Skip to comments.U S Two States Away from Constitutional Convention
Posted on 12/11/2008 5:28:28 AM PST by GWMcClintock
click here to read article
They can completely rewrite the US Constitution. And I think they can then approve the rewrite without any states voting.
I have asked for a State Constitutional Amendment demanding that firearm’s be issued to all those born here and for those who move here, but they have to send a request for theirs (we don’t know if they are staying, so we don’t want to supply the enemy)!
That was a good read. Well written and caused my heart to beat faster . . . got to read your first and now this book. Definitely on my “New Year’s” list.
I hope you don’t mind, but I sent your excerpt to Sen. Chambliss for his staff to read, along with your website url. Gave you credit for it all.
I may also send it to a few other Senators’ offices. Might shake up a few RINOs like Chambliss.
A Constitutional Convention is a second option to the other method of “proposing amendments” to the Constitution.
Note that it is for “proposing amendments”... as the states still have to *ratify* whatever the Constitutional Convention proposes as an amendment. It has to be submitted to the states for that same 3/4 of the states to approve before it is put into effect and changes the Constitution.
So..., just like an amendment that the Congress proposes and 3/4 of the states may or may not approve — likewise — a Constitutional Convention proposes an amendment which 3/4 of the states will approve or not approve.
It still has to go through the same “approval process”...
You said — “Do we still have a constitution? Seems it dies a silent death long ago!”
Well..., if you’re referring to this process of calling for a Constitutional Convention — yes..., that is a constitutional process...
You said — “A Constitutional Convention, when called, can completely re-write the Constitution, even if it was called only to address a narrow issue. With the dims in control, delegates to such a convention would be the Jesse jackson, Bwarney Fwank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid types. In short: it would be the end of this Country as we know it.”
It’s not the Congress who can choose delegates. It’s the states that can. And even if some sweeping amendment or amendments are proposed — they *still* have to be approved by 3/4 of the states, just like the other method for proposing amendments.
This changes *only* the method for “proposing amendments”. It doesn’t change the “approval process” — which still requires 3/4 of the states to approve.
You said — I think this will happen. I think much of what Obama is planning requires this. Even the birth certificate issue plays into this — “Oh? You’re concerned about my status as a natural-born citizen? Well, why don’t we straighten that out at the Convention??”
No matter what is proposed for an amendment, it still has to be approved by 3/4 of the states. It’s still *just as high* a threshold as it always has been.
And then you said — And the new wording for Second Amendment will be: “Guns are for hunting. For purposes of hunting, federal gun licenses and registration are required.”
And do you think that this would pass 3/4 of the states for ratification?
I knew it was more than just a majority. And I have to admit, it has been some time since I sat down in a classroom to cover this stuff. But of course, I probably should have re-read the Constitution before attempting to use my faulty memory.
You said — “Interesting that as the communists take over our country we havw this happening at the same time.”
The request for a Constitutional Convention is the second method by which the Constitution has for proposing amendments. It was put in there in case the Congress would not act to propose an amendment. This is the second way it is done.
Now, any amendment is still required to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.
And besides that, this particular call for the Balanced Budget Amendment (since Congress has not put it forth) is being done by the “second method” for proposing amendments to the Constitution. And, as I said (and as the Constitution says), it still requires 3/4 of the states to approve for ratification.
You said — “ok - then what happens? Does each state then get to vote on the new constitution? What if a bunch of red states decide to reject the new one and the blue states all approve? Van we then write our own and go our separate ways? If so, then I am all for having a constitutional convention, the sooner the better.”
Then what happens is that 3/4 of the states must approve the amendment (or each of several amendments, if it came to that) — in order to ratify the amendment. It hasn’t always been easy to get 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment to the Constitution.
You said — “I’ve always believed this country would see a military coup to save the Constitution someday. I just never expected to see it in my lifetime.”
This is one of two methods for proposing amendments for the Constitution — and it happens to be a “Balanced Budget” amendment being proposed. Since the other method is for the Congress to propose an amendment and Congress has not acted on it — this method provides a way for the people to *bypass* Congress and propose the amendment themselves.
It still has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.
And, as such, as it is being done — it is a Constitutional process in and of itself...
The question becomes can you find 13 states to reject a wild ammendment. Looking at the red/blue map we are probably OK for another few years, but the demographics, media brainwashing, and public school indoctrination system are all working 24/7 to finish the job.
You said — “I do not trust any modern day politian to re-write my Constitution!”
They can’t simply re-write the Constitution. They must propose amendments that 3/4 of the states must ratify, before anything can take effect. It’s the same standard for ratification for the Congress proposing a Constitutional Amendment.
It is my understanding as the article points out that they are under NO requirement to only address the balanced budget amendment, they can re-write the US Constitution.
I think you may be in error as to the states having to ratified the new document or amendment.
I’ll have to re-read the article that staes what you have said.
Do you know which amendment that may be?
"All Amendments to this Constitution shall be ratified by vote of the majority of Senators elected by the separate states."
I wonder if you could get 3/4 of the states to approve that? Because if you did, then it would be so much easier to come back and get 51 senators to trash the whole doucment the following year.
And oh the way, after they trash the document with 74 new Amendments, they will pass a 75th Amendment: "All Amendments to this Constitution shall be ratified by voting among 3/4 of the states."
All you all can move to Texas and Texas may secede, but that just provokes the evil ones to push that much harder to over take us (Texans).
We may have some fire power here, (and we do!) but I’m certain a stand alone state cannot overcome zer0, his muslim militia and millions of z0mbies willing to die for their great deceiver.
I’m thinkin this would only result in our ‘invasion’ (ok - retreat) to the land of Mexico....maybe they need some landscapers, construction workers and housemaids down there.....
We may be able to take LA, AL, NV, NM, GA, and OK with us maybe a few others.
You said — “It is my understanding as the article points out that they are under NO requirement to only address the balanced budget amendment, they can re-write the US Constitution.”
Well, first of all, the “call” for a Constitutional Convention has been put forth *only* with wording for purposes of a balanced budget (for the Federal Government).
And so..., if such a gathering of all the states (it’s not Congress, by the way, but only from the States), including the ones who *called* for this “balanced budget” — saw other amendments “on the table” by others, those states who *voted* precisely for this balanced budget amendment would most likely reject it (according to their *own language* that *their own state* put forth to get there).
But, if one or two or three amendments came forth, each amendment would require a vote by 3/4 of the states to ratify.
When you asked what amendment that might be, I’m not sure what you’re asking. Are you referring to Article 5 of the Constitution? That’s the one that specifies that 3/4 of the states must ratify any amendment — whether it comes from the Congress or a Constitutional Convention...
the request for convention from Ohio has been put in play. it states specifically
>>RESOLVED, That, if the convention called by the Congress is not limited in subject to the amendment proposed in this resolution, any delegates, representatives, or participants from the State of Ohio asked to participate in the convention are permitted to debate and vote only on the proposed amendment contained within this resolution or an equivalent amendment; and be it further<<
I *think* that means that Ohio has limited it’s delegates to what they can vote on. Now it would depend on what the other delegates vote on and do since Ohio has tied it’s own hands.
You asked — “I wonder if you could get 3/4 of the states to approve that? Because if you did, then it would be so much easier to come back and get 51 senators to trash the whole doucment the following year.”
No, I don’t see 3/4 of the states approving that, because they’ve had such a time approving other amendments by 3/4 of the states. It’s not easy to get that done, unless something is overwhelmingly demanded by our population. This sort of thing wouldn’t be overwhelmingly demanded, for sure.
Besides that — you have to remember that if it gets to 34 states — that *each of these 34 states* will have specifically worded their request for a Constitutional Convention in terms of a balanced budget amendment. That’s something that the populations of each of these states *demanded* for it to be put forth in this context of a Constitutional Convention.
In other words, if these states had not *limited* the scope of the amendment, they would have never gotten it passed in those states. That pretty much means that you would have about 34 states that would *immediately* oppose expanding this to any other amendment — just by the fact of how they worded their requests in the first place. It would be hard to get the remaining states to override those 34 states.
And then..., of course it *still* has to be ratified (whatever amendment or amendments come out of it) by 3/4 of the states...
“When you asked what amendment that might be, Im not sure what youre asking. Are you referring to Article 5 of the Constitution? Thats the one that specifies that 3/4 of the states must ratify any amendment whether it comes from the Congress or a Constitutional Convention”
Thanks for your answer.
Rights that limit government are negative rights. I read that the term “negative rights” was misconstrued by Rush. Of course, that doesn’t change the fact that Dems see “negative rights” as a bad thing. :-(
You said — “If you think the loony left is going to hold a Constitutional Convention and only address this one proposal, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you.”
Well, you have to remember that you would be going into a Constitutional Convention with 34 states that have *already* and *expressly* said in their states’ requests that they are limiting this to a balanced budget amendment. So, by *their own wording* and their own state’s approval (by the voting population of that state) — they have limited it.
Now, that would mean that 34 states would be going into a Constitutional Convention *already limiting themselves* by their very own requests that were put forth (by the approval of the people in those states).
And since the amendment process has to be approved by the states (and not Congress), they won’t be able to get out any other amendments other than what they went in to do.
However, even if another amendment were to come out of it, it’s already D.O.A. — because it takes 3/4 of the states to ratify any such “new amendment”. And how are they going to get 3/4 of the states in the United States to approve an amendment that *no one* is asking for — knowing that they went in there for only one purpose (the balanced budget amendment)?
It’s very difficult to get 3/4 of the states to approve any amendment, at all...
Thanks for the ping. I happen to agree that the failure of the Supreme Court to do the right thing could mean an end to our constitutional republic. This article basically confirms that thought, and it’s one of the scariest FReeping articles to be posted in a while.
A communications major, like Doug in my new book!
It would be a CW2 trigger for sure.
Yeah. Politicians are critically worried about balancing the budget.
Hopefully the book will be out around March 2009, before the entire economy goes Argentina/Zimbabwe, riots break out, and martial law is declared.
I’m only half joking.
Are you sure one revolution was enough?
BULL FEATHERS !!!
You posted this junk - do you believe it? I don't.
Quite a coinky-dink.
There’s a much longer excerpt from “Foreign Enemies and Traitors” on my website, plus the first 100 or so pages of my other books. Feel free to pass them along.
An older article addressing the issue...
The Balanced Budget Amendment: A Limited Constitutional Convention
Addresses the concerns that one would have a “runaway constitutional convention”....
It would be interesting to know if the OTHER states delegates are bound to one issue of just a balanced budget or not.
Alright Travis, now you’ve done it.
When does book 3 come out?
Are you sure that the approval process is the same?
They leave the Total Immersion Video Arcade and enter the car park level.
They pass two posters stuck on a wall.
SEBASTIAN: (Reading) "Vote Fascist for a third glorious decade of total law enforcement."
JAKE: (Reading) "Be a government informer. Betray your family & friends. Fabulous prizes to be won."
Maybe I’m missing something, but the article you posted says that the vote was scheduled for the 10th, Wednesday.
Today is the 11th, Thursday.
So how did the Ohio Legislature vote?
Absolutely 100% spot on correct. It will all be over before 99.99% of the sheeple in this country even begin to stir as the danger comes front and center to their faces. By that I mean that when the public awakens to the steady crunch crunch of jackboots marching the streets, it will be way too late.
So, we only need 13 states to reject any new Constitution or Amendments. Well, let's suppose that the new document takes away gun rights. In that case, the following states at a minimum could be counted on to reject it:
That's 21 states, and I didn't even include some that I think would go our way.
If there's a Con Con, there is danger, but it would be a danger of incrementalist crap. The more pressing danger is either more incrementalism or a "Reichstag Fire" scenario.
all I can see is the demise of the second ammendment...
We faced down Mexico by ourselves with no help. We can do it again if we must. If we left, we would most certainly have company.