Posted on 07/24/2013 1:36:41 PM PDT by Jacquerie
A government designed to secure our unalienable rights has become something of a black-hole that devours our liberties. In the sum total of our three national branches, fewer than 1,500* men and women push around over 300 million citizens without restraint or fear for their personal safety. What is to be done? If we weigh the potential benefit, meaning the restoration of our republic, against the remote disadvantages of an amendment convention, there is little reason to avoid one.
There’s been some hubbub at FR recently over both the necessity and danger of the states calling an Article V Convention. Mark Levin lit the fuse on July 10th when he showed a little more leg, when he revealed the title of his new book, The Liberty Amendments, Restoring the American Republic. We know eleven chapters will be devoted to eleven amendments that include repeal of the 17th amendment, the grant of state recall authority over senators, and term limits for congress and federal judges.
He made it clear that from Article V, this convention of state delegates could only recommend amendments and not draft a new constitution. Instead of congressionally derived amendments, Article V acknowledges the right of a sovereign people and states to go around our near hopelessly corrupt and consolidated government. As done a couple dozen times before, the people/state derived amendments would be subject to ratification, as are congressionally sourced amendments, by at least three-fourths of the states.
All well and good, right? Well, not everyone agrees.
Is there a danger an Article V convention could produce a positive right, USSR type of constitution that would make Saul Alinsky proud? It is not at all likely.
The reason resides in our history. As in 1787, today’s states would send delegates, not representatives. There is a big difference. As opposed to our congressmen and senators, amendment convention delegates will be agents of the states. Delegates from states that actually wished to restore republican freedom would arrive not with plenary powers, but would be subject to legislative instructions that restrict their jurisdiction. Limited to specific areas, and perhaps backed up with enforceable sanctions, it would take a bold delegate to dishonor his commission. This isn’t to say some states won’t send some far left radicals with rather wide open instructions. Perhaps the CA delegates would be cleared for full a full Alinsky. Still, it is doubtful that more than a handful at most would promote this.
State delegates to Philadelphia in 1787 were charged with improving the Articles of Confederation. That they did, but at a cost of recommending the ditching of what very little remained of the confederation government. For freepers who believe the constitutional convention will be today’s model, they’re partly right. Delegates with restrictive state commissions in 1787 followed their instructions. For instance, the majority of delegates from New York left the convention because the evolving constitution violated their instructions. Similarly, due to their commissions, delegates from Delaware practically forced the compromise that provided for equality of state suffrage in the senate.
To summarize, no state delegate to an amendment convention will arrive without instructions. It is less than unlikely that any significant number will have something remotely close to carte blanche authority to create a social justice, utopian hell. The remaining adults in the room will be armed with specific amendment topics or perhaps detailed instructions from their legislatures.
* One president, 435 congressmen, 100 senators, and 875 Article III judges.
First, how are going to hold them to the wording of the Constitution? If that was possible, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in.
Second, read Article V, it doesn’t say that 3/4s of the state legislatures must ratify, it says, “...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;”
Should Congress choose Conventions in the states, what are the rules of those Conventions? Can Congress or the Federal Courts make the rules? I would wager that they think they can. Which gets us back to my initial statement, i.e. a Convention in the current climate would result in civil war.
"I think the following shall I say is a slam dunk rebuttal to (Thane_Banquo) your premise offered."
Growing up, my mother would say to me & my brother "don't take a chance, keep it in your pants."
In regard to a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) "don't take a chance, keep what you got!
We have used state ratifying conventions twice in our history: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.
There is both ample precedent as to how state ratifying conventions work. It's not new territory.
There are two examples, one under the Articles of Confederation. The only convention held under Article V doesn't provide precedent of how conventions must be done, but rather a single example of how an Article V convention can be done.
The structure and scope of a new convention would be dictated by Congress, which Article V does not put limits on, and any challenge to Congress would ultimately rest with 5 members of SCOTUS.
I'm still holding fast to my statement, i.e. an Article V convention held today would lead to civil war.
Two very different things.
There is absolutely no good reason to have a convention with delegates if there are no changes to be made to a proposed amendment. It goes to the state legislatures and they vote up or down. This has been the case with all but one amendment, and with good reason.
Article V may allow Congress to restrict a convention to the single purpose of voting up or down, but it by no means limits Congress from creating an open convention.
In the current political environment, an move toward an Article V convention is dangerous as hell.
Then read the second document to which I've linked. You'll find conflicts in a small number of areas. This document is rigorous in its own way, and I think the conflicts can be resolved in favor of the second document.
Between these two documents, 99% of the gray areas in Article V's amendatory process can be resolved. You may not like the answers, but the best minds in constitutional law have taken a crack at the problem.
With all due respect, and I really mean that, the best minds in constitutional law and SCOTUS often split 5/4.
I appreciate the posted material, but to be frank, the publications address how to go about an Article V convention.
My analogy is that you are suggesting a safe way to drive through Detroit at 2AM, while I’m suggesting that it is far safer to avoid Detroit, and still arrive at the same destination.
If you want to amend the Constitution and you have 2/3 of Congress on your side, write the amendment and send it to the state legislatures. Don’t even open debate on a Constitutional convention, and you will never get an open convention.
I don’t see the benefit of circumventing the legislatures, as one would hope that they would be picking delegates if there were a convention.
There is absolutely no way that a convention would produce conservative amendments. The Dems and RINOs would do what they do now: gang up on conservatives and shove a pile down our throat.
If conservatives bring about a convention, they’ll end up with every liberal wet dream being enshrined in the New Constitution.
The result will be civil war.
If you have any doubt, consider this: Texas is one of the most conservative States in the union. That said, Speaker Joe Staus rules with a coalition of democrats and moderates.
HE would send delegates to the convention and they won’t be conservative.
He would marshal the votes to ensure passage of the Liberal (not liberty) Amendments
If we can’t depend on Texas (and so long as Straus is Speaker, we can’t), then what State can we depend upon?
The idea that conservatives are going to take over a convention is a pipe dream. The reality is that the “conservatives” sent to such a convention are going to look remarkably like Boehner and McConnell, if not McCain and Lindsay.
An Art V convention, here and now, is the spark that will start a war.
Considering you responded to the title, and not the substance of my post, I have nothing more to say.
Which is of course, the entire problem with this concept.
YOU think you can hold the left to YOUR set of rules on a Con-Con, so that make it a wonderful idea in your book.
If the left would follow the rules, we wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place.
So, after you push through a Con-Con, and the left turns it into THEIR version of a New Constitution, you’re going to be putting your fingers in your ears saying you aren’t listening to them because they aren’t following your concept of a Con-Con.
In the meantime, the Constitution is irretrievably altered, and nothing short of war will fix it.
No, I didn’t respond to the substance of your post. I responded to the REAL outcome of your desires: a New Constitution that will incorporate the Liberal Amendments and not the Liberty ones.
If you have any doubt, consider this: the Articles of Confederation had rules for changing it, rules the Constitution completely ignored by creating its own rules for ratification. A Con-Con doesn’t even have to do that. It could be reasonably interpreted that the Congress and not the Con-Con gets to determine the rules for ratification.
You get a Con-Con, you leave our fates to the hands of people like Pelosi, Boehner, McCain, and Schumer. I’ll take my chances with our founders.
Thank you for sharing your feelings
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.