Skip to comments.Article V...Constiutional Convention
Posted on 04/15/2014 4:35:55 PM PDT by SgtBob
U. S. Constitution
The article she wrote bore nothing in common to the title, but the some in the FReepdom were spinnin' like a bunch of whirligigs. They seemed to not know, or not care, of the difference between a Constitutional Convention, and an Article V Convention of the States.
Now, I ain't the sharpest spoon in the drawer, so somebody sharpen me up, where needed.
An Article V Convention of the States is a way for the People to circumvent the wrongs thrust upon us by the Centralized Government.
The only role Congress is allowed is administrative. The State Legislators send Delegates to act as proxy for the People of the individual States.
All Amendments must pass with 3/4 majority. That way commonsense might prevail....the left-wing nut jobs can't pass the "Eat Yer Own Garbage to Prevent Landfill Expansion" Amendment.
If I'm way off base, let me know...it might help other FReeper know the difference between a Constitutional Convention, and an Article V Convention of the States.
Flame on....Grammar Nazis, too.
Sounds like you got’er figured out sarge.
Article V ping.
Article V convention has a specific, stated purpose. No other agenda is permitted except that which is proposed for the A5C.
A ConCon can become a free-for-all, from what I’ve heard, where Lefties can poison otherwise Constitutionally conservative amendments and vice-versa.
This is all based on years of reading on both FR and other print sources, but I believe this is a sound summation.
Make the Tenth Amendment the FIRST.
The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps: Proposal, Disposal, and Ratification.
There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.
Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.
Once Congress, or an Amendments Convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:
The State Ratifying Convention Method has only been used twice: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.
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-quarters of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.
Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and one implicitly forbidden subject.
I have two reference works for those interested.
The first is from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative pro-business group. This document has been sent to every state legislator in the country.
The second is a 1973 report from the American Bar Association attempting to identify gray areas in the amendatory process to include an Amendments Convention. It represents the view of the ruling class of 40 years ago. While I dislike some of their conclusions, they have laid out the precedents that may justify those conclusions. What I respect is the comprehensive job they did in locating all the gray areas. They went so far as to identify a gray area that didn't pop up until the Equal Rights Amendment crashed and burned a decade later. Even if you find yourself in disagreement with their vision, it's worth reading to see the view of the ruling class toward the process.
We have to recall what happened to the convention that was supposed only to amend the Articles of Confederation. Mason fled in disgust when he realized what those lunatics Hamilton and Madison actually had in mind... ;-)
Plubius, do you know how many states have approved this specific Convention of States project by C for SG?
Thumbs up from a Sailor? We need to go bust up a tavern over a broad at the end of the bar;-)
I believe it’s only 1 for the Levin project, but I may be wrong. The balanced budget amendment effort may have 34, but there are confusing issues about rescission and timeliness, so that’s going to be up to the Archivist of the United States and Congress to decide.
The Newsmax chick threw the Con-Con as her title...that wasn’t the thrust of the article, but a bunch of FReepers went wild.
Gotta keep pushin’.
Thank you. I’ve been looking for that number.
The between/and construction doesn’t require a comma.
#16 is especially designed just for you.
Quick and tight timeline:
1781 & 1783. Congress asks for limited commerce and taxing powers. RI refuses.
March 1785: Mount Vernon Conference. Legislators from MD and VA discuss Potomac navigation and commerce issues. Conferees suggest wider state meeting in Annapolis.
September 1786: Annapolis Convention. Few states attend. Nothing of substance, other than a call to meet in Philly in May of 1787.
February 1787: Congress calls for a convention that was going to happen anyway.
These meetings/conventions were extra-congressional. Congress had no authority to call a convention, nor commission its members, nor define its purpose. Congress was an impotent advisory group, which was the reason for the meetings/conventions of 1785 -1787.
The Federal government shall provide to the states all the money which they request.
The states would have a magical money machine. Just have the Feds print more money.
If the Convention proposed anything the States disliked, then the States could reject the proposed amendment and so the proposal would not become part of the Constitution. The last two amendments proposed by the Congress (Equal Rights Amendment and District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment) were rejected by the States, so the States are certainly not rubber stamps regarding proposed amendments.
Finally, there's no way the Convention would be able to impose amendments or a new constitution. Any such attempt would be viewed as illegitimate and would destroy the Convention's credibility. Any thought that the federal government, the States, or the People would acquiesce in such an act is laughable.
Yer plenty sharp Sarge, now back in yer scabbard afer Ya poke out your eye;)
Gosh, that is a horrid and unsubstantiated cheap shot!
Mason attended the entire convention.
Tell me of Madison's and Hamilton's lunacy.
Con Con? No thanks.
Well the congress critters could actually get together and propose an amendment to nullify the states being able to propose amendments.....
Heck they just might if not enough of the states get serious about an article V convention to propose NEW amendments to take their power back from FedGov...
You, obviously, missed the misspelled title;-)
Educate yer damned self! 34 States HAVE NOT signed on to a Constitutional Convention! They ARE considering an Article V Convention of the States.
READ THE CONSTITUTION!
Don’t mean to yell, but after yesterday, stoopid posts need it.
Thanks. My home state was one that rescinded. So sad...
Read my post, again, and the read Article 5...sheesh...
TELL ME WHERE THE HELL I SAID WE NEED A DAMNED CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION!?
SOME O’ YOU ASSES JUS’ CANT READ!
MY FRUSTRATION IS BECAUSE OF YESTERDAY’S POST, AND THE IGNORANCE OF FREEPERS!
(those of you, to whom this does not apply...you know who you are...thanks fer puttin’ up with my yellin’.)
Bayonet in eye, yet?
Thank you, much. I tried to put it in “easy read”....you make me a piker. I shall endeavor to follow suit.
You posted this yesterday, and folks didn’t get it. That was part of my frustration...I was trying to get FReepers to look at it in a simple fashion...some posts say I failed.
Not quite sure what brew you have, but I’d like a heads up, as a purveyor of fine brews.
Na maybe a splinter.
I see no reason for anything to be done to the Constitution except FOLLOW IT TO THE LETTER.
Once a proposed amendment is drafted then it is up to the 3/4 Article V state majority to either ratify it or ignore the proposed amendment. And if the states choose to ignore the proposed amendment then the drafting stage, either with Congress or the convention of states, was a waste of time imo.
Note that regardless of the signatures of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention on the final draft of the Constituiton, the delegates still had to go back to their states to sell the new Constitution. So even with the original Constitution, the states could have chosen to ignore it instead of ratifying it.
You’ve done a fine job. People need to be educated as to what an Article V Convention can and can not do.
So expressing an opinion—which stands, by the way—is stupid? OK.
I have read the constitution many times. I carry a copy with me at all times. I would not go so far as to say I am an expert.
So, tell me, genius, how the Article V route makes us somehow immune to the same mummery and shenanigans that would occur during a regular constitutional convention, or any other political situation.
If “our side” sends representatives, do you think that the other side will not? Do you think that the other side will not try the same tactics they use in any other political situation? What makes you think that the other side won’t just ignore any results like they currently do? Please, explain all that to this poor, dumb ol’ boy from Missouri.
We have something that works. Use it. Hold your government accountable by whatever means are at your disposal. Like it or not, we’re eventually going to have to make an omelet.
How many Congresses would it take to get the Centralized Government within the confines of the Constitution?
I don’t think it could happen without an amendment to impose term limits. Mind you, I, once upon a time, opposed them. You get good representation, you want to keep it....then they get wealthy and become a K Street lobbyist.
Just askin’...like I said in my post, I ain’t the sharpest spoon in the drawer.
Looks good to me and yer gram mer ain’t tooo bad neither.
Well, let’s see:
House - Terms last 2 years IIRC
Senate - 1/3 every 6 years IIRC
So congress is the opposite of Progress * (50% uninformed voters / 3.14) + Vote Fraud^3 = roughly 400 years.
We are so screwed!
An Article V Convention of the States is very small scoped.
Let’s say 32 States legislatures, represented by the people of the 32 States, decided the U. S. Congress needs to be term limited. That would be the only Amendment to be debated...the U. S. Congress has no voice, whatsoever; No other Amendments can be debated, whatsoever.
In an earlier post I said the “Eat Yer Own Garbage to Stop Landfill Expansion Amendment” will not be heard.
This would not be a Constitutional Convention. This is a group of States, with the foresight of the Founding Fathers, to amend the Constitution without the interference of an out of control, lawless, Congress.
Shout back if ya need more help;-)
I must respectfully disagree. We need a CoS desperately. We are very late. And not because there is anything wrong with the current constitution, the wrong lies in the federal government itself and the people who make it up. The overall intent of the CoS is to empower the states to reign in the federal government and force it to follow the constitution. It’s that simple, to abide by and enforce the constitution. Just as you stated.
Just one question FReeper, do you really think they will let you leave?
Well, Sir, yer mathematical skills astound me...=roughly 400 years extrapolates to Article V....I need ta take a sip of that water in yer pretty neighborhood lake;-)
I worked hard on my grammarisms coming up in the primary schoolin’;-)
Lunatics? I don’t think so. Read the Federalist Papers.
Arghh. Youse needs to keep the sabers and cutlasses well oiled to prevent rust don’t ya know? It’s ah lil harder to poke out yer eye within a longer blade. arghh.
Oh, I did. You might consider reading the series Publius and I put together on them over 14 months here on FR. It's HERE. Let us know what you think.
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.