, 1965? |
CR V.109 p.14639 CR V.111 p.3722-3 |
|
Idaho | Balanced Budget, Other | March 11, 1963? | CR V.109 p.3855 | |
South Dakota | Proportional Electoral College, Other | March 11, 1963? | CR V.109 p.3982 | ?? |
Montana | Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II |
March 11, 1963? February 15, 1965? |
CR V.109 p.3854 CR V.111 p.2777 |
|
Alabama | Supreme Court Review, Court of the Union | March 13, 1963 | CR V.109 p.5250 | III |
Montana | Proportional Electoral College, I | March 25, 1963? | CR V.109 p.4469 | |
Washington | Apportionment of Legislature, I | March 30, 1963 | CR V.109 p.5867 | III |
Texas | Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II |
April 4, 1963 July 26, 1965 |
CR V.109 p.11852 CR V.111 p.18171 |
III III |
Utah | Proportional Electoral College, I | April 8, 1963? | CR V.109 p.5947 | |
Missouri | Mode of Amendment, Identical Text | April 8, 1963? | CR V.109 p.5868 | III |
Missouri | Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II |
April 8, 1963? February 18, 1965? |
CR V.109 p.5868 CR V.111 p.3304 |
III III |
Colorado | Proportional Electoral College, I | April 11, 1963? | CR V.109 p.6659 | III |
Colorado | Income Tax, Limit Other | April 25, 1963? | CR V.109 p.7060 | III |
Texas | Proportional Electoral College, I | May 22, 1963 | CR V.109 p.11852-3 | III |
South Carolina | Mode of Amendment, Identical Text | June 10, 1963? | CR V.109 p.10441 | |
South Carolina | Supreme Court Review, Court of the Union | June 10, 1963? | CR V.109 p.10441-2 | |
South Carolina | Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II |
June 10, 1963? February 18, 1965? |
CR V.109 p.10441 CR V.111 p.3304 |
|
Virginia | Apportionment of Legislature, I Apportionment of Legislature, II |
March 15, 1964? December 3, 1964 |
CR V.110 p.5659 CR V.108 p.880-1 |
III III |
Massachusetts | School Management, Other | March 18, 1964 | CR V.110 p.7616 | III |
Massachusetts | Senior Pensions | April 23, 1964 | CR V.110 p.9875 | III |
North Carolina | Apportionment of Legislature, II | May 12, 1964 | CR V.111 p.10673 | |
Virginia | Mode of Amendment, Identical Text | December 3, 1964 | CR V.111 p.880 | III |
Louisiana | School Management, States' Right | January 6, 1965 | CR V.111 p.165 | |
Kansas | Apportionment of Legislature, II | January 27, 1965 | CR V.111 p.3061-2 | |
Arizona | Apportionment of Legislature, II | February 15, 1965? | CR V.111 p.3061 | |
South Carolina | School Management, States' Right | February 18, 1965 | CR V.111 p.3304 | |
Tennessee | Apportionment of Legislature, II | February 23, 1965 | CR V.112 p.200 | |
Alabama | Apportionment of Legislature, II | February 25, 1965 | CR V.112 p.200-1 | III |
Utah | Apportionment of Legislature, II | March 8, 1965 | CR V.111 p.4320 | |
Maryland | Apportionment of Legislature, II | March 25, 1965 | CR V.111 p.5820 | III |
Oklahoma | Proportional Electoral College, I | May 12, 1965 | CR V.111 p.11488 | |
Minnesota | Apportionment of Legislature, II | May 12, 1965 | CR V.111 p.10673 | III |
Louisiana | Apportionment of Legislature, II | June 1, 1965 | CR V.111 p.12110 | |
New Hampshire | Apportionment of Legislature, II | June 8, 1965 | CR V.111 p.12853 | |
Illinois | Revenue Sharing, Other | June 9, 1965 | CR V.111 p.14144 | III |
Florida | Apportionment of Legislature, II | June 15, 1965 | CR V.111 p.14163 | |
Illinois | Apportionment of Legislature, II Apportionment of Legislature, Other |
June 22, 1965 March 13, 1967 |
CR V.109 p.19379 CR V.113 p.8004 |
III |
Mississippi | Apportionment of Legislature, II | July 7, 1965? | CR V.111 p.15769 | III |
Mississippi | School Management, States' Right | July 7, 1965? | CR V.111 p.15769-70 | III |
Mississippi | Anti-Subversion | July 7, 1965? | CR V.111 p.15770 | III |
Ohio | Revenue Sharing, Other | July 29, 1965 | CR V.109 p.25237 | III |
Nebraska | Proportional Electoral College, I | August 10, 1965 | CR V.109 p.19775 | III |
Nebraska | Apportionment of Legislature, I | September 22, 1965 | CR V.109 p.24723 | III |
Kentucky | Apportionment of Legislature, II | October 6, 1965? | CR V.111 p.26074 | III |
New Mexico | Apportionment of Legislature, II | January 14, 1966? | CR V.112 p.199 | III |
Indiana | Apportionment of Legislature, II | March 13, 1967? | CR V.113 p.6384 | III |
Alabama | Revenue Sharing, Other | April 5, 1967 | CR V.113 p.10118-9 | III |
North Dakota | Apportionment of Legislature, Other | April 28, 1967 | CR V.113 p.11175 | |
Georgia | Revenue Sharing, Other | May 4, 1967 | CR V.113 p.11743 | |
Illinois | Revenue Sharing, Other | June 28, 1967 | CR V.113 p.17634-5 | |
Texas | Revenue Sharing, Other | June 28, 1967 | CR V.113 p.17634 | III |
Iowa | Apportionment of Legislature, Other | April 13, 1969? | CR V.115 p.12249 | III |
Florida | Revenue Sharing, Other | September 3, 1969 | CR V.115 p.24116 | |
New Hampshire | Revenue Sharing, I | February 25, 1970 | CR V.115 p.36154 | |
Mississippi | School Management, Other School Management, No Assignment |
March 5, 1970? March 2, 1973? |
CR V.113 p.17634 CR V.119 p.8089 |
III IV |
Louisiana | Anti-Subversion | June 22, 1970? | CR V.116 p.20673 | |
Louisiana | Income Tax, Limit Other | July 7, 1970? | CR V.116 p.22906 | |
Louisiana | Revenue Sharing, Other | July 10, 1970? | CR V.116 p.23765 | |
New Jersey | Revenue Sharing, I | December 16, 1970? | CR V.116 p.41879 | IV |
West Virginia | Revenue Sharing, I | January 26, 1971? | CR V.117 p.541-2 | IV |
Delaware | Revenue Sharing, I | February 18, 1971? | CR V.117 p.3175 | ?? |
Massachusetts | Revenue Sharing, I | March 4, 1971 | CR V.117 p.5020 | IV |
South Dakota | Revenue Sharing, I | March 8, 1971 | CR V.117 p.5303 | IV |
North Dakota | Revenue Sharing, I | April 26, 1971? | CR V.117 p.11841 | |
Oregon | Revenue Sharing, I | May 24, 1971? | CR V.117 p.16574 | ?? |
Louisiana | Revenue Sharing, I | June 15, 1971? | CR V.117 p.19801-2 | |
Ohio | Revenue Sharing, I | June 28, 1971? | CR V.117 p.22280 | IV |
Massachusetts | School Management, Other School Management, Other |
September 8, 1971? March 28, 1973 |
CR V.117 p.30905 CR V.119 p.12408-9 |
IV IV |
Michigan | School Management, No Assignment | October 28, 1971 | CR V.117 p.41598-9 | IV |
Iowa | Revenue Sharing, I | March 2, 1972? | CR V.118 p.6501-2 | IV |
Florida | Senate Control of Presiding Officer | April 4, 1972? | CR V.118 p.11444 | |
Arizona | School Management, Prayer | April 4, 1972? | CR V.118 p.11445 | |
Tennessee | School management, No Assignment | May 8, 1972? | CR V.118 p.16214 | |
New York | School Management, Other | October 2, 1972? | CR V.118 p.33047-8 | IV |
Virginia | Balanced Budget, Other Balanced Budget, Other Balanced Budget, Emergency |
February 23, 1973 March 10, 1975? March 29, 1976? |
CR V.119 p.8091 CR V.121 p.5793 CR V.122 p.8335-6 |
IV III IV |
Mississippi | Prayer in Public Buildings | March 20, 1973? | CR V.119 p.8689 | IV |
Virginia | School management, No Assignment | April 3, 1973? | CR V.119 p.10675 | ?? |
New Jersey | School Management, Other | April 9, 1973? | CR V.119 p.11446 | ?? |
Texas | School Management, No Assignment | April 10, 1973? | CR V.119 p.11515 | IV |
Oklahoma | School Management, No Assignment | April 25, 1973 | CR V.119 p.14428 | |
Maryland | School Management, Other | May 7, 1973? | CR V.119 p.14421 | ?? |
Nevada | School Management, No Assignment | May 29, 1973? | CR V.119 p.17022-3 | IV |
New Hampshire | School Management, Other | June 5, 1973? | CR V.119 p.18190 | |
Arkansas | Balanced Budget, Other Balanced Budget, Emergency |
March 10, 1975? March 8, 1979? |
CR V.121 p.5793 CR V.125 p.4372 |
III IV |
Mississippi | Balanced Budget, Other | April 29, 1975? | CR V.121 p.12175-6 | III |
Missouri | Right to Life, Various | May 5, 1975? | CR V.121 p.12867 | III |
Nevada | Limited Funding Mandates, Various | June 26, 1975? | CR V.121 p.21065 | III |
Louisiana | Balanced Budget, Other Balanced Budget, Other Balanced Budget, General |
July 28, 1975? February 8, 1979? July 19, 1979? |
CR V.121 p.25312 CR V.125 p.2110-1 CR V.125 p.19470-1 |
|
Kentucky | School Management, No Assignment | September 8, 1975? | CR V.121 p.27821 | III |
Alabama | Balanced Budget, Other | September 10, 1975? | CR V.121 p.28347 | |
Georgia | Balanced Budget, General | February 6, 1976? | CR V.122 p.2740 | |
Delaware | Balanced Budget, Other | February 25, 1976? | CR V.122 p.4329 | IV |
South Carolina | Balanced Budget, Emergency Balanced Budget, Other |
February 25, 1976? February 8, 1979? |
CR V.122 p.4329 CR V.125 p.2114 |
|
Massachusetts | School Management, No Assignment | April 7, 1976? | CR V.122 p.9735 | III |
Oklahoma | Limited Funding Mandates, Various | June 7, 1976? | CR V.122 p.16814 | III |
Louisiana | Right to Life, Various | July 22, 1976? | CR V.122 p.23550 | |
Maryland | Balanced Budget, Emergency | January 28, 1977? | CR V.123 p.2545-6 | IV |
Texas | Balanced Budget, Emergency Balanced Budget, Other |
March 15, 1977? February 8, 1979? |
CR V.125 p.5224 | IV |
Virginia | Line Item Veto, Various | March 28, 1977? | CR V.123 p.9289 | ?? |
New Jersey | Right to Life, Various | April 5, 1977? | CR V.123 p.10481 | IV |
South Dakota | Right to Life, Unborn Right to Life, Sacred Life |
April 18, 1977? April 18, 1980? |
CR V.123 p.11048 | |
Utah | Right to Life, Various | May 2, 1977? | CR V.123 p.13057-8 | |
Arkansas | Right to Life, Various | May 20, 1977? | CR V.123 p.15808-9 | IV |
Rhode Island | Right to Life, Various | May 20, 1977? | CR V.123 p.15809 | IV |
Arizona | Balanced Budget, Emergency | June 14, 1977? | CR V.123 p.18873-4 | |
Massachusetts | Right to Life, Various | June 23, 1977? | CR V.123 p.20659 | ?? |
Indiana | Right to Life, Various | July 22, 1977? | CR V.123 p.4797 | ?? |
Nebraska | Right to Life, Various | April 21, 1978 | CR V.124 p.12215 | IV |
Pennsylvania | Right to Life, Various | April 25, 1978? | CR V.124 p.11438 | IV |
Tennessee | Judicial Term Limits | April 25, 1978? | CR V.124 p.11437 | |
Tennessee | Balanced Budget, Other | April 25, 1978? | CR V.124 p.11438 | |
Kansas | Balanced Budget, Emergency | May 19, 1978? | CR V.124 p.14584 | IV |
Delaware | Right to Life, Various | June 9, 1978? | CR V.124 p.17055 | III |
Colorado | Balanced Budget, General | February 8, 1979? | CR V.125 p.2109 | V |
Oklahoma | Balanced Budget, Emergency | February 8, 1979? | CR V.125 p.2113 | |
Oregon | Balanced Budget, General | February 8, 1979? | CR V.125 p.2113 | |
Nebraska | Balanced Budget, Emergency | February 8, 1979? | CR V.125 p.2112 | IV |
New Mexico | Balanced Budget, Emergency | February 8, 1979? | CR V.125 p.2112-3 | IV |
Pennsylvania | Balanced Budget, Emergency | February 8, 1979? | CR V.125 p.2113-4 | IV |
North Dakota | Balanced Budget, Other | February 8, 1979? | CR V.125 p.2113 | |
Nevada | Balanced Budget, Emergency | February 8, 1979? January 29, 1980? |
CR V.125 p.2112 CR V.126 p.1104-5 |
III |
Florida | Balanced Budget, General Balanced Budget, Other |
February 8, 1979? June 21, 1988? |
CR V.125 p.2109-10 CR V.134 p.15363 |
|
North Carolina | Balanced Budget, Emergency | February 22, 1979? | CR V.125 p.2113-4 | ?? |
Mississippi | Right to Life, Various | February 26, 1979? | CR V.125 p.3196 | IV |
South Dakota | Balanced Budget, Emergency | March 1, 1979? | CR V.125 p.3656 | |
Idaho | Balanced Budget, Emergency | March 1, 1979? | CR V.125 p.3657 | |
Utah | Balanced Budget, Emergency | March 8, 1979? | CR V.125 p.4372-3 | |
Georgia | Right to Life, Various | March 8, 1979? | CR V.125 p.4372 | |
Indiana | Balanced Budget, Emergency | May 1, 1979? | CR V.125 p.9188 | IV |
New Hampshire | Balanced Budget, General | May 16, 1979? | CR V.125 p.11584 | |
Iowa | Balanced Budget, General | June 18, 1979? | CR V.125 p.15227 | IV |
Nevada | Right to Life, Various | June 25, 1979? | CR V.125 p.16350 | V |
Arizona | Limited Funding Mandates, Various | July 19, 1979? | CR V.126 p.11389 | |
Idaho | Right to Life, Various | March 21, 1980? | CR V.126 p.6172 | |
Oklahoma | Right to Life, Various | April 24, 1980? | CR V.126 p.8972 | |
Tennessee | Right to Life, Various | May 2, 1980? | CR V.126 p.9765 | |
Alabama | Right to Life, Various | May 8, 1980? | CR V.126 p.10650 | IV |
North Dakota | Right to Life, Various | April 27, 1981? | CR V.127 p.10650 | ?? |
Alaska | Balanced Budget, General | February 3, 1982? | CR V.128 p.798 | ?? |
Missouri | Balanced Budget, General | July 21, 1983? | CR V.129 p.20352 | V |
Arizona | Line Item Veto, Various | June 5, 1984? | CR V.130 p.14956 | |
South Dakota | Line Item Veto, Various | March 12, 1986? | CR V.132 p.4473 | |
Utah | Income Tax, Limit Other | March 30, 1987? | CR V.133 p.7299 | |
South Dakota | Congressional Term Limits | April 4, 1989? | CR V.135 p.5396 | |
Idaho | Income Tax, Limit Other | April 10, 1989? | CR V.135 p.5895 | ?? |
Georgia | Flag Desecration | April 16, 1991? | CR Vol. 137, pp. 8085-8086, POM-26 (Resolution No. 105) | |
Colorado | Limited Funded Mandates, Various | June 26, 1992? | CR Vol. 138, p. 16552, POM-428 (SJM 92-3) | V |
South Dakota | Limited Funded Mandates, Various | March 22, 1993? | CR Vol. 139, p. 5905, POM-50 (SJR 3) | |
Missouri | No Judicial Taxing Power | June 29, 1993? | CR Vol. 139, p. 14565, POM-175 (SCR 9) | V |
Delaware | Income Tax, Limit Other | June 28, 1994? | CR Vol. 140, p. 14718, POM-554 (HCR 56) | IV |
Missouri | Limited Funding Mandates, Various | June 29, 1994? | CR Vol. 140, p. 15072, POM-575 (SCR 21) | V |
Arizona | No Judicial Taxing Power | March 27, 1996? | CR Vol. 142, pp. S3012-S3013, POM-523 (SCR 1014) | |
South Dakota | No Judicial Taxing Power | March 27, 1996? | CR Vol. 142, p. S3013, POM-526 (HCR 1010) | III |
Nevada | Congressional Term Limits | June 29, 1996? | Nevada Constitution | III |
North Dakota | No Judicial Taxing Power | April 6, 2001? | CR Vol. 147, p. S3705, POM-7 (HCR 3031) | III |
Louisiana | Posse Comitatus | April 29, 2008? | CR Vol. 154, p. S3504, POM-329 (HCR 38) | IV |
Nebraska | Balanced Budget (Reaffirmation of 1976 LR 106) | April 13, 2010 | LR 538 | V |
Florida | Balanced Budget, Other | April 19, 2010 | CR Vol. 160, pp. S5563-S5564, POM-323 (SCR 10) | V |
North Dakota | Increase in federal debt to require approval by majority of state legislatures | April 11, 2011 | CR Vol. 158, p. S1459, POM-66 (SCR 4007) | IV |
North Dakota | Mode of Amendment, Other | April 14, 2011 | HCR 3048 | V |
Alabama | Balanced Budget, Other | June 1, 2011 | CR Vol. 160, pp. S3666-S3667, POM-251 (SJR 100) | V |
Louisiana | Increase in federal debt to require approval by majority of state legislatures | June 21, 2011 | CR Vol. 158, p. S2241, POM-69 (HCR 87) | IV |
New Hampshire | Balanced Budget | May 16, 2012 | HCR 40 | V |
Ohio | Balanced Budget | November 20, 2013 | CR Vol. 160, p. S1174, POM-197 (SJR 5) | V |
Georgia | Balanced Budget | February 20, 2014 | CR Vol. 160, pp. S3667-S3668, POM-254 (SR 371) | V |
Georgia | Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials including members of Congress | March 6, 2014 | CR Vol. 160, p. S4332, POM-285 (SR 736) | V |
Michigan | Balanced Budget | March 26, 2014 | SJR "V" | V |
Tennessee | Balanced Budget | April 9, 2014 | HJR 548 | V |
Alaska | Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials including members of Congress | April 19, 2014 | CR Vol. 160, p. S6021, POM-345 (HJR 22, also referred to as "Legislative Resolve No. 68") | V |
Florida | Fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office of federal officials including members of Congress | April 21, 2014 | CR Vol. 160, p. S4332, POM-286 (SM 476) | V |
Florida | Balanced Budget | April 21, 2014 | CR Vol. 160, p. S4333, POM-288 (SM 658) | V |
Florida | Legislation in Congress to contain only one subject and that one subject must be clearly expressed in the measure's title | April 23, 2014 | CR Vol. 160, p. S4333, POM-289 (HM 261) | V |
Vermont | Regulation of election campaign donations and expenditures; end legal concept of "corporate personhood"; overturn 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission | May 2, 2014 | CR Vol. 160, p. S4331, POM-284 ("Joint Senate Resolution" No. 27) | V |
Louisiana | Balanced Budget | May 15, 2014 | CR Vol. 160, p. S5563, POM-322 (HCR 70) | V |
California | Regulation of election campaign donations and expenditures; end legal concept of "corporate personhood"; overturn 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission | June 23, 2014 | CR Vol. 160, p. S5507, POM-320 (AJR 1) | V |
Illinois | Regulation of election campaign donations and expenditures; end legal concept of "corporate personhood"; overturn 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission | December 3, 2014 | SJR 42 | V |
South Dakota | Balanced Budget | February 17, 2015 | HJR 1001 | V |
New Jersey | Regulation of election campaign donations and expenditures; end legal concept of "corporate personhood"; overturn 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission | February 23, 2015 | SCR 132 | V |
Utah | Balanced Budget | March 6, 2015 | HJR 7 | V |
North Dakota | Balanced Budget | March 24, 2015 | CR Vol. 161, pp. 2399-2400, POM-17 (HCR 3015) | V |
Congress only has the power to call the Convention and specify the method of ratification.
Everything else not written down falls to the states themselves to decide via the 10th amendment.
-PJ
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.