Trump-tied conservatives are 15 states away from an unprecedented rewrite of the Constitution

AP, Yahoo ^ | 08/01/2022 | Brent D. Griffiths,Grace Panetta

[tanstaafl.72555]

Conservatives are just 15 states away from an unprecedented gathering that could rewrite large parts of the US Constitution and fundamentally change American life.

[Publius]

For a Convention of the States dedicated to Georgia’s application language, which would re-balance citizens’ rights and state powers versus federal power, the count is 19 down, 15 to go.

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin

For a Convention of the States dedicated to a balanced budget amendment only, the count is 30 down, 4 to go.

***

This is an old article that has been reposted.

***

This is the usual boilerplate I append to these threads for those afraid of the Article V process.

***

THE ARTICLE V AMENDATORY PROCESS

The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps:

1. Proposal;
2. Direction;
3. Ratification.

Proposal:

There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.

• The Congressional method requires the House and Senate to pass an amendment by a two thirds majority of each house.
• The amendments convention method requires the legislatures of two thirds of the states to pass resolutions directing Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments. These resolutions are called applications. Once the two thirds threshold is reached, Congress is required to set a time and place for the convention.

Article V gives Congress and an amendments convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, except that a convention is limited to proposing amendments specified in the application and there is no such limit on Congress.

Direction:

Once Congress, or an amendments convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:

• State legislature method, or the
• State ratifying convention method.

The state ratifying convention method has only been used once: to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition. A similar procedure was used to ratify the Constitution itself.

Ratification:

Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three fourths of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.

Forbidden Subjects:

Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and two implicitly forbidden subjects.

Explicitly forbidden:

1. No amendment may be added to the Constitution concerning the slave trade or direct taxes until 1808. We’re well past that deadline.
2. No amendment may be added to the Constitution to change the principle of equal representation in the Senate unless every state deprived of that right approves. If California wants five senators, every state must have five senators. To permit violation of this principle, every state would have to ratify the amendment, not just three fourths.

Implicitly forbidden:

1. The Constitution of 1787 may not be abrogated and replaced with a new document. Article V only authorizes “a convention for proposing amendments to this Constitution;” so the Constitution of 1787 is locked in place.
2. A convention for proposing amendments is limited to the topics authorized by state applications.

Reference work:

Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers

[Alas Babylon!]

Okay. I went and reread the Constitution on this. I see that is to provide amendments to the original document (as indeed all amendments do).

So, perhaps I am being hasty in my judgment.

Over the past several years, and my long life, I have become very suspicious of politician’s panaceas to problems...

As I said, conservatives tend to conserve rather than change.

Still, my warning! The power of the Deep State/DNCMedia/Communism/Leftists is very, very strong. They are led by a Dark Lord who hates God and His Creation. Good will prevail, but Evil has to almost triumph before this occurs... I read about it in the Holy Book.

[tanstaafl.72555]

But it may also be a mistake invoking Article V without a compelling national crisis forcing it.

Would you be kind enough to refer me to the section in the FEDERALIST ("federalist papers") where Madison implies that this article is for a "national crisis" and not to be utilized on a routine basis by states who wish their legislative agenda promoted? I will await your answer

It is all well and good to claim to limit the scope of an Article V convention to only specific subjects, but there is nothing in the constitution that provides for such limitations.

Actually there is. One, there is the principle of common law, which is brought in wholesale into the body of US law. This would make the convention of states subject to the RULES OF THE CONVENTION OF STATES which had recently (32 times) been invoked. In those conventions, in every one of them, there was nothing governing the delegates save the specified instructions to the delegates. It is stated that a convention of states would specify the instructions to their delegates.

At best it would come down to a Supreme Court ruling on the matter.

Not true. In fact, Congress recognizes its own legal impotence in this issue and has proposed no less than 41 pieces of legislation attempting to usurp any rule making ability over a Convention of States. All have been defeated, but EVEN IF THEY SUCCEEDED, the USSC has already ruled on this issue. Smith v Union Bank (1861) states SPECIFICALLY says that the rules for a convention of states would be under the control of the states and NOT under any federal control whatsoever (possibly one reason these proposed laws were defeated? I don't know). There is also nothing in the Constitution that would prevent Congress from setting up the specific rules and procedures of an Article V convention such as who would chair such a convention, how amendment proposals are presented to the convention body, whether the convention body must vote on each proposed amendment before it is formally adopted and presented to the states for ratification, etc.

False. See Above.

[tanstaafl.72555]

Over the past several years, and my long life, I have become very suspicious of politician’s panaceas to problems...

I can tell you are a wise man, then. I too am deeply suspicious.... especially of "leaders" who wish to "fix my problems."

Thanks for the interactions. BTW, Alas Babylon was an AWESOME book.

[laplata]

At one time I was for this but now is not the proper time to make any changes.

[packrat35]

That is the worst idea EVER! No 2nd amendment rights and free speach will be a thing of the past (It also already is).

[tanstaafl.72555]

That is an unbelievably good and info packed post!

[Terry L Smith]

having been a parishioner of a ny long iland megachurch in the 80’s, this is where i first heard of it, and then good ol pat robertson and others glommed onto it.

nowadays, with all this triggerin falderall, and my movin on, i do not think its dead, just under different hand signs these days.

when you hear some preacher come along and think he coined the term, ‘we are gonna take this country back, for gawd’, i heard that in the 80s.

[Repeal The 17th]

“...Article of Confederation ... through it all out...”
-
The people looking at amending the ‘Articles Of Confederation and Perpetual Union’
did not throw it out.
They proposed a replacement, and after it was proposed,
all of the the states independently voted to approve it.
The Articles of Confederation were an unfixable mess.

[MayflowerMadam]

“the far lefties have perverted it so bad it needs to be rewritten.”

True. The far lefties have perverted it. But that’s no reason to change it. It’s about perfect as it is, probably because (some of us believe) it was partially inspired by God at the outset.

All we need to do is stick to it as written.

[Article10]

Because you as the hard working American tax payer is the surety. Not a bar of gold.. You as an American keep the Fedzilla in check...sort of in check, it wobbles out of bounds occasionally..

[Hostage]

Thanks for posting both the updates and the constitutional process.

I still think amendments are needed, but am uncomfortable in light of a takeover of our election system. It should be a given that enemies and traitors of the United States are not sitting idle, rather they are working diligently to perfect a plan to cheat and steal control of Congress this November.

Here is one new development to close the loop on the threat posed by after-election audits, having paper ballots match images and totals, thereby perfecting the crime.

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4083024/posts

Although only 13 states are needed to block ratification of a reckless amendment proposed by left-moderate schemes, making it enormously difficult to ratify say, a Biden backed amendment, it is imperative that the current election system be thoroughly scrutinized and reformed before entertaining any amendments to the Constitution.

A multi-year commission is needed to investigate every facet of the November 2020 election, including involvement of Republicans. Further, such commission investigation should extend back before 2020.

At federal, state, and county levels, the infestation of vote and election fraud goes beyond 2020 leaving ordinary Americans with the shocking and sad awareness that many in elected offices today are occupied by illegitimate officeholders because of cheating.

We simply can’t have this.

Because state legislatures are crucial to ratifying amendments to the US Constitution, it is vitally necessary that state legislatures be scrubbed as well of any cheating, past, present, and future.

One amendment that will ferret out the cheaters will be an amendment to require fully effective, impenetrable, security in our elections, so that Americans will not be unduly concerned or convinced that their vote has no value. One such security approach that is easy to implement by every precinct in every state, with or without machines, is a specification of physical ballots and minimal ballot management such as tracking the number of ballots in circulation. Such a thorough approach to ballot security was proposed by AZ Rep Mark Finchum who just won the primary election for AZ SOS.

Minimum ballot security specifications and security management, once tested and proven effective, should then be proposed as an amendment to the US Constitution, making each State required to conform with minimal, effective ballot security.

It is true that the vast part of elections administration rests with individual States, but we are today confronted with technology that is able to subvert elections to the point of taking control of state and federal government.

Therefore, we need an amendment that focuses on effective election security.

[DNME]

There are TWO methods to Amend the Constitution: By vote of Congress or by the votes of the States themselves.

Amendments, not rewrites. First you write the Amendment, then act to approve it, then vote to ratify it (difficult!) before it takes effect.

There are some Amendments that Congress would NEVER vote for. Term limits, for example. Would Congress EVER vote to limit their own terms of office? Or a Balanced Budget Amendment? Or repeal the 17th Amendment and give the Senate back to the States where it belongs?

Congress won’t so we MUST! Start the Article V process by naming an intelligent, wise and cautious chairman and there will be no shenanigans. I propose Mark Levin for chairman.

[unread]

"We don't need to rewrite the Constitution. We need to follow it."

Precisely.. What's the point of writing more laws when the stinking DC lawyers don't even make an effort to follow the ones already there...? I mean, what are the sheep going to say, "Yeah well, we're really going to make them obey the law THIS time.." (spit)

[Yo-Yo]

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

If congress has no say in how the convention is organized, then why must congress call the convention at all? Makes no sense.

What if congress refuses to call a convention? What then?

[DugwayDuke]

tanstaafl.72555 wrote: “of course” (liberals get a vote)

Then, why do you think anything conservative will come from this?

[servantboy777]

>>A Constitutional Convention is playing with fire.<<
My understanding is a convention would be called to address a particular issue(s), not a open free for all.

Example: A convention agenda such as Balanced budget amendment and or abolition of the 14th amendment.

It would not be an open agenda. Anyone else have this understanding or am I in error.

[Yo-Yo]

It would not be an open agenda. Anyone else have this understanding or am I in error.

That is the heated debate right now in this 138 comment thread. Some argue that the convention would only be for the specific purposes stated in each state's Article V petition, while others look to the wording of Article V and find no such limitation stipulated.

Since it's never happened before, nobody knows for sure.

[Publius]

You bring up an interesting point. Arizona state senator Wendy Rogers said, "They have been doing this to us for a long time."

I have come to believe that Obama did not win a second term in 2012 and that Bush did not win a second term in 2004.

Today we have an illegitimately elected Congress, illegitimately elected state, county and local governments, illegitimately elected school boards, and illegitimately decided initiatives, referenda and recalls.

We have to start over with voter registration and vetting.

[tanstaafl.72555]

If congress has no say in how the convention is organized, then why must congress call the convention at all?

Good question. The answer is right there in the Constitution itself..... Congress is charged with the oversight responsibility of all legislation. Therefore, if the states take it upon themselves to do legislation that the Congress won't then the legislative oversight over the law is "officially" still with Congress, who "called" or authorized the convention.

What if congress refuses to call a convention? What then?

Another great question. THEN, we have a constitutional crisis, where Congress has abrogated its duties in defiance of the Constitution. We call that "insurrection." Were I the head of the state governors at that time, I would call for the arrest of the speaker of the House, demand a floor vote for a convention, and call for the arrest and imprisonment of all "nay" votes or no votes.

Whether I would get it is another story, but it would become clear that there is no rule of law, the republic is over, and we should be looking at plan b... and preparing for civil war. Either way we would be in uncharted waters and in a heck of a mess. I don't think there are that many members of Congress willing to risk jail

I think the vast majority would vote to call, and the ones who would not would be on a plane to St Kits by nightfall.