Posted on 09/21/2015 1:41:00 PM PDT by Hostage
In July 2015, Professor Rob Natelson, one of the nation’s leading Article V experts, crafted an initial draft of rules for a Convention of the States along with Convention of States Project co-founder, Michael Farris. Since then, members of the Convention of States Caucus -- a group of 200+ state legislators from 40 states, all united in their support of an Article V Convention of States -- have been invited to review Natelson’s rules and provide input. The following is the latest iteration of those rules as of September 2015. When a Convention of States is called, these rules will be available for official debate and adoption.
Convention for Proposing Amendments -- Proposed Rules (1) Rule 1. Questions not governed by these rules shall be governed by the latest published edition of Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure, except where the rule in that manual can be applied only to a state legislature rather than a convention; in which case the matter shall be determined by parliamentary common law. (2)
Rule 2. Officers
(a) The officers of the convention shall consist of a president and vice president, who shall be elected from among the commissioners; and the following, who shall be elected from among persons not commissioners: secretary, sergeant-at-arms, parliamentarian, and assistant parliamentarian. (3) All officers shall be on oath to carry out their duties faithfully and in accordance with lawful authority.
(b) The temporary convention president shall be appointed from among the commissioners from the state that was the first to enact the application that led to the calling of this convention. The temporary president shall be selected by a majority vote of that state’s delegation. The temporary president’s sole duty shall be to preside over the election of the convention president and he or she shall be ineligible to be the permanent president.
Rule 3. The sergeant-at-arms is empowered, under direction of the president, to secure the good order of the house. Orders issued by the president to the sergeant-of-arms shall be appealable, as in the case of other rulings of the chair. (4)
Rule 4. The members of this convention are the committees (delegations) appointed by their respective states. (5) All votes shall be taken by states, with each state having one vote. (6) In roll call votes, states shall declare their votes in alphabetical order. (7)
Rule 5. Irrespective of how many commissioners a state includes within its delegation, no more than five commissioners from any one state shall be on the floor at the same time. (8) On every vote, the state's vote shall be announced by the chair of the state delegation or his or her designee. Every delegation shall canvass each commissioner on each vote in a manner to be prescribed by the commissioning state or, in default of a prescribed manner, by the delegation. Each state delegation's vote shall be determined in accordance with the rule prescribed by the commissioning state.
Rule 6. A quorum to do business shall consist of the commissioners empowered to cast the votes of not less than 26 member states; and all questions shall be decided by the greater number of those which be fully represented; but a lower number than 26 may adjourn from day to day. (9)
Rule 7. The order of business shall be as follows: (10)
(1) call to order, (2) roll call, (3) invocation, (4) pledge of allegiance, (5) reading and approval by the clerk of the minutes of the previous day, (6) reports of standing committees, (7) reports of special or select committees, (8) special orders, (9) unfinished business, (10) introduction and first reading of proposals, (11) consideration of daily calendar, (12) announcement of committee meetings, and (13) recess for the day (adjournment). (11)
Rule 8. Every commissioner, rising to speak, shall address the president; and while he or she shall be speaking no one shall pass between them or read any written matter not immediately germane to the question under consideration. (12)
Rule 9. Of two commissioners rising to speak at the same time, the president shall name the one who shall first be heard. (13)
Rule 10. A commissioner shall not speak more often than twice, without special leave upon the same question; and not a second time before every other who had been silent but shall choose to speak on the subject shall have been heard. [The commissioners from any one state committee shall not speak more often than ten times without special leave upon the same question; and not more than five times before every other who had been silent but shall choose to speak on the subject shall have been heard.] (14)
Rule 11. No commissioner shall, without leave of the convention, speak more than 10 minutes at any one time. (15)
Rule 12. A motion made and seconded, shall be repeated; and if written, as it shall be when any member shall so require, shall be read aloud by the secretary or transmitted to each commissioner’s pre-designated electronic device before it shall be debated. (16) No motion, other than a procedural motion, shall be in order unless germane to both the subject matter specified in the state applications on which Congress called the convention and to the subject matter specified in the convention call. (17)
Rule 13. A motion may be withdrawn at any time before the vote upon it shall have been declared. (18)
Rule 14. When a debate shall arise upon a question, no motion, other than to amend the question, to commit it, or to postpone the debate, shall be received. (19)
Rule 15. A question that consists of one or more propositions shall, at the request of any commissioner, be divided and put separately as to each proposition. (20)
Rule 16. No substantive question or committee recommendation shall be decided the day on which it is introduced or first debated, if any five states request that the decision be postponed to another day. (21)
Rule 17. A motion to reconsider a matter that has been determined by a majority may be made, with leave unanimously given, on the same day on which the vote passed; but otherwise not without one day’s previous notice; in which last case, if the convention agree to the reconsideration, the convention or, by the convention’s leave, the president shall assign a future day for the purpose. (22)
Rule 18. A commissioner may be called to order by another commissioner, as well as by the president, and may be allowed to explain his or her conduct or any expressions supposed to be reprehensible. (23)
Rule 19. All questions of order shall be decided by the president, subject to appeal to the convention, but without debate. (24)
Rule 20. Upon a question to recess for the day, (25) which may be made at any time, if it be seconded, the question shall be put without debate. (26)
[Rule 21. When the convention shall recess, every commissioner shall stand in his or her place until the president pass.] (27)
Rule 22. No commissioner shall be absent from the convention, so as to interrupt the representation of his or her state, without leave. (28)
Rule 23. Committees—generally applicable provisions
(1) The standing committees shall include rules, credentials, administration, fiscal restraints, federal jurisdiction, and term limits. (29) The convention may create ad hoc committees.
(2) The membership of the rules, credentials, and administration committees shall be elected by a plurality vote of the states, voting by secret ballot. The membership of ad hoc committees shall be appointed by the president, unless the convention shall prescribe another method. (30) The membership of the fiscal restraints, federal jurisdiction, and term limits committees shall be selected by the method designated in Rule 24.
(3) Each committee may by majority vote create subcommittees for issues germane to the committee’s assigned task.
(4) Committees and subcommittees shall not sit while the convention shall be or ought to be sitting, without leave of the convention. (31)
Rule 24. Fiscal restraints, federal jurisdiction, and term limits committees. (32)
(1) The fiscal restraints committee, federal jurisdiction committee, and term limits committee each has [exclusive] (33) responsibility for developing proposals within the corresponding subject matter of the state applications for the convention.
(2) Each of these three committees shall consist of one member from each state delegation, selected as determined by such delegation; provided however, that no person shall serve on more than one of those three committees.
(3) Any proposal approved by a subcommittee of any of these three committees shall be referred to its committee chairman, who shall schedule it for hearing within five days of its referral from the subcommittee. The committee shall vote on any proposal endorsed by at least five committee members within 24 hours after the hearing (weekends and holidays excluded). Approval shall be by a simple majority of committee members present and voting.
(4) Every proposal reported from the fiscal restraints, federal jurisdiction, or term limits committee shall be scheduled for debate and a vote on the floor of the convention; the presiding officer of the convention shall have no authority to refuse to schedule debate or a vote on any such proposal, and no formal rule shall be required to schedule any such proposal for debate or a vote. No motion to adjourn sine die shall be in order so long as any such proposal remains without a convention vote to pass, reject, or table.
When does the shooting start?
Shall - true. However, no time limit. The Congress could bottle it up in so many committees and subcommittees, it might never see the light of day.
Article V Convention as soon as possible! The Founders would all be saying Hurry Up, you don't have much time!
For those who think the Article V process is too risky, I ask, "What other options do you see?"
To summarize from a previous post by GraceG:
1. Elect More Republicans - Failed due to RINO/Uni-party confluence.
2. Article V Convention of States to propose Amendments - Needed to try to take power from the federal government back to the states and reel in the federal leviathan.
3. State Nullification - Last ditch effort to try to take power back from the federal monster, though by this point it may be too late.
4. State Secession - Could either end up peaceably like the breakup of the Czechoslovakia in 1993 or a brutal:
5. Civil War II like the first one.... The longer we wait on #2, the more likely #3, then #4 and finally #5. .
So, do we do nothing and just wait for # 5?
Quick review: We need 34 states to pass an application, then Congress shall, by law, call a Convention of States as soon as it receives applications from 2/3 of the State Legislatures. That's 34 states. (So far both legislative chambers of 4 States, {Alabama, Alaska, Florida and Georgia}, have completely passed their resolutions and 36 state legislative chambers or bodies have filed or passed resolutions.) Amendments are proposed and voted on at the convention. Each Amendment must be ratified by ¾ of the states in order to become part of the US Constitution. That’s 38 states.
“There are far more political and legal constraints on a runaway convention than on a runaway Congress.” - Robert Natelson
Most FReepers are aware of these links, but I post anyway for review and for people new to Article V. It is our responsibility to make Article V the most understood aspect of the US Constitution.
****Please see this summary video from Alabama first: Convention of States - Alabama Way to go Alabama! A great introduction!
Rep. Bill Taylor introduces a Convention of States
Convention of States Live! with Mike Farris
The Case for an Article V Convention. Great explanation of an Article V convention to the Massachusetts State Legislature.
**** Convention of States Lots of information here.
Learn about the Convention of States The Problem, the Solution and the Strategy
Call a Convention A call for a Convention of States
Missouri state senator delivers amazing testimony (video) Reasoned speech on why we need an Article V Convention.
Article V Project to Restore Liberty Another good source.
Convention of States model Resolution
A Summary of Mark Levin’s Proposed Amendments by Jacquerie
Chapter 1 of Mark Levin’s Book, The Liberty Amendments
Mark Levin, Constitution Article V, and the Liberty Amendments
Mark Levin: “The Liberty Amendments” - Complete Sean Hannity Special + other Links
List of Mark Levin You Tube Videos
Citizens for Self-Governance: Convention of States Project Youtube hub – Lots of educational videos here
Mark Levin Article V, Liberty Amendments youtube video hub
Three hour video of C-Span interview with Mark Levin
*** Mark Levin’s ALEC Speech, Dec 4, 2014
Gaining Steam? Nearly 100 Lawmakers Descend on Mount Vernon to Talk Convention of States The beginning.
Curing Federal Dysfunction by Constitutional Amendment: A Primer Professor Rob Natelson
Our American Constitution, Article V Rob Natelson’s Article V articles
We can fight the uniparty! States, the Natural Second Party by Jacquerie
Convention to Propose Amendments to the United States Constitution
The Other Way to Amend the Constitution: The Article V Constitutional Convention Amendment Process
Friends of Article V Convention Links
The Indiana Statute that will Govern their Delegates
Congress’ Present Duty to Call a Convention:
Congress’ Present Duty to Call a Convention. (Part I)
Congress’ Present Duty to Call a convention. (Part II)
Congress’ Present Duty to Call a Convention. (Part III)
Congress’ Present Duty to Call a Convention. (Part IV)
Congress’ Present Duty to Call a Convention. (Part V)
Congress’ Failure to Call an Amendments Convention. (Part VI)
Ulysses at the Mast: Democracy, Federalism, and the Sirens' Song of the Seventeenth Amendment by Jay Bybee. Repeal the 17th! Shorter Abstract here: Ulysses at the Mast, one page Abstract
****For those of you that still have doubts about the Article V process, please review: Responses To Convention Of States Opposition My initial concerns were resolved after reading these articles. My attitude now is Go For It!
Sarah Palin: Debunking the myths of a Convention of States
A Single-Subject Convention Addresses the “runaway convention” fear.
John Birch Society Denies Its History and Betrays Its Mission The original Birchers were for an Article V Convention.
Update: Convention of States by the numbers The current State count
Convention of States Gaining Momentum
Article V Handbook - for State Legislators An important resource.
**** State Legislators Article V Caucus State Legislators, Join up at this site!
Most State Legislatures are in session now. Send this list of links to your State Representatives and Senators here: Contact your State Legislators.
Sample Letter to state Representatives regarding the Convention of States Project and also, Talking Points.
Excellent Article V Letter to a State Assemblyman by Jacquerie
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke.
Let’s all work together to get this going!
By way of backgrounder, there are not a few "Chicken-Little, the-Sky-Is-Falling" legalistic types running around these days, trying to panic the public into fearing a constitutional convention for the proposal of amendments to the federal Constitution, on either one or two grounds, if not both: (1) Congress will meddle and corrupt the process; or (2) such a convention would turn into a "runaway convention." That is, any convention commissioner could propose anything, including the total repeal of the U.S. Constitution itself.
As to (2), the principal author of Article V, Alexander Hamilton, acknowledges the right of the people to abolish the Constitution. In The Federalist No. 78, he says,
...that fundamental principle of republican government ... admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness; yet it is not to be inferred from this principle that the representatives of the people, whenever a momentary inclination happens to lay hold of a majority of their constituents incompatible with the provisions in the existing Constitution would, on that account, be justifiable in a violation of those provisions....Thus, in his wisdom, Hamilton addresses both screeds from the "Sky-Is-Falling" crowd of lawyerly entrepreneurs who are trying to (1) scare us away from an Article V COS on the grounds that it cannot fail but to produce acts of all kinds of public lunacy up to and including repeal of our foundational rule of law; (2) alleging that a COS must be avoided at all costs, on the grounds that Congress would abuse and subvert such a convention to its own twisted ends through its own micromanagement of the proceedings.
In the first place, while acknowledging the right of the people to withdraw their consent to the U.S. Constitution, before such matters should ever come to such a head, Hamilton insists the proper way for the people to register their concerns about the Constitution, and make adjustments to it, is through the Article V process.
Which is understandable: He'd just passed through a bloody war, our Revolutionary war, in which he served as a distinguished, close aide of the commanding general, George Washington. One gathers that, from this experience, Hamilton realized that a civil order should not have to go to war with itself in order to rectify perceived deficiencies in its basic rule of law. Hence, Article V.
As to the other fear being stirred up — (1) congressional meddling — this appears to me to be quite unfounded. Congress is constitutionally COMPELLED to Call a COS upon the application of 34 states, whose applications all bear on the same subject matter. It has zero discretion in this; and after the Call, it has zero legislative authority whatsover. It is simply not a party to the discussion. It has no further role to play until the proposed amendments have been voted in the COS. Then, it has a "dispositive role," reaching only to the Mode of Ratification: State legislatures or State Conventions. Other than that, Congress has nothing to say anywhere along this process.
But if 38 States ratify any proposed amendment, by whichever means Congress specifies, it becomes federal constitutional law.
As to point (1), I agree with several eminent legal scholars who say: There is little danger of effective congressional meddling; because any such interference would be met with resistance in the federal courts. Congress' warrant with respect to the Article V COS — and corresponding lack of same — is well-detailed in Article V. To exceed its clearly-specified mandate here would be a congressional usurpation of the very language of the Constitution itself.
As to (2) — the risk of a "runaway convention" — any close reader of the Proposed Convention Rules as proposed by ALEC can see how the application of these rules would work against political proselytizers of whatever stripe. The proposed rules limit the number of times, and sequence in which, any commissioner from any state delegation can speak; and limits his or her speech to ten minutes.
I think this is a very important rule. Consider this: It only takes 34 states to apply for an Article V Call. That means there are 16 states outside of the application for Call. Such states may be either "neutral," or positively "hostile," to the subject matter of the Call. Thirty-four states is the quorum to conduct business under the Call. That is, only 34 states are required to propose valid amendments. There is no mandate that the other 16 states must attend the convention in order for its business to be constitutionally "proper." Whether they show up or not is entirely up to them. But their presence is not needed to propose valid amendments to the Constitution.
One can envision a situation in which "hostile" states would not bow out of attending the convention. Rather, they might decide to attend, sending, say, 100 or more delegates, each of which is empowered to take up as much time, and create as much confusion, in the convention proceedings as possible.
But the proposed rules (at the top) mitigate against that result, as already described (e.g., limit on frequency, time, and sequence of speeches). The proposed convention rules propound that five delegates per state is optimal; but this is not a binding instruction on the states: Any state can send however many delegates — commissioners — as it wants to.
But the fact remains, the rules stipulate that each and every state delegation attending the convention, no matter how numerous, gets only ONE VOTE; and that vote is determined by the simple majority of its state delegates/commissioners, regardless of their number.
Anyhoot, must wrap up for now. Before signing off, just want to say how deeply HEARTENED I am by the progress of COS rule-making that has proceeded so far, under the auspices of ALEC. Of course, these are proposed rules — the Called Convention must itself positively vote them in before they can be implemented in a duly-called COS.
Thank you ever so much, dear HOSTAGE, for your marvelous contributions!!!
With that as background, I sincerely ask from where it was determined that applications must "bear on the same subject matter."
In Federalist 85, Hamilton wrote " . . . national rulers, whenever nine states concur, will have no option on the subject. By the fifth Article of the Constitution, the Congress will be obliged on the application of two thirds of the States, to call a convention for proposing amendments . . . " "The words of this Article are preremptory. The Congress shall call a convention. Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body." Oh.
Thus, there is no single topic requirement.
Michael Farris of COS was on C-Span a couple weeks ago. He said the states have sent over 400 applications to congress. Where the call to convention?
For a sense of the Framers' thoughts on the frequency of Article V conventions, see Federalist 43. "It (Article V) guards equally against that extreme facility, which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme difficulty, which might perpetuate its discovered faults. It moreover, equally enables the general and the state governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other."
IOW, state amendment conventions were not reserved strictly for emergencies, Black Swan events, or an Obama. Article V is merely the acknowledgment of the right of the Sovereign People to continually correct any errors of any kind.
IMHO, and with history as our guide, congress WILL NEVER CALL A CONVENTION.
It is therefore the duty of the states to just do it. Exercise a societal and constitutional responsibility; meet in convention to turn back tyranny.
Yeah, that will really add to the public perception of the legitimacy of the proceedings. Or doesn't that matter?
It matters to slaves of political correctness.
Well, for openers, if state applications weren't on the same subject matter, then they could not be aggregated for the purpose of establishing the 34-state quorum necessary to establishing an Article V COS.
An Article V COS, in order to demand Congressional action as to the recognition of states' invoking the constitutional "call," must recognize the similarity — "the same subject matter" — of the respective state applications ("complaints"). If the several states are applying on the basis of, say, repeal of the seventeenth amendment and related jurisprudence, then the Convention cannot instantly go off this charter into other territory, for example, federal jurisdiction over state lands.
I understand that the subject matter being proposed by the states so far, deals with the distribution of power between the national government and the states. Any topic relating to that issue would be fair game at the COS.
But any other topic would be extraneous, and thus ineligible, for action by this particular COS, if actually seated.
The "same subject matter" requirement seems critical to the acknowledgment, by Congress, that a valid Article V COS is in the offing, which in turn depends on the uniformity of state complaints regarding the "subject matter" to be considered for redress in the COS.
There is no mandated "single topic requirement."
But prudence dictates that to put a smorgasbord of citizen complaint before a COS would be an exercise in futility. Rather, it is best, on both prudential and logical grounds, to limit the scope of the COS. Especially in light of the fact that state applications are deemed qualifying, only if they all deal with the same subject matter. Otherwise, they don't get tallied up with other states' applications, so to meet the 34-state test.
Under the proposed ALEC rules, I do not at all fear a "runaway convention." BECAUSE such a convention would be bound to the language of the applications of the petitioning states.
Distinction here: There is "application" language; and there is "called" language. "Called" language deals with the actual subject matter of the Convention, as summarized in states' qualifying applications. "Application" language deals with objects of individual states which motivate their application for a COS. My understanding is, if there is a conflict between "application" and "called" language, the COS must give priority to the latter. At least, that would seem to be the case, under the recently disseminated ALEC rules....
FWIW, Jacquerie. We'll just have to see how matters proceed, in time.
But I, an American citizen, place confidence and hope that an Article V COS can address the problems which beset us, by restoring the original fundamental balance contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution, as between the power of the national government, and the power of the several States (guaranteed under the 10th Amendment).
I ask you to read beyond the first portion of my post.
You did not answer my question, “where it was determined that applications must “bear on the same subject matter?”
For counting purposes, an application is an application, no matter the reason.
Of course they could. Nobody said this would be easy.
So you don't care whether or not most citizens view the process of amending our constitution as legitimate or not?
I've posed this question before. What possible constitutional topic could not be characterized as relating to the power distribution between the states and the federal government?
A subject so broad as to include everything would not and should not be considered a single topic.
That is not my understanding. I rely on Professor Natelson in this:
...Founding-Era practice, upon which the Constitution’s amendment convention was based, was to limit in advance the topic and scope of multi-government conventions. Discussions from the Founding Era reveal a universal assumption that applications would be made to promote amendments addressing prescribed problems. The first application ever issued, that of Virginia in 1788, was arguably limited as to subject, and hundreds of later applications have been limited as well. Indeed, the central purpose of the state application and convention procedure — to grant state legislatures parity with Congress in the proposal process — would be largely defeated unless those legislatures had the same power Congress does to define an amendment’s scope in advance.If there is no specificity to state applications as to at least the general subject matter of concern, then why not just let the states apply, on the grounds that "there is no specific purpose of the COS in view, we're just applying for a COS to do whatever we feel like, once it is "called" by Congress, and we are there on the scene?"
It also follows from historical practice, not to mention common sense, that Congress should aggregate together towards the two-thirds threshold only those applications that address the same general topic. — Robert G. Natelson, State Initiation of Constitutional Amendments: A Guide for Lawyers and Legislative Drafters
If that's the case, how does one come up with a 34-state tally, sufficient to invoke a COS? I strongly doubt Congress, ever so jealous of its powers and prerogatives, would be willing to credit a 34-state tally on the basis of "we applying states will figure out what we're gonna do, once we get there."
If anything, that would be the very prescription for a "runaway convention."
And that is why I think — rightly or wrongly, you tell me — that an "application is an application," only when it has a reason, at least a generally specified reason stated in advance; it's not an application to effect constitutional amendment on the basis of "no matter the reason."
And that "reason" is discoverable by general conformity of the texts of state applications' subject matter. You get 34 states to agree in general on that "reason," then Congress MUST issue the CALL for a COS.
Other than that, it's not gonna happen.
Or at least, that is my understanding.
And yet this "single topic" — the corruption/destruction of the constitutional, vertical separation of powers as between the national government and the states — goes straight to the root of all the difficulty. So, best to attack the root, not the branches and leaves higher up the tree.
You want tho kill a snake? Go straight to its head, and lop it off. Same difference....
"Keep your eye on the doughnut, not on the hole...."
Jacquerie,
There is nothing in the Constitution that requires applications to bear on the same subject matter.
But your idea that Congress count all comers is a disastrous suggestion.
The States that want to adhere to the language adopted by ALEC are not required to attend any meeting, assembly or ‘convention’ driven by leftist ideologues who may move to overturn the 2nd Amendment, to nationalize the banks, to federalize local police, to remove any border restrictions on illegals and so on.
The quorum calls for 34 states. If 34 States are not willing to subscribe to the Left’s agenda, then there is no quorum, there is no convention. The Left can work to have their own convention but if there not 34 applying, Congress is not required to call it. If the Left were to take up your suggestion, and have Congress call a convention based on sufficient historical applications, then think of the disaster that would ensue. They would not be able to ratify any of their proposals but they would surely make a mockery before the public of the sheer foolishness of the whole effort; similar to amateurs performing a Shakespearean play, they would sour the public’s view of Article V.
So your reading of the Constitution leaves out the will of the States. If there are not 34 states now or previously to call a COS, there’s no convention.
Your suggestion to go over the last 200 years and count every application also requires to subtract those that have expired, those requiring renewal and the practicality of respecting a present state legislature with respect to a same state legislative application in which all the members have since passed away.
Frankly, you should be using your formidable debate skills not on this subject but on the subject of who should confirm applications, how they should be submitted, to whom they should be submitted, deadlines for acknowledgement, deadlines for possible court filings, and any other contingencies that arise should Congress ignore or be derelict in their Constitutional duty to call a COS.
We know from a report earlier this year that Congress has created some sort of ‘functionary’ to tabulate applications. I personally see this as unwarranted and intrusive. Congress should have no involvement or influence in any proceeding of an Article V meeting of States. Article V says ‘upon application’, it does not say to whom. IMO it should be a neutral party such as the National Archives to legally ‘process serve’ upon so as to ‘notice’ that at least 34 states have applied and the cover letter should include deadlines and intentions if a convention is not called in a timely manner. Courtesy copies can be sent to the Speaker, the Senate Majority Leader and the President FYI only.
I suspect John Boehner was behind the approval of the ‘functionary’ as a response to a request by a group of state legislators. If Boehner was involved which I am sure he was, I see red flags everywhere. And I am working to raise awareness of state legislators that they should not bow before the federal government as they are in the habit of doing or else their constituents will let them have it. Their behavior is not so much ‘intended’ as it is ‘habitual’.
The problem is that some state legislators have inherited habits and carry on a ‘fealty’ behaviorism that has taken root since passage of the 17th. They seem to measure their appearance in today’s world as somehow being respectful to the King or ruling class of Washington DC as they appear on behalf of the States in Article V discussions. They seem apologetic. Whereas, 100 years ago they acted as sovereigns over the mere ‘delegates’ that were sent to Washington. they now cower instinctively and some think their ‘career path’ must steer toward Washington where just one term results in a lifetime pension and free healthcare exempt from Obamacare. To be fair there are a lot of state legislators that are not of this pattern and there are many who today are catching a lot of heat and a lot of chatter with their constituents over just what the hell is Washington DC doing and the result is when they hear a reasonable orderly effort being put forward they go to it. This is where ALEC and the COS Project have caught on.
Here’s an important video on the above subject that all on this thread should view:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P3RF9Ix8ro
Now there’s a lot wrong going on in the above video but the takeaway for now should be that there are several supra groups meeting about the subject of Article V and so far the ALEC-COS Project alliance is the most successful among these supra groups by having 37 states now onboard working with them and adopting the subject matter to go forward with.
So your reading and your suggestions fall inline with the Constitution but you won’t likely get 34 state legislatures to sign up with you because 37 states have so far joined with the subject matter restrictions of ALEC. Do you get the picture? You are constitutionally correct but you are not supported by the political realities. You can be right but not many will get behind you except maybe some Bloomberg-Soros-Clinton backed leftist operatives who see your idea as a means to sink the effort.
But I forgive you because your knowledge and skill are exemplary! Let’s get you on a subject matter that moves this forward in a way that these legislatures can feel comfortable! Because that is the key!
Don’t get me wrong; I’m all for an Article V Convention. I’m only trying to point out the obvious - this a tough hill to climb. A few years back, there was a movement to get the states to pass resolution reaffirming states rights under the 10th Amendment. It went nowhere after a few states passed it.
With 34 states needed for an Article V Convention, you can automatically cross off 10 states (MA, CT, RI, NY, NJ, DE, MD, CA, OR, HI) and a probable 4 more(ME, VT, IL, WA) and there’s the problem. Some of those states might pass legislation IF it is an open convention. But that would be suicide.
I am not dazzled by the celebrity status of either Natelson or Michael Farris. It is the states by their delegate commissions that define the limits of the convention, not the applications.
Farris/Natleson's position adds an extra requirement to the clear wording of Article V, which serves to stymie the right of the Sovereign People to meet via their states. Congress doesn't need help that regard. Let's not pretend it will ever call a convention, for a convention recognizes a higher power than the Uniparty.
Here is a youtube of Michael Farris on C-Span from August 17th, 2015. Between 1:30 and 3:00 minutes, he says that over four hundred applications have been submitted to congress.
He also states that the convention can discuss whatever topics it wishes. If the convention is only limited by the commissions of the delegates, why must applications be single topic? It doesn't make sense.
You seem to be fearful of a convention. There needn't be a collective "reason" to meet anymore than an individual needs a reason to own a gun. Article V is the societal right of a nation to self-defense just as the 2A is an individual right to self-defense.
But your idea that Congress count all comers is a disastrous suggestion. Why? I say there should be a standing convention that meets annually. I guarantee it would have a tremendous effect on Scotus decisions.
You are constitutionally correct but you are not supported by the political realities.
Therein lies our differences. Both Article V and the Second Amendment, one which provides for societal protection of the nation, and the other for personal self-defense, are independent of political parties. Like our other rights, their exercise doesn't need a "reason" and are there for all.
We are apprehensive of an Article V state convention because we haven't had one.
Fear of the unknown is a common apprehension, but as it regards Article V, it is unwarranted.
Why assume that ambassadors from the states will perform their duties in the same reprehensible manner we know so well from the Uniparty denizens in Washington, DC? Since most congressmen and senators would sell their souls today for reelection tomorrow, doesn't mean we should expect states to send hacks with no interest beyond their own to an Article V convention. An erroneous equivalence is made between the familiar, and that which we have never seen.
Unlike the wild lawlessness of the Uniparty on display in DC, the Article V state convention process itself is a tremendous safeguard for liberty, for unlike our thoroughly debased and self-serving Congress, those attending a convention will join a fresh and uncorrupted institution. The difference in behavior and demeanor we can expect between congressmen and convention attendees is identical to that between men’s conduct in strip clubs and church.
States will send serious men and women of character and judgment armed with detailed, focused and strict commissions to promote their state supported amendments. State ambassadors to an amendments convention will be unconcerned with that which drives the DC Uniparty; money, personal power, and reelection will not be their focus or interest. Here for instance, is the Indiana statute that will govern the conduct of its delegation. Criminal sanctions and other penalties are provided in the improbable event of going outside of one’s commission.
We can have every expectation the states and their ambassadors will rise to the occasion. They will understand the gravity of their assignment and conduct themselves in a manner precisely opposite that of the Uniparty. Would states with majorities of their people fed up with joblessness, Obamacare, Mexican and muslim invasions, Scotus, EPA regulations and other administrative diktats too numerous to count actually recommend dangerous and liberty crushing amendments?
Every proposed amendment passed by majority vote in the state amendments convention must be ratified by three fourths of the states to become part of the constitution. Pause and ask yourself if proposals from the state legislatures that meet this high bar should not be in our governing document.
The trail of history is littered with fallen republics, of peoples insufficiently covetous of their liberty. We are admittedly far down that tragic path, yet we have not been sentenced to misery and destitution.
Take comfort in, and smile at the reality that no nation ever sold itself into slavery. Meet in convention and let good and serious men and women, isolated from the corrupt Uniparty, discuss the changes to our republic so necessary to reclaim freedom.
Article V before we can’t.
Not sure what you mean by "open", but my point (and the point of many others) is that this is the last peaceful means defined in the Constitution to effect change. We have to do everything else first before the shooting starts.
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.