Here are some other sites in which to reference:
http://www.article5.org/
http://www.foavc.org/
An Article V Application: The States' Tenth Amendment Rights In Action: http://www.nolanchart.com/article7171.html
An Article V Convention: Exposing The Really Bad Alternative Ideas: http://www.nolanchart.com/article7261.html
Yes, but they are fixing college football, so why are you complaining? /s
We don’t need a new constitutional convention. That would be extremely dangerous.
There are no men of our time who would act with the prudence, care, and foresight of our founding fathers.
A free republic would not remain.
do you really want a constitutional convention? can you imagine what the libs would do???
you can’t open up part of the constitution, you have to open it up, especially the second ammendment.
by the time you get done, your plan would have backfired tremendously. you won’t have a state sending delegates who are conservative, btu rather libs, and when they’re through, the constitution will look like Orwell’s animal farm.
Congress declares a president-elect Constitutionally validated as natural born without checking his birth certificate or his declared foreign father, and people are worried about Article V? LOL.
I believe: The Conservative point of view would lose out in any Constitutional Convention. In part that’s due to their distaste for Government as often reflected on this forum. In part it’s due to lack of organization and cohesion.
The 1992 law that regulates an Article V Convention sets a single-subject standard and lays down rules for the calling and conducting of such a convention.
Before you post such total and utter nonsense on Free Republic, please educate yourself by reading ”A Convention for Proposing Amendments...as Part of This Constitution”, an essay vetted by a constitutional lawyer to make sure I got all the facts straight.
Article. V.
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; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Possibly the U.S. Congress believes it is their right to ask not simply whether or not the required number of submissions by the states, in general, have been received, but, whether or not the required number of submissions of the states have been received, containing the same expressed purpose, in terms of needed amendments, in mind?
The solution is simple, have our states send a copy of their call for convention to the other states, and establish and agree upon a time and a place to hold it.
Congresses duty in the process is purely ministerial, and unnecessary. We should hold it anyway when we get the required 2/3rds. Each state should be able to count up 34 calls themselves. Also as demonstrated last time Not every state has to send a delegation. Rhode island did not last time.
So this is really no biggie, just be sure to specify where the convention is to be held it can be done in any one of our 50 State houses.
Last time it was Pennsylvania’, this time it should probably be an initiating State house. As Virginia has already initiated a call for convention we might as well meet in Richmond. But we could just as well do it in Austin or Santa Fe. It doesn’t really matter, the State merely needs to donate uses of its State house for the convention.
Article V does NOT open up the entire Constitution to a full re-write! In fact, I’m not sure there is ANY provision that would allow that, short of a full-blown revolution.
Article V (please read the document!) simply offers two ways to suggest AMENDMENTS to the Constitution: Through Congress or through a gathering of representatives from the Several States. Either route would OFFER AMENDMENTS only. (Where the whole concept of a mighty “Constitutional Convention” came from is anybody’s guess.) We’re only talking about adjustments, kiddies. Relax.
Said Amendments would still require three-fourths approval by the Several States. Under no circumstances would this gathering of state representatives have any power to propose then instantly impose sweeping changes to the Constitution! Let me be the first (but hardly the last) to declare that I would CERTAINLY take up arms if such an abomination were attempted!
The whole thrust of this excellent article is that Congress is illegally taking for itself the sole power to propose Amendments to the Constitution. Only the Congress is allowed to do that and to hell with the States, they’re saying. Oh yeah? (What a great time for this article to appear!)
The only thing that gives me a touch of indigestion ... representatives from the Several States would be chosen by their state legislatures and would NOT be sitting members of Congress, right? Keep those crooks away and I’m fine with the rest of it.
So, let each state chuse three or five or 20 representatives, selected by the legislatures of their respective States. Then let them propose all the Amendments they want. (Start with fine-tuning the Commerce Clause and feel free to offer a dozen more, is my position.) Any proposals they make still need to clear the three-fourths rule, so fire away!
Yeah, I’m comfortable with that. In fact, WICKED comfortable with that! Yeah.
bttt
right on seeker7_dj.
it was bill walker, former state chief justice tom brennan and myself who flipped some e-mails around which resulted in the founding of foavc. this took place after walker and i got his federal suit to the supreme court. i was later voted out of foavc (long story), but continue to advocate for the Article V Convention.
for those who parrot the same bogus arguments against dusting off the constitution and putting it to work for us here and now, you’re helping to seal our fate to the inevitable conclusion we face.
what the anti-conventionists fear is already talking place. the supreme court is an open-ended “constitutional convention” hell-bent on enslaving humanity in the name of a legal fiction. in other words, it’s convention or bust.
keep it up seeker7_dj. keep talking about it. i’ve been doing it for quite some time and will continue to.
this is my current site: http//www.articlev.org
to add, professor lawrence lessig out at harvard is also gearing up to build towards getting congress to issue the call: http://www.callaconvention.org
In 1992, when Congress recognized the ratification of the 27th Amendment (originally written as the first of 12 Amendments in the Bill of Rights by James Madison), it also regularized the process of calls for a new Convention. It established by law that in order to be contemporaneous, such calls must be made with the last seven years.
The Ssupreme Court, by the way, has recognized that a seven year limit is resonable and within the power of Congress in this amendment process. Look it up; read it for yourselves.
Bottom line: every single state call that is older than seven years is void, null, dead, of no effect whatsoever. And that is without considering the fact that the 1992 requires what I argued for 25 years before a majority of the state legislatures in the US, that to be counted together, calls must be "on the same subject."
So the whole premise of this thread is wrong, wrong, wrong, and obsolete to anyone who reads the applicable laws since 1992.
To all readers of this thread, do not take it seriously.
Congressman Billybob