Posted on 08/08/2022 8:05:26 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
this post is what happens when you comment on headlines.
DugwayDuke wrote: Then, why do you think anything conservative will come from this?
Maybe because I have taken time understand the process?
States send applications, not petitions. A petition goes from a lower authority to a high authority. The Constitution recognizes that the states are co-equal partners with the federal entity; thus, the states send applications, not petitions, for an Article V Convention of the States.
You have it right.
When a topic hits the magic number of 34 states (two thirds of the states), he sends a memo to the Speaker of the House and President Pro Tem of the Senate advising them that the threshold has been reached for a Convention of the States under the terms of Article V. At that point Congress has the ministerial duty of setting the time and place of the Convention and does so by issuing a Joint Resolution of Congress. The language of the applications that hit the two thirds point is added by Congress to the Joint Resolution, and that defines the purview of the Convention.
In terms of contract law, the states are the principals, and the Convention is the agent of the principals. The purview of the contract is the application language extracted by Congress from the state applications and added to the convention call via the Joint Resolution. An agent may not go outside the limit of his contract with his principal, which is why the Convention is legally restricted to the application language.
“Since it’s never happened before, nobody knows for sure.”
That is the most bizarre reasoning I have ever seen.
Let me see if I can rephrase that: The founders wanted to provide a way out of federal power encroachment, and set forth language they thought would provide a protection, but we know that they were wrong. We know that even though every single objection and stated fear of things going off track have been extensively answered with legally stipulated reasons why it is utterly unreasonable to look at the plain language and assert things will get out of control, we still assert that things might get out of control. We have never bothered to research the background, the language, the arguments and safeguards, but we still in insist that “no one knows what might happen.”
I myself am considering staying indoors the rest of my life, because “it might happen” that a meteor smashes into me. The risk is just too great.
The really really really bizarro thing about this reasoning? The assumption that a society this far gone can depend on 2A as a collection of letters on an old paper to save them. That is probably the weirdest non-sequitur in this whole grab bag of weird.
YOYO wrote:
Once such an Article V convention was called, all hell could break loose by Blue states proposing all sorts of nonsense that per the constitution would have to be considered by all of the states without sunset.
You really have no idea what the rules of a convention are nor who controls them. I am glad that minor drawback doesn’t prevent you from having fun commenting. Carry on.
The federal entity honors the Living Constitution to the letter.
What is the difference between them?
The Living Constitution is what happened to the Constitution of the Framers after 200+ years of case law, some of it good and much of it bad. This case law empretzeled the Constitution of the Framers until it became the Living Constitution. The Living Constitution is a document whose meaning changes over time even though the actual wording never does. Earl Warren, and three current justices on the Supreme Court, can tell you all about the Living Constitution, by which they rule.
Amendments generated by an Article V Convention can create structural changes that constrain the power of those forces that push the Constitution into a strange realm of "emanations and perturbations."
“All we need to do is stick to it as written.”
I am confused. Do we need to stick to it as written, as in including Article V?
If we need to “stick to it” does that include invoking Article V or should we just sort of gaze in wonder at how beautiful it is and not actually invoke it or anything?
The States will send delegates with detailed commissions, so hijacking an Article V convention is an impossibility.
But hey, thank you for sharing your feelings.
Just keep voting. That’s what the JBS wants everyone to do.
Then why did the Framers include an amending Article?
<>All we need to do is stick to it as written.<>
+1
With fifty or so states attending, the chances of a majority agreeing to any amendment at all at their first convention is minimal.
This is actually what the Deep State fears: a federal meeting of the states outside of their control. The states might get in the habit of expressing the people’s sovereignty.
<>It’s about perfect as it is, probably because (some of us believe) it was partially inspired by God at the outset.<>
Then why did the Framers include an amending Article?
<>All we need to do is stick to it as written.<>
To Enforce the Constitution we Have.
.....................
Minus article V, of course. It is obvious we don’t need THAT and it is too risky to invoke. Got it.
I suggest you educate yourself. The law review link below is a wealth of insight:
Hamline Law Review - Lawful and Peaceful Revolution Article V.
We are on the cusp of Marxist tyranny and you wish to preserve the constitutional corruption that brought it on.
As you describe, we no longer have the “old” Constitution.
tanstaafl.72555 wrote: “Maybe because I have taken time understand the process?”
Why do you think there will be enough support to pass the things conservatives want?
Check out the link in 155. You’ll like it.
Oops. I meant post 151.
To KC Burke, don’t swill the JBS kook-aid.
Congress had no authority over the Federal Convention.
Most states sent their congressional delegates to serve at the Federal Convention. They knew what they were doing.
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.