Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senator Long calls for a constitutional convention
Northeast Indiana Public Radio ^ | 2-14-2013 | Brandon Smith

Posted on 02/14/2013 7:23:57 PM PST by digger48

Senate President Pro Tem David Long said Indiana needs to take the lead in assembling a constitutional convention of the states in an effort to rein in the federal government’s power. Long’s effort aims to produce an amendment to the Untied States Constitution.

To amend the Constitution in a state-initiated way, two-thirds of state legislatures must agree to convene a constitutional convention, at which the amendment is drafted. Three-fourths of the states must then approve the amendment for it to be ratified.

Senate President Pro Tem David Long wants to start that process on an amendment meant to impose limits on the Constitution’s Commerce Clause and federal taxing authority. Long said limiting those two powers would help prevent the federal government from enacting measures like the Affordable Care Act, which he calls the poster child for federal overreaching.

"This is not some kind of a, you know, conspiracy theorists all gathering together to drive the federal government out of our lives," said Long. "It is, I think, a thoughtful and constitutionally-based approach to how we can protect states’ rights."

But Senate Minority Leader Tim Lanane said the proposal is a distraction.

"You know, I think we ought to keep our nose to the grindstone on what people are wanting us to which is to work on ways to create jobs," Lanane said.

Long said he’s spoken with lawmakers in other states, such as Tennessee and Texas, who say they’d follow Indiana’s lead. Still, he admits the process could take years


TOPICS: Local News; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last
More stories out there about this, but mostly on sites that FR doesn't allow. (Gannett, for one)

Does this guy want to speed up the end of this country?

1 posted on 02/14/2013 7:24:03 PM PST by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

hmmmm.


2 posted on 02/14/2013 7:26:18 PM PST by dynachrome (Vertrou in God en die Mauser)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: digger48

Doesn’t a Constitutional Convention open up the entire thing to be re-written?

Can you imagine what it would look like with the current crops of Progs with their Lapmedia and Margin of Fraud in elections?


3 posted on 02/14/2013 7:26:54 PM PST by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: digger48

Not sure what you mean. Are you saying that such an amendment would spark civil disobedience and rioting from the left?


4 posted on 02/14/2013 7:27:53 PM PST by GSWarrior (Do you think Jack White and Jack Black get along?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: digger48

It would look like the Communist Manifesto when its over


5 posted on 02/14/2013 7:29:51 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GSWarrior

A Conventional could rewrite the whole thing, not just do an amendment


6 posted on 02/14/2013 7:31:42 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: digger48
Poor moron. The federal government doesn't obey the Constitution anyway. Folks like Obama are not going to give a rat's ass about a bunch of folks saying they're following the Constitution in trying to rein in federal power. The only effective way is to take control of Congress and the presidency and to do it using folks who will obey the Constitution.
7 posted on 02/14/2013 7:31:54 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: digger48

TERRIBLE idea.

Just terrible. No way. It would be the end.


8 posted on 02/14/2013 7:32:18 PM PST by Cringing Negativism Network
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GSWarrior

Isn’t there a damn good reason we have never done this in 200+ years?

You won’t regognize the First.

Forget the 2nd.

4th, 5th 10th 14th...Fuggitaboutit.

22nd???...Obama gets fitted for a Military uniform with 5000 gold medals pinned to it and 7 hour Teleprompter readings


9 posted on 02/14/2013 7:34:23 PM PST by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

What could possibly go wrong? /s


10 posted on 02/14/2013 7:35:02 PM PST by TADSLOS (The Event Horizon has come and gone. Buckle up and hang on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: digger48

Friggin dunce.

That’s what amendments are for.

Your bozo idea isn’t well thought with what the end result will be out of a CC?

Skip that dumb idea.


11 posted on 02/14/2013 7:36:43 PM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

This Long guy needs to hear a lot of education from a lot of people as to why this is a STUPID idea.


12 posted on 02/14/2013 7:38:00 PM PST by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: digger48
Doesn’t a Constitutional Convention open up the entire thing to be re-written?

No. Not at all. This is a giant myth created by beltway elites. A convention can only PROPOSE amendments. It cannot ratify them. They could propose making Hamburglarism the official national religion and it wouldn't do a damn thing unless 3/4ths of the states ratified it.

The convention process was specifically design by the Founders for the exact situation we face, in which insiders and elites so monopolize the process at the federal level that there is no hope of evern getting them to reign in federal power or return to Conatitutional governance. This is why those same elites try to create the myth that a convention will lead to the Constitution being totally re-written.

13 posted on 02/14/2013 7:43:58 PM PST by Thane_Banquo ( Walker 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

No a convention cannot re-write the Constitution. It can only propose amendments. It would still be up to 3/4ths of the states to ratify those amendments, and state legislatures skew to the right..


14 posted on 02/14/2013 7:45:46 PM PST by Thane_Banquo ( Walker 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: digger48
A con-con is a very bad idea. Want to amend the Constitution? Do it the same way all the other amendments were done.

I want to know who in the Texas legislature would support a con-con.

/johnny

15 posted on 02/14/2013 7:45:54 PM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: digger48; Travis McGee

http://www.enemiesforeignanddomestic.com

A trilogy with one of the books about what happens in a “Con Con” (Constitutional Convention), excellent reads written by freeper TravisMcgee.


16 posted on 02/14/2013 7:46:36 PM PST by dynachrome (Vertrou in God en die Mauser)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Better that the states start acting on the powers they have.


17 posted on 02/14/2013 7:48:01 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

A con-con can only PROPOSE amendments. It cannot actually change or re-write the Constitution. Why would you trust Schumer, Reid, and Boehner to propose amendments more than you would a con-con put together by state legislatures that skew to the right?


18 posted on 02/14/2013 7:49:00 PM PST by Thane_Banquo ( Walker 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo

Every amendment in the last 150 years has screwed us.


19 posted on 02/14/2013 7:51:39 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
Why would you trust....

I don't trust ANY politician. I'm grateful that the founders made the Constitution difficult to change.

I wish they had done a better job on 'interstate commerce' and 'general welfare', but the black robed bastards can pervert anything, given a chance.

Several Constitutional amendments are proposed in Congress assembled every year. Most go no-where.

I'm good with that.

/johnny

20 posted on 02/14/2013 7:53:29 PM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo

thanks to all for their posts.

this has been gnawing at me all day.

have to hit the hay, but I look forward to the responses


21 posted on 02/14/2013 7:53:36 PM PST by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: digger48

This is what I have read about Long: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/01/28/indiana-state-senator-david-long-blocks-discussion-of-bill-nullifying-obamacare/


22 posted on 02/14/2013 7:54:57 PM PST by Bronzy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Every amendment in the last 150 years has screwed us.

That's why I keep rope handy. There's a lamp-post at the corner of my property.

/johnny

23 posted on 02/14/2013 7:55:47 PM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
That’s what amendments are for.

ugh. Geeze. To repeat for the millionth time: A con-con cannot re-write or change a single jot or tittle of the Constitution of the Unites States of America. Not a single speck of ink can it change. All it can do is propose amendments that 3/4th of the states then would have to ratify.

It even says it right in the second parapgraph of the article:

To amend the Constitution in a state-initiated way, two-thirds of state legislatures must agree to convene a constitutional convention, at which the amendment is drafted. Three-fourths of the states must then approve the amendment for it to be ratified

24 posted on 02/14/2013 7:57:10 PM PST by Thane_Banquo ( Walker 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

Gotta love that 17th amendment. It was sold as empowerment through a popular vote and its led to urban centers electing senators who don’t represent their states and can’t be recalled.

Amendments these days are all about stripping the people and states of powers and handing the feds more power.


25 posted on 02/14/2013 8:00:42 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
I don't trust ANY politician

Funny, 'cause in your first comment you specifically said to do it the way all the other amendments were passed, which is through Congress. Funny how most of those amendments in the past 150 years have increased the power of the same federal government over which Congress has partial control. In fact, that's EXACTLY why the Founders put the con-con process in the Constitution, as an alternative to the Congressional path.

26 posted on 02/14/2013 8:04:14 PM PST by Thane_Banquo ( Walker 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: digger48

well if it ever happened liberals would strive to change the whole premise of the Constitution. It was originally described to prescribe what the feds could do and leave rest to states. They would reverse that and Lord knows what else. Our RINOs would not even notice the change. :-)


27 posted on 02/14/2013 8:05:10 PM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
The congressional method, while flawed, and has seriously screwed up the Constitution is one amendment at a time. And they are very difficult to get through congress.

A con-con can, and would, turn into a free-for-all. There would be a plethora of stupid amendments.

I'll take 'em one at a time, thankyouverymuch.

That's the difference.

/johnny

28 posted on 02/14/2013 8:09:13 PM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: digger48

It is being re-written anyway, so why not give it a shot.


29 posted on 02/14/2013 8:09:27 PM PST by scbison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

I like term limits on the Prez, but think the 17th did the most damage, since it took the States’ influence to limit Federal powers away and replaced it with a second body trying to buy the votes of the people with other people’s money.


30 posted on 02/14/2013 8:15:08 PM PST by 5thGenTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: digger48

Constitutional conventions are not, by any means, limited to “merely” adding an amendment.

Once convened, there is nothing to stop them from writing a whole new document.

Perhaps that is what at least part of the country wants, a “clean slate”.

How modern of them.


31 posted on 02/14/2013 8:17:47 PM PST by alloysteel (If conspiracy does not exist everywhere, it exists nowhere.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: digger48

No.Effing.Way.

I read some $3 P.O.S. book from Big Lots by Larry Sabado (was trying to be open-minded. He detailed all the tweaks he wants to see to the Constitution... I threw the book out when he was talking about making the senate like rhe house... the number of senators from a state dependent upon the population size of that state.

I about barfed... the guy has no clue what senators are there for... to vote note as direct representatives of the people... but of the state itself.

Holt sht... I wouldn’t want a CC if we had 7 conservatives in the supreme court and supermajorities in both houses... and Ronald Reagan back. The all would know better. RATS know better too... and their reaaona for change are straight-up nefarious.


32 posted on 02/14/2013 8:24:29 PM PST by Rodamala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: digger48; GeronL; Vendome; JRandomFreeper; cripplecreek; Red Steel; butterdezillion; MrB; ...
I'd propose something like this:
Section 1
The power of the Congress to regulate the value of the dollar is hereby repealed; its value is hereby fixed to that of the weight of gold (not less than 99.9% purity) equal to one fifteen-hundredth of an avoirdupois ounce.

Section 2
To guard against the congress using its authority to define weights and measures to subvert the above, the ounce above is approximately 28.349523 SI grams.

Section 3
The Treasurer shall make account for all gold physically in the treasury's possession no less than annually, these accounting shall be publicly available.

Section 4
The ability of the Congress to borrow is hereby restricted: no debt shall be assumed which would cause the total obligations of the federal government to exceed one-hundred-ten percent of the gold physically in the possession of the Treasury.

Section 5
Any government official, employee, officer, judge, or agent confiscating gold, or causing it to be confiscated, shall be tried for theft and upon conviction shall: (1) make twofold restitution, (2) be terminated from employment/removed from office, and (3) stripped of all retirement benefits accrued in government employment.


The reasons are as follows:
33 posted on 02/14/2013 8:28:04 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
I have a serious problem with section 5.

Any government official convicted of any felony should do the rope dance. That should be the one and only punishment for government officials convicted of felonies.

Period. Paragraph. Turn the page. Close the book. Amen.

/johnny

34 posted on 02/14/2013 8:32:41 PM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

You’re right. What he’s asking for is already in the Constitution. It’s just that feds ignore the actual commerce clause and taxing power in favor of whatever it is they prefer to do. I don’t see what’s to gain by rewriting them in another section, which they’ll ignore as well.


35 posted on 02/14/2013 8:35:36 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: scbison
It is being re-written anyway,so why not give it a shot.

Hollywierd is rewriting love stories to contain a homo agenda... you wanna give that "a shot", go right ahead.

36 posted on 02/14/2013 8:35:36 PM PST by Rodamala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo

Wait! Whut? You actually expect me to read past the headline?

When did that become a rule around here?


37 posted on 02/14/2013 8:39:05 PM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
I have a serious problem with section 5.
Any government official convicted of any felony should do the rope dance.
That should be the one and only punishment for government officials convicted of felonies.
Period. Paragraph. Turn the page. Close the book. Amen.

LOL -- Funny you should mention that; I originally had that [capital punishment] be the consequence of fraudulent reporting by the treasurer but then figured it wouldn't appeal because people would see it as being too heavy-handed.

Mere theft is not a felony, and so by your standard shouldn't be a capital punishment. (Though I admit 18USC241 & 242 are, and by your standard would be.)

38 posted on 02/14/2013 8:40:11 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Theft over $700US is a felony in my state, last I checked.

But if you insist, I'll reduce that to any misdemeanor that is punishable by over a year for a normal citizen.

I want one punishment for politicians for committing any crime more serious than parking tickets, jaywalking, or speeding.

DUI? Rope dance. Bribery? Rope dance. Etc... rinse and repeat as required.

/johnny

39 posted on 02/14/2013 8:46:52 PM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
In re: my last post...

It's not like we're going to run out of politicians. 30% turnover to the gallows might be a good thing.

If politicians become endangered, I might consider backing off. Slightly.

Nah.

/johnny

40 posted on 02/14/2013 8:51:50 PM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
Theft over $700US is a felony in my state, last I checked.

That would be just over a third of an ounce under this amendment.

But if you insist, I'll reduce that to any misdemeanor that is punishable by over a year for a normal citizen.
I want one punishment for politicians for committing any crime more serious than parking tickets, jaywalking, or speeding.
DUI? Rope dance. Bribery? Rope dance. Etc... rinse and repeat as required.

I disagree, not because they aren't deserving of such treatment -- they are -- but because it is almost always a bad idea to have different punishments for different classes of people. That's one thing I like about the laws I linked you: they're geared for people who are abusing authority (or impersonating authority for that abuse) separately from whatever crime [or even what would be a non-crime if done by an "average citizen"] they were doing.

In my estimation one of the reasons we are at this point is because our laws have been crafted to make de facto classes of citizen (just looks at what a "Law Enforcement" officer can get away with that would land you or I in jail.) -- Uniform, exceptionless laws solve the root-cause of that problem.

41 posted on 02/14/2013 8:56:31 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
It's not like we're going to run out of politicians. 30% turnover to the gallows might be a good thing.
If politicians become endangered, I might consider backing off. Slightly.
Nah.

LOL

42 posted on 02/14/2013 8:57:59 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: digger48

The article is wrong in that the states don’t need a constitutional convention in order to propose amendments.


43 posted on 02/14/2013 9:14:51 PM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
I think the following shall I say is a slam dunk rebuttal to your premise offered.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Constitutional Convention Question's

Parliamentarian Ref: Constitutional Convention analysis: Constitutional Convention Question's: Am I wrong on my analysis? Is my analysis truly what could happen?

What I (Stanwooddave) said:Watch out, for what you wish, regarding a Constitutional Convention, if you don’t know already, but if a Constitutional Convention were to take place, there is/are no limits to what can be put/brought before the Constitutional Convention.“

Example, do away with the 2nd Amendment, if the votes are there, say goodbye to a very cherished 2nd Amendment.

A response that was given: Never happen. This is the argument used to discourage a CC {Constitutional Convention}. The reality is a CC would be very limited in scope and would address only a few key issues. Second, the red states and the people that live there far out number the blue states and the kooky left that has hijacked our country and stolen our liberty. ++++++++++++++++++++++++

First off let me be perfectly clear, what ever statement's and or questions I ask/present, are only for educational purposes only, so as to be able to learn, and or share idea's.

Assume for the sake of argument, a Constitutional Convention is called, lets use Obama's 57 state's, and we'll say in the Great State of Never_happen_in_my_lifetime.

I would imagine that for sake of argument, their would be say 2 (two) State Representatives, 2 (two) State Senator's, as well as 2 (two) U.S. Congressional Representatives, and 2 (two) U.S. Senator's. I pick these critter's only because you know were a CC to happen, everyone wants to look SO IMPORTANT.

Simple math: if only 4 (four) people representing each state, total is (4 x 50) 200 or(4 x 57) 228. If on the other hand, 8 (eight) people representing each state, total is (8 x 50) 400.

Either way, thats a lot of people. I would argue that at said Constitutional Convention, Robert's Rule's of Order would be used, and or something akin to this.

You put forth the proposition that "The reality is a CC would be very limited in scope and would address only a few key issues." I agree, that a "limited scope" Constitutional Convention, could happen, and "only for those issue's agreed to in advance."

Now here is where I'm (Stanwooddave) as dumb as a box of rock's. In an agreed to, in advance, limited in scope, Constitutional Convention, why can't someone make a motion (under Robert's Rule's of Order, or whatever else {Rule's of Order} they so choose) to add "X" "Y" or "Z," to test the water's, and if say the presiding person of the Constitutional Convention, decides to go off the track's sort of speak, (See last paragraph) what's to stop the momentum if it should get leg's????

Please tell me something akin to an earth shattering revelation, like "As soon as the person or person(s) makes the motion to go off the track's, said person or person(s) would immediately be brought out back of the building and shot."

Please tell me more then, "Well it was all agreed to, to convene a limited in scope, Constitutional Convention"

Nothing in my statement(s) and or question(s) should be seen as any kind of attack, they are really, simply for my selfish educational benefit, nothing more, nothing less. ++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yes I know that when a motion is made, that someone has to “second said motion,” then a vote of the motion yeas & nay’s, for the purpose of this discussion, the yeas won, i.e., to go off the track's of the agreed to in advance, limited in scope, Constitution Convention.

What is to stop said happening?
++++++++++++++++++++++++

Please also, do take into consideration that $$money$$ / dollar's can buy a lot of people, it's just the difference in price, for each person.

An offer of proof: [William Andrews] Clark's long-standing dream of becoming a United States Senator resulted in scandal in 1899 when it was revealed that he bribed members of the Montana State Legislature in return for their votes. At the time, U.S. Senators were chosen by their respective state legislators; the corruption of his election contributed to the passage of the 17th Amendment. The U.S. Senate refused to seat Clark because of the 1899 bribery scheme, but a later senate campaign was successful, and he served a single term from 1901 until 1907. In responding to criticism of his bribery of the Montana legislature, [William Andrews] Clark is reported to have said, "I never bought a man who wasn't for sale."

http://goldwaterinstitute.org/article/amending-constitution-convention-complete-view-founders-plan-part-1-series From: Admending the Constitution by Convention: A Complete View of the Founders Plan (Part 1 in a Series)

Posted on September 16, 2010 | Type: Policy Report |Author: Robert G. Natelson

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
by Nick Dranias, the Goldwater Institute Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan chair for constitutional government and is the director of the Institute’s Dorothy D. and Joseph A. Moller Center for Constitutional Government.

Americans are increasingly questioning - and resisting - the endless growth of the federal government. Part of this resistance finds voice in efforts to enforce state sovereignty through litigation and legislation such as the Health Care Freedom Act and the Firearms Freedom Act. Measures such as these protect existing, fundamental rights from erosion at the federal level. But the growing discontent has also reignited interest in an even more direct route for the people and the states to regain control over the federal government - the Article V constitutional amendment process.

Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, the states have the power to apply to Congress to hold a convention for the purpose of proposing constitutional amendments. This power was meant to provide a fail-safe mechanism to control the federal government.

This report demonstrates that the historical record during the Founding era establishes a clear roadmap to guide the Article V amendment process. Among other seminal discoveries, this report reveals that the Framers rejected drafts of Article V that contemplated the very kind of wide-open convention that could “run away,” substituting instead a provision for a limited-scope convention, attended by state-chosen delegates, and addressed to specific subject matters.
(Emphasis added by Stanwooddave)

Of course, abuses of the Article V constitutional amendment process are possible. But that possibility must be viewed against the clear and present danger to individual rights and freedom of doing nothing. This report recommends that states seriously consider initiating the Article V constitutional amendment process to restrain the federal government.
(Emphasis added by Stanwooddave)

Read Admending the Constitution by Convention: A Complete View of the Founders' Plan here:

Read Part 2, Learning From Experience: How the States Used Article V Applications in America's First Century (Part 2 in a Series) (link http://goldwaterinstitute.org/article/learning-experience-how-states-used-article-v-applications-americas-first-century-part-2)

In the face of growing federal power and mounting deficits, some want states to call for a convention for proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution that would rein in the federal government. Article V of the Constitution authorizes states to initiate amendments with a convention. Critics claim no one really knows how the process works and calling a convention would open the door to mischief by Congress, the courts, and convention delegates. But states frequently applied for an amendments convention between 1789 and 1913. A study of that history reveals much about how states can - and cannot - use the Article V process today.

This report, the second in a three-part series, compares milestones such as the failed efforts of the southern states to rely on Article V to support nullification of federal law and the indirectly successful efforts of the progressive movement to elect U.S. senators by popular vote.

Goldwater Institute Senior Fellow Robert Natelson’s research confirms that, for the most part, Americans stayed close to the original understanding of Article V and the important ground rules governing the process. Historically, there has been a sharp distinction between an Article V convention and a general constitutional convention. Likewise, a majority of state Article V applications were limited to particular subjects. Most people agreed the amendments convention would be a creature of the state legislatures that controlled the convention agenda, while convention delegates would have discretion over an amendment’s actual language.

Although the state-initiated Article V process has not yet led directly to adoption of a constitutional amendment, its history from 1789 until 1913 shows a remarkable continuity in its use and a consensus on the process involved. This consensus lays a solid foundation for current efforts and allays critics’ fears that the process could run amok.
(See comments by Stanwooddave,Ref: "Robert's Rule's of Order" here is where I call Bravo Sierra)

Read Learning from Experience: How The States Used Article V Applications in America's First Century Here:

Admending the Constitution by Convention: Practical Guidance for Citizens and Policymakers (Part 3 in a Series) http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/amending-constitution-convention-practical-guidance-citizens-and-policymakers-part-3-series

This is the third in a series of reports by Goldwater Institute senior fellow Robert G. Natelson on the power of state legislatures to initiate the process for amending the U.S. Constitution under Article V. The previous two reports explain that the purpose of the Article V amendments convention is to provide a parallel process whereby the states effect constitutional amendments.

This report provides crucial practical drafting guidance for exercising the states’ constitutional authority. In essence, it recommends that state legislators draft their Article V applications and delegate commissions with an eye to targeting specific subject matters, while still giving state delegates a meaningful level of deliberative independence to ensure that the amendments convention can serve its consensus-building and problem-solving purpose. The key is to regard an amendments convention as a modern-day “task force”—a representative body that is limited to a specific agenda but expected to exercise judgment on accomplishing that agenda.
(Emphasis added by Stanwooddave, can you say LOOPHOLE anyone.)

Nothing in my statement(s) and or question(s) should be seen as any kind of attack, they are really, simply for my selfish educational benefit, nothing more, nothing less. ++++++++++++++++++++++++ s First Century

44 posted on 02/14/2013 10:18:39 PM PST by Stanwood_Dave ("Testilying." Cop's don't lie, they just Testily{ing} as taught in their respected Police Academy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
"It would look like the Communist Manifesto when its over"

Agree. With the Dems controlling the House and the Executive this is grandstanding at best, and suicidal at worst.
45 posted on 02/14/2013 10:51:22 PM PST by CowboyJay (Lowest Common Denominator 2012 - because liberty and prosperity were overrated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

There is NO ONE in Wahsington that I TRUST with my Constitutional rights !

The Founders were inspired
These current men are bought an paid for by lobbyists
These guys couldn’t write honest legislation if their lives depended on it !!
While the Constitution could use some updating ,..not from these men !! ..as they have proven untrustworthy !
Not my Constitution !
Don’t touch it !!


46 posted on 02/15/2013 12:05:38 AM PST by Tilted Irish Kilt (“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

There is NO ONE in Wahsington that I TRUST with my Constitutional rights !

The Founders were inspired
These current men are bought an paid for by lobbyists
These guys couldn’t write honest legislation if their lives depended on it !!
While the Constitution could use some updating ,..not from these men !! ..as they have proven untrustworthy !
Not my Constitution !
Don’t touch it !!


47 posted on 02/15/2013 12:12:00 AM PST by Tilted Irish Kilt (“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

There is NO ONE in Washington that I TRUST with my Constitutional rights !

The Founders were inspired
These current men are bought an paid for by lobbyists
These guys couldn’t write honest legislation if their lives depended on it !!
While the Constitution could use some updating ,..not from these men !! ..as they have proven untrustworthy !
Not my Constitution !
Don’t touch it !!


48 posted on 02/15/2013 12:13:18 AM PST by Tilted Irish Kilt (“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Tilted Irish Kilt

Sorry - multiple postings due to slow internet posting !
I posted once
It showed three times ! URGH !!


49 posted on 02/15/2013 12:18:26 AM PST by Tilted Irish Kilt (“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Tilted Irish Kilt

Word!


50 posted on 02/15/2013 12:52:37 AM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson