Posted on 03/06/2019 12:50:06 PM PST by Hostage
On March 5, 2019, Utah voted to become the 14th state to pass our Article V application to call a Convention of States to propose term limits, fiscal restraints, and limits on the power of the federal government.
Note: Convention of States is merely an administrative lobbying group to assist state legislatures. There is no Constitutional Convention, that is a misnomer and a term of disinformation. Convention in this context merely means state legislatures working toward the same goal. There is no convention.
There are other orgs working in the same capacity as C0S such as Assembly of States. They are made up of state legislators that are in contact with other legislatures to reach conformable language to submit to the National Archives. National Archives is the scorekeeper and router. When threshold is reached, Nat Arch sends certified amendment proposal out to all fifty states for ratification.
First proposal out of the box will be (I am told) a peacetime federal balancing of the budget.
See the short video to get a good insight into the views of some stellar conservative state legislators.
ping!
Wow!
Good news for a change!
This is everyone assuming that once the convention is open, all the conservative ideas will be up for discussion. What seems to be ignored is that liberals may have considerably different ideas and end up destroying the Constitution as we have it now. There aren’t many George Washingtons out there and I fear we open it up to our peril.
Liberals have no power in this arena. They will never get 36 states to sign on to anything they advocate.
The only recourse that liberals have is to BL0CK conservative amendments and for that, they need 15 states.
Not going to happen.
Score today is 38 state legislatures RED and 12 state legislatures BLUE.
Why do you think leftists are always pushing statehood for DC and Puerto Rico?
Ans. They want this pathway to power by conservatives blocked.
Conservative state legislators know this and are not going to lay down for them..
22 more states to go...meanwhile, thousands of future democrat voters are streaming across the southern border every day.
In other words, if the states then choose not to ratify the proposed amendment then the convention was arguably a waste of time.
That being said, repeal the 16th and ill-conceived 17th Amendments to stop the feds from stealing state revenues in the form of unconstitutional federal taxes.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."—Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"The “Holy Grail” of organized crime is to control government power to tax." —me
"The constitutionally undefined political parties are basically rival, corrupt voter unions, “union dues” paid by means of unconstitutional federal taxes.” —me
"The smart crooks long ago figured out that getting themselves elected to federal office to make unconstitutional tax laws to fill their pockets is a much easier way to make a living than robbing banks." —me
"Federal career lawmakers probably laugh all the way to the bank to deposit bribes for putting loopholes for the rich and corporations in tax appropriations laws, Congress actually not having the express constitutional authority to make most appropriations laws where domestic policy is concerned. Such laws are based on stolen state powers and uniquely associated stolen state revenues." —me
”... the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See about middle of 3rd column.)
"It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” — Justice Brandeis, Laboratories of democracy.
Note that the constitutional limit on states as laboratories of democracy is that states cannot establish privileged / protected classes, or abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
The states need to give themselves the power to recall bad-apple federal senators.
The states also need to give themselves the power to remove bad-apple Supreme Court justices on 3/4 vote of states.
It’s in the hands of brave conservative state legislators now. Find out who is yours or at least some that are like-minded and get out to support them.
BINGO! Leftist have already invented all kinds of new "rights" - from government supplied healthcare and housing, to mangling one's own genitals. Opening up the US Constitution for negotiation will spark the end of this nation.
IMHO, America has been perverted by the corruption of our money and creation of a central bank. Fiat, printed money, and the massive debt it allows is the foundation of all unconstitutional and progressive/statist schemes. It has allowed the massive growth of government at all levels. Fix that, and you automatically return to limited government, as the Constitution intended.
None exist in CA
Excellent news ~
Once we reach critical state Con-con mass, we can look forward to perfect patriot legislators and their Constitution lov’in discernment to make safeguard our inalienable rights even more double plus good!
Moar eff’in Convention of the States Pandora’s Box delusions.
It’s “We The People” at large who need changing, NOT The US Consutution.
Go ahead, open up the gates...
That’s good info. Thanks.
A Constitutional Convention is a REALLY BAD IDEA!
We do not live up to the Constitution we have now - what makes anyone think rewriting it will improve our lot in life?
BALDERDASH AND POPPYCOCK!
TEN REASONS TO OPPOSE AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION
1.) Article V will not address the root cause of the problem.
For over a century the federal and state governments have willfully defied our Constitution. It is absurd to believe this usurpation would cease by amending the very document they have habitually violated. The problem is not with our Constitution – but in our ignorance of its content, and indifference to its enforcement.
The Constitution and the federal government it established are creatures of the States and of the people. It is therefore the duty of the people to enforce their Constitution, and to constrain government to the enumerated powers defined in that covenant.
No process of amendment has the power to secure the people when they have forsaken wisdom and virtue. We abdicated our duty in favor of the welfare state. Abandonment of responsibility cannot be rectified through the amendment process or the drafting of a new constitution.
President James Garfield made clear the issue: “Now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature.”
2.) There is no precedent. It is unrealistic to suppose the structure, rules and limitations of a 21st century version would mirror those practices that governed the convention of 1787.
From the beginning there was ambiguity on the form an Article V convention would take. Expressing his concerns, in his ‘Notes from the 1787 Constitutional Convention’ (15 September 1787) James Madison wrote: “… difficulties might arise as to the form, the quorum, &c.” This uncertainty was never remedied. Madison was terrified of the possible results. In his letter (2 November 1788) to G.I. Turberville, he stated: “If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, … an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; ... would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, [who] might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric.”
3.) States have no authority to select delegates. The process is solely the role of Congress, via two methods: Congress proposes amendments – this has governed the existing 27; or “The Congress … on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments.”
The ‘Necessary and Proper Clause’ (Article 1, Sec. 8) provides Congress the power to make laws to carry out ‘the call,’ as to the date and location of the convention, and the manner in which delegates shall be appointed. On 7 March 2014, the Congressional Research Service released a report to instruct Congress on Article V. The CRS confirmed Congress has exclusive authority over both methods. It may apportion delegates based on one vote per state, or on the Electoral College. Under the electoral form, California would receive 55 delegates, Nebraska five (In 1983, we came within two states of calling a convention. In its preparations, Congress voted to appropriate delegates by the electoral method). Congress could appoint delegates, or appoint themselves as delegates. Nothing in the Constitution requires Congress to allow the States to select their own. Furthermore: “… The Congress, as well, clearly possesses the authority to set forth the necessary and attendant details of the convention.” – U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, 1984, re: S. 119
Perhaps most ironic is the realization that the very individuals we accuse of ignoring constraints on federal power and jurisdiction are likely the same individuals who will choose our delegates. Moreover, Congress has power to provide delegates immunity from arrest and prosecution.
4.) Incongruity of the proposition. The Constitution sets limits on the scope of federal power; so, on what basis do proponents of an Article V convention contend to “fix” that which already exists?
Since Woodrow Wilson, unconstitutional federal agencies have created a regulatory code whose reach extends government power far beyond the authority delegated by Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution.
What Article V advocates propose does not constrain this usurpation, but legitimizes abuses that already exist. Mark Levin proposes an Amendment to Limit the Federal Bureaucracy; however, the existing federal agencies – each a violation of Article 1, Sec. 1 – are not eliminated. He also proposes an Amendment to Limit Federal Spending, by creating a “balanced budget.” This would effectively replace the enumerated powers: rather than limit spending to what is authorized by the Constitution, Congress could raise taxes to meet expenditures – and, if a “national emergency” is declared, the language permits Congress to ignore the limit. Since1979 there have been, and presently remain, 30 such declarations.
Amendments to the Constitution were never about correcting federal usurpations. In Federalist No. 85, Hamilton asserts that amendments were meant to remedy defects; that amendments of errors, and useful alterations, would be suggested by experience; that the novelty and difficulty of what they were doing would require periodic revision; that useful amendments “will be applicable to the organization of the government, not the mass of its powers.” The remedy to federal usurpations is not a new constitution or new amendments; but rather it is our resistance to and nullification of unconstitutional laws.
5.) States have no control over the proceedings, nor may they dictate the wording of amendments.
When the Continental Congress called for a convention to be held in Philadelphia (21 February 1787) – “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation” – they lost control once the convention began. It was held in secrecy, the limitations set by Congress and 11 of the 13 states were ignored, and a new constitution written. The inherent authority of the delegates makes it impossible to prevent such occurrence.
In 1993 the U.S. House Judiciary Committee ruled: “If the State legislatures were permitted to propose the exact wording of an amendment and stipulate that the language not be altered, the convention would be deprived of this function and would become instead part of the ratification process.”
6.) Proponents cannot know how the convention would function.
The CRS stipulates “In the final analysis, the question ‘what sort of convention’ is not likely to be resolved unless or until the 34-state threshold has been crossed and the convention assembled.” This is reminiscent of Nancy Pelosi’s infamous Obamacare quote: “But we have to pass the bill, so that you can, uh, find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” We cannot know how the convention will operate, until we call for the convention – and, by that time, it’s out of our hands.
7.) The protections presumed through the ratification process are not without substantial risk.
Ratification of amendments to the Constitution are listed under Article V, and are under the power of Congress to choose: Ratification by three fourths of the legislatures of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof. The convention method would bypass state legislatures, and was used by Congress to pass the 21st Amendment (Repeal of the 18th Amendment – Prohibition).
Under Article VII there exists a third possibility: “The ratification of the conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution.” Via the precedent set by the 1787 convention, this method could be used to ratify a new constitution – and the delegates could also write a new ratification process.
8.) States are not victims of federal usurpation; but collaborators.
The States compromised their power when they ratified the 17th Amendment. Under the promise of eliminating corruption, the States acquiesced to having their federal senators elected by popular ballot, rather than upon the assent of their own legislatures. This act eviscerated the 10th Amendment. Today, most States have more than 1/3rd of their annual budget padded with federal dollars, with all the attached strings – and plenty of corruption.
9.) Delegates are sovereign representatives of the people; and, by the authority stipulated in the Declaration of Independence, they are vested with the inherent right of the people to alter or abolish their form of government.
Through an Article V convention, opportunists will spare no effort to “alter or abolish” our present form of government – one most unique in human history. We shall then no longer possess that bulwark which, up until our poor stewardship, had reliably thwarted the machinations of unscrupulous men. When enforced, our Constitution is capable to arrest such designs – yet, we now risk its existence, by possibly entrusting its care to those whom have long disparaged its precepts and desired its dissolution.
10.) We must distinguish between defects in a constitution, and a government’s refusal to obey the constitution.
That our Constitution is routinely violated by a lawless federal government does not make it any less the highest law of the land. Insofar as the Supreme Court has distorted its essential clauses (Interstate Commerce, General Welfare, Necessary and Proper) the Federalist Papers are sufficient to clearly and concisely define the Founders’ original intent.
In Federalist No. 16, Alexander Hamilton stated that “… [T]he people … [are] the natural guardians of the constitution.” I am thus compelled to repeat – The problem is not with our Constitution, but rather in our ignorance of its content and indifference to its enforcement.
With all that has gone heretofore to bring us to this point, are we so conceited that we should risk our liberties to those we dare suppose would do better than the esteemed men of 231 years past, who created that form of government most unique in all human history? Is there now among our contemporaries a Washington, a Jefferson, a Madison, a Hamilton, or a Jay? James Madison trembled when considering this proposition – so should each of you.
Utah has been Claifornicated...
There is a precedent, the 17th. Read the history.
Your long-winded rant is a retreat to business as usual which is corrupt and broken.
The people do not propose amendments as you wrongly assert. State legislatures propose amendments. And if you took the time to review what they are working on, you would see their work product is quite reasonable and pertinent. But you won’t take the time because you are invested in ignorance.
The only “precedent” for a Constitutional Convention is the Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia. And, as I stated, even though the delegates were given specific instructions for a “limited convention,” notwithstanding their prohibitions they ignored both the instructions of their individual state legislatures and the Articles of Confederation, instituting instead a new form of government under a new Constitution.
The language for all 27 Amendments was proposed by Congress - including the 17th. The states have absolutely no power to restrict the language of amendments. State legislatures only have the power to ratify amendments passed by Congress, or else establish state conventions for the same purpose, as was done for the 21st Amendment.
I said nothing of “the people proposing amendments.”
There was no “rant” on my part; but an ordered presentation of the facts and objections.
You offered no reasoned rebuttal to my presentation; but rather opted to engage in ad hominem. I have fund that such response is unfortunately typical to those who are vested in pursuing an Article V Convention.
Another long-winded rant in reply.
You are barking up a tree that has nothing to do with what state legislatures are working towards. I am certain they and their legal counsels are not going to give the likes of your specious assertions the time of day.
"The ‘Necessary and Proper Clause’ (Article 1, Sec. 8) provides Congress the power to make laws to carry out ‘the call,’ as to the date and location of the convention, and the manner in which delegates shall be appointed."
Article V clearly affirms:
ARTICLE V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
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.