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.
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.