Skip to comments."Should We Fear a Constitutional Convention?"
Posted on 11/19/2009 2:52:04 PM PST by hoguenews
When we were young, we learned about the best and brightest minds in the nation coming together to create the foundation of a new country and fundamentally change the role of government in the lives of the people. Now there is a proposal to have a similar Constitutional Convention in California, but without those great minds, how are we to be sure that we get a document that rewrites the Constitution for the better and not make our states problems even worse?
It is important to note that according to recent article in the Ventura County Star by Timm Herdt, all of the candidates running for governor either support or are open to supporting the proposal, except for Steve Poizner. This could be a strategic move or he could really be worried about it resulting in higher taxes, but it gives Poizner the unique opportunity to distinguish himself from every candidate in the field. According to a press release from Repair California, the group organizing the proposal, 70 percent of registered Republicans, 71 percent of Democrats and 74 percent of decline to state voters support the proposal. If those numbers continue to stay that high, Poizner could end up on the wrong side of this issue.
Read the entire link...
(Excerpt) Read more at hoguenews.com ...
I’d make a change to have the Supreme Court Justices serve 18 year terms, not life. Every two years, the President picks one. If one dies or leaves office, the sitting President picks a replacement to complete the term. Justices may serve for more then one term is reappointed.
It would really make the Presidency far less important, and voters would know exactly which Justices were going to be replaced by the next President.
It would also avoid the inventive to pick young unproven justices. Pick a 60-year old to serve until 78. It would end the geriatric issues, too.
Given how the prohibition against bills of attainder and ex post facto laws is utterly ignored, how would it be of any use... even assuming the new document was at all coherent?
It will be decades before we get back to the plain-common-sense reading of the Constitution and what its INTENT was meant to be....which will be much to late to restore what used to be "America".
My third novel covers the nightmare resulting from a runaway con-con.
My third novel covers the nightmare resulting from a runaway con-con.Only in a novel is such a concern. There is NO SUCH THING as a "CON-CON" in our system. Period.
There IS an "Amending Convention" that may PROPOSE to the States Amendments, but that is ALL that it can do.
Try reading the Constitution once in a while.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, 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;
... shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, ...That is an AMENDING Convention, furthermore limited to PROPOSING such amendments then SUBJECT to:
which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, 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;NO chance, NONE of a ROGUE convention. Try reading the Constitution once in a while.
So, a CONVENTION for proposing amendments to the CONSTITUTION is not a “constitutional convention??”
I guess that English must be your 3rd or 4th language, da?
Amending conventions, YES, Con-Cons, not a chance. Try basic English comprehension. No way can an amending convention do more than PROPOSE amendments. Period.
At least there is the two of us. Perhaps there are others but time too short I fear. Even Beck has talked against it...
subsisto fortis civis
This is a story about a small, remarkable group of lawyers who took it upon themselves, as a self-appointed committee, to propel a revolution: the repeal of the 18th Amendment.
In 1927, nine prominent New York lawyers associated themselves under the intentionally-bland name, ‘Voluntary Committee of Lawyers,” declaring as their purpose ‘to preserve the spirit of the Constitution of the United States [by] bringing about the repeal of the so-called Volstead Act and the Eighteenth Amendment.” With the modest platform they thus commanded, reinforced by their significant stature in the legal community, they undertook first to draft and promote repeal resolutions for local and state bar associations. Their success culminated with the American Bar Association calling for repeal in 1928, after scores of city and state bar associations in all regions of the country had spoken unambiguously, in words and ideas cultivated, shaped, and sharpened by the VCL.
As it turned out, this success was but prelude to their stunning achievements several years later. Due in large part to the VCL’s extraordinary work, the 18th Amendment was, in less than a year, surgically struck from the Constitution. Repeal was a reality. The patient was well. People could drink.
Here is how it happened.
Climaxing decades of gathering hostility towards saloons and moral outrage over the general degeneracy said to be flowing from bottles and kegs, the Constitution of the United Stated had been amended, effective 1920, to prohibit the manufacture and sale of ‘intoxicating liquors.’ The Volstead Act, the federal statute implementing the prohibition amendment, prohibited commerce in beer as well.
At first, prohibition was popular among those who had supported it, and tolerated by the others. But before long, unmistakable grumbling was heard in the cities. To meet the uninterrupted demand for alcohol, there sprang up bathtub ginworks and basement stills, tight and discrete illegal supply networks, and speakeasies: secret, illegal bars remembered chiefly today as where, for the first time, women were seen smoking in public.
Commerce in alcohol plunged underground, and soon fell under the control of thugs and gangsters, whose organizations often acquired their merchandise legally in Canada. Violence often settled commercial differences - necessarily, it might be said, as suppliers and distributors were denied the services of lawyers, insurance companies, and the civil courts. On the local level, widespread disobedience of the prohibition laws by otherwise law-abiding citizens produced numerous arrests. Courts were badly clogged, in large part because nearly all defendants demanded jury trials, confident that a jury of their peers was likely to view their plight sympathetically.
With the growth of well-organized and serious national anti-Prohibition groups like Americans Against the Prohibition Amendment and the Women’s Organization for National Prohibition Reform, popular support for repeal grew geometrically during the thirteen years of Prohibition. In the midst of the 1932 presidential election campaign, it erupted.
It was summer. Millions were broken from economic depression, beleaguered by crime and corruption, and thirsty.
As expected, the Republicans nominated the incumbent President, Herbert Hoover, who was pledged to support Prohibition. The VCL made a stalwart effort to gain a repeal plank in the platform, taking the debate as far as the convention floor, where they were turned away by a preponderance of delegates.
The situation was much different with the Democrats. Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt of New York, who led in the delegate count, had carefully avoided taking a position on repeal. At the convention, a successful floor fight produced a pro-repeal plank drafted and defended by the VCL - in the Democratic platform, which FDR unambiguously endorsed in his acceptance speech. ‘This convention wants repeal,” he declared. “Your candidate wants repeal.”,
During the election campaign, FDR made one unequivocal speech endorsing repeal. Otherwise, both candidates successfully avoided the issue, despite or perhaps because of - their having taken opposite positions. ‘Politics is the art of changing the subject,’ observed Walter Mondale many years later.’
When the only thing standing in the way of repeal was the election of FDR, thousands of ‘wets’ and hundreds of ‘wet” organizations moved unambiguously behind the Democrat. The message was clear: Roosevelt meant repeal, and repeal meant Roosevelt.
People wanted both, and Roosevelt triumphed in the election. The number of ‘wets’ in Congress grew significantly. In nine states, voters passed referenda repealing the state prohibition laws.
This is when the VCL stepped forward and took on the remarkable leadership and responsibility for which they were so uniquely equipped. It required no particular insight into the nature of democracy to know that when the weight of public opinion demanded repeal of Prohibition, Prohibition would be repealed. The question was how. Certainly, lest the repeal process - like any important undertaking -become mired in political and legal entanglements, a thorough and solid legal plan was essential.
For years, repeal advocates had urged that the repeal question should be resolved by conventions in the states, which-is one of two methods prescribed in the Constitution for ratifying amendments. Problem was, this method had never been used. Always, the matter of amending the Constitution had been (and to this day has been) decided by state legislatures. But to ‘wets,’ that was out of the question, as state legislatures were notoriously ‘dry,” being dominated by rural, fundamentalist interests, passionate in their defense of prohibition. (The ‘one man, one vote’ rule would not become law for another thirty-one years.) The repeal resolution had to bypass state legislatures and go to popularly-elected conventions, if it were to succeed.
But by whom were such conventions to be called? How were delegates to be chosen? When and where were they to convene? Who would preside? By what rules should the convention conduct itself’.? What rights and privileges would delegates have? How were conflicts between state and federal law to be resolved?
Heavy questions, these, and neither Congress nor any state had spoken on the subject. Enter the VCL.
Conferring with eminent Constitutional scholars, conducting exhaustive legal and historical research, feverishly circulating drafts of statutes, memoranda, briefs, summaries, etc. - the working drawings of legal change - the VCL quickly produced a prototype state statute, which dealt with all of the organizational problems involved in setting up Constitutional conventions in the states. It was as invulnerable to legal challenge as the best legal minds could make it. Called ‘truly representative,’ the conventions were carefully set up to mirror exactly the preferences of voters. This was accomplished by voters electing delegates pledged for or against repeal, and apportioning delegates based on the popular Vote.
Thus the convention process became essentially a two-step referendum: voters would speak, and delegates would vote accordingly. In no way were the conventions to be deliberative bodies. The pretense of debate was not to stand in the way of repeal.
Copies of the draft bills were sent to every governor and legislative leader in all the states. Utilizing their impressive network of affiliate-members throughout the forty-eight states, as well as their exquisite and plucky legal skills, the VCL provided expert witnesses for legislative hearings, submitted thorough legal briefs, defended legal challenges, answered Constitutional questions - in short, enabled states to prepare for the day that Congress would pass a repeal resolution and send it to the states for ratification.
Congress finally loosened the steamroller on February 20, 1933, and by December 5, in thirty-six states (the necessary three-fourths) legislation setting up conventions had been enacted, the conventions had been called, delegates had been elected and convened, and the repeal resolution had passed! The final roll call vote, in Utah, was eagerly monitored by millions over a national radio broadcast.
Nearly all the states that ratified the repeal resolution relied heavily on the prototype statute promulgated by the VCL. Many enacted it verbatim, others borrowed from it heavily.
Several hours after Utah ratified the 2lst Amendment, while millions of Americans were celebrating, the VCL treasurer quietly balanced the books by making a final contribution from his own pocket in the amount of $6.66, and closed them permanently.
Bring lawyers, guns and money.
shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution,
So, in your retarded parallel universe of Zippy Pinheads, a Convention for proposing Amendments to the Constitution.....is not a Constitutional Convention.
Are you Napoleon, or Brad Pitt, in the asylum?
And that was accomplished in the 1930s, eighty years before ACORN / Soros political manipulation.
A similar route to ratification would be taken today, in desperate times, following an ACORN / Soros Con-Con.
The leftist MSM would be 100% behind it, and the ‘Rat Congress gets to design the rules.
The states make the final ratification. Since we now have a majority of "Red" states, odds would be in favor of the people getting real constraints on government spending through use of some simple adjustment (i.e. repeal the 16th).
In a real asylum, people who attack others for no reason are common.
Who in the states makes the final determination? The Congress gets to make the rules. I can see bogus “state ratifying conventions” taking place in a Hugo Chavez type environment, in downtown civic centers, with “security” provided by SEIU, and the delegates from ACORN, blessed by the leftist MSM.
Any conservatives who tried to show up would get an SEIU beat down.
Would it work? On one level, yes. On another level no, because such a bogus con-con and ratifying conventions would precipitate CW2.
I agree it wouldn't be bloodless. Only way less so than a CW2 which is were we're headed. That or a collapse with a starving population scavenging for subsistence. It is our chance but there maybe nothing we can do to avoid a coming storm of monumental size and scope and the current landscape rent asunder.
Even so, it's my opinion that there will be a new dawn for a better world in the not too distance future. Hence I applaud the survivalist.
The legislators and governors.
Amen. If we don’t survive, we can’t influence the future.