Fear Not An Article V Convention

[arthurus]

There can b e no “Article V” Convention. There is no provision for a Constitutional Convention to be limited to anything less than the whole Constitution. Given that delegates cannot be limited to sensible right thinking people anything that would come out of a Convention at this time would run to thousands of pages and would attempt to cover in fine every situation that might arise, as happened with the European Constitution.

[Billthedrill]

A fascinating topic. I recall a rather detailed thread in which Publius interviewed the late great Congressman Billybob (John Armour) on the topic. Pinging the Man...

[Jacquerie]

The post #2 link is a scholarly analysis of, rather than an emotional response to Article V.

[Jacquerie]

Thanks. I missed that one.

I agree with Senator Long's intent. I wish he hadn't implied there is a constitutional provision to call for an open constitutional convention.

[Publius]

I agree with most of the content of this essay. What frightens people is that the only thing we have are the actual words of Article V, the precedents of the “interstate conventions” held under the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitutional Convention itself.

I have two sources that attempt to take apart all the issues and fill in the gray areas. The first is a document from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a lobbying group. This document by Robert Natelson has been sent to every state legislator in the country for guidance purposes.

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

I think that 90% of Natelson’s document is correct, but there are places where I think he got it wrong. The reason he got it wrong is that he didn’t read the next document. Certainly I found no indication in his endnotes that he was even aware of its existence. It’s not available online, and the only reason I have it on my hard drive is because I edited the brief in Walker v. US in 1998-2000. Here is where I posted it to FR as a reference source.

Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee

This 1973 document attempted to fill in all the gray areas of every part of the amendatory process, Amendments Convention included, and I think they did a thorough job. If you combine the two documents and resolve the conflicts in favor of the ABA Report, I think you get a clear picture of how an Amendments Convention would operate.

I don’t fear it. It’s the means by which the states take control of the proposal phase of the amendatory process by proposing amendments on their own without going through Congress.

In the end, you’d need three-fourths of the states to ratify, either by the State Legislature Method or the State Ratifying Convention method, as Congress so chose. That’s the actual safety valve to prevent violence being done to the Constitution, either by carelessness or design.

[SampleMan]

A convention to propose amendments is not an open ended constitutional convention.

Want to bet? Once you call a convention to propose amendments, it as open ended as the delegates want it to be. And you can bet that the first order of business will be the same as last time, i.e. making all proceedings behind closed doors.

[Travis McGee]

This is my take on how an Article V Convention would turn out: a nightmare run by Alinsky radicals.

It’s from my third novel, “Foreign Enemies And Traitors.”

http://enemiesforeignanddomestic.com/index.php?page=excerpt&p1=Foreign_Enemies_And_Traitors&p2=FEAT Part 1&

[Travis McGee]

Whoops, linky no worky. Click the excerpts link to FEAT part one.

[Travis McGee]

I agree with you. Read about the “Philly Con-Con” in my novel linked above. It would be run by Alinsky radicals with tens of thousands of “disaffected urban youths” surrounding the convention center, and jamming the seats.

[Amendment10]

For instance, the 17th Amendment changed the fundamental nature of our previously federal government.

Thanks for replying Jacquerie. I'm going to make a note about Congress's limited power to lay taxes and then a brief word about 17A.

Regarding Congress's limited power to lay taxes, given the remote possibilty that you aren't aware of the following, please take note. Justice John Marshall had officially clariified that Congress is prohibited from laying taxes in the name of state power issues, essentially any issue which Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Section 8, Article I-limited powers.

"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.

Regarding the 17th Amendment (17A), I used to beat the drum for the repeal of 17A and would still support its repeal.

However...

Since I now know about Justice Marshall's clarification of Congress's limited power to lay taxes, 17A doesn't matter imo. This is because federal lawmakers take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. That oath includes respecting Justice Marshall's clarification of Congress's limited power to lay taxes imo, 17A or no 17A. So Congress can go ahead and lay direct taxes as long as the federal budget doesn't include federal taxing and speniding programs beyond the scope of what Congress can justify under Section 8 and other miscellaneous things in the Constitution that Congress must spend money for.

[editor-surveyor]

Soft oatmeal reasoning, as one would expect from the Goldwater Institute, which is controlled by leftist/globalist infiltrators.

[Political Junkie Too]

Except that, based on the words in Article V, and wholesale rewriting of the Constitution has to be done amendment by amendment by amendment, and then each amendment has to be passed separately by 3/4ths of the states.

Are you afraid of one humongous amendment that says "Amendment XXIIX: Delete the Constitution and all 27 prior amendments, and replace it with this one?"

-PJ

[editor-surveyor]

>> “I’m not crazy about an Art V convention, but on the path we now are on, we’re about finished.” <<

.
Really just beginning, through the fulfillment of the remainder of the prophecies of The Revelation.

He said that he would send strong delusion, and it is here in a big way. Go Yeshua!

[editor-surveyor]

>> Are you afraid of one humongous amendment that says “Amendment XXIIX: Delete the Constitution and all 27 prior amendments, and replace it with this one?” <<

.
Its coming soon through UN treaties, and the GOPe won’t lift a finger to stop it.

[Jacquerie]

Your imaginary demons funded a well researched work on the constitutional history of Article V.

It is shocking that so many freepers are unwilling to grasp a nonviolent means, unavailable in 1776, to institute reforms that could save our fast eroding freedoms.

[editor-surveyor]

Think about who would benefit from such a convention.

Conventions cannot be controlled by the people.

[Lurking Libertarian]

It wouldn't make sense for a state legislature to promote a popular delegate election subsequent to deciding an amendment convention was needed to correct specific problems.

Re-read Article V: when the legislatures of 2/3 of the states ask for a convention, Congress calls for the Convention. So it is Congress,, not the state legislatures, which will set the rules for holding the convention, selecting the delegates, etc.

[Jacquerie]

Conventions cannot be controlled by the people.

Correct and thank goodness.

Majoritarian, democratically derived tyranny is the foundation of what ails our republic. The Framers were aware of the danger and specifically crafted a Senate of the States to make sure we did not end up where we are today.

[editor-surveyor]

Most of those “majorities” are fraudulent anyway.

We do not have free, honest elections.

[Jacquerie]

The link in #2 has a section about 18th century conventions. The convening authority never set their rules.