Skip to comments.Constitutional Convention vs. a Convention of States
Posted on 10/30/2013 10:38:13 AM PDT by Jacquerie
Any teacher, lawyer, or politician will tell you that word choice matters. The words we use (and how we use them) can mean the difference between successful communication and horrible misunderstanding.
Over the last few months, many folks have asked, What is the difference between a constitutional convention and a Convention of States? Those who oppose the use of Article V like to use these terms interchangeably. They say that a con-con is dangerous and could result in the destruction of the American system of government. Any sane person, they say, wouldnt dream of pursuing a con-con. Well, we agree. A constitutional convention would be dangerous and could very well result in disaster.
(Excerpt) Read more at conventionofstates.com ...
We cannot trust in Washignton to reform itself...
If we cannot trust the states convention for proposing amendments then the Republic is already lost and we should let the states convention to propose amendments finish nailing the coffin of socialism around us all otherwise we shall languish even longer under tyranny...
Better to lose 2-3 henerations to tyranny than to lose all of history to tyranny under a slow languishing death...
The left likes to use semantics to hide what they are. Why are YOU using semantics to hide what you propose?
If you support it, do so proudly.
In my opinion, playing the semantics game to downplay the dangers of what you advocate is a tactic that drastically weakens your credibility.
Article 5 is very clear that Congress shall call a convention. Congress shall decide the mode of ratification.
How is a Constitutional Convention called by Congress and verified by methods determined by Congress a “Convention of States” independent of federal control?
How is that, exactly?
Or, as seems to be the wont here, how is that, euphamistically?
Look at my posting history. Your accusations aren’t worth a response.
Question for the day: Obamacare Democrats or TEA Party Republicans: Who yuh gunna trust?
How about a revolution?
YOU posted an article suggesting that it would be better PR to promote a Con-Con in euphemistic terminology.
THAT is your posting history.
I suggested that it’s the left that whines that their ideas only lack for support because that haven’t been sold the right way.
Why don’t you propose an Art V con-con on the basis of what Art V says.
Show me the phrase, “Convention of States” in Art. V. What I can show you in the plain language of the Art. is that Congress has the authority both to call such a Convention and to choose its mode of ratification, i.e. a federal Con-Con.
We revolted in 1775 because the alternative was tyranny.
The Framers gave us peaceful means to reassert republican freedoms. It would be silly not to use Article V.
Go enjoy yourself.
While I will support a con-con, basically the only problem with the Constitution is that it is not being taught anymore, if it ever was taught. And the consequence of widespread ignorance of the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers is, unsurprisingly, unconstitutionally big federal government.
What we should should be seeing instead of talk of con-con is a bunch of impeachments going on for many government leaders who are blatantly ignoring their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution which nobody reads. The problem is that most of the lawmakers who have the power to impeach corrupt government “leaders” need to be impeached themselves.
What a mess! :^(
Article V ping!
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.
I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but even when the appropriate number of States compels congress to call an Article 5 Convention, it is still congress which calls, and therefore presumably controls, the convention. That being the case, how could the States be certain of preventing the convention from running just as 'out of control' as one called by congress without an Application from the States?
Congress has zero authority to control the convention. There is no statute nor clause in the constitution that grants congress the authority. It would defeat the entire purpose of a state amendment convention.
Presumably Congress would have no power to do otherwise than to set the ratification process in train either by designating a ratification by state legislatures or by state conventions.
I concede that the lack of procedural rules of the Constitution suggests that the field might be open for Congress to exercise power. Indeed, in the past Congress has fought and can be expected to fight again to keep control of the convention process and the ratification process. When Congress historically does not like the prospect of a convention it finds ways to deny that two thirds of the states had timely called for one.
One can have a lot of fun playing hypothetical games. For example, what happens if Congress declines to call a convention and the states meet anyway? What happens of the states meet in convention to propose amendments, and Congress fails to designate the method of ratification? Suppose the states proceed to ratify anyway? One could go on and on.
For example, suppose one state stipulates that its delegates shall vote as a unit but the convention declares that all delegates can vote individually? What happens if Congress makes a similar rule? The permutations and combinations are almost endless. But they do not necessarily suggest a runaway convention or a convention under the control of Congress alone.
The real protection against a "runaway" convention ultimately is in the ratification process which requires three quarters of the states. Fortunately, Republicans have a strong hand in the state legislatures.
One must weigh the danger of continuing impotently on a headlong course controlled by Marxists in Washington and acquiesced in by Rinos toward disaster, or accepting the very limited risk of a runaway convention. If the left has power enough to control such a convention through the states we are lost anyway. But there is no evidence to suggest they do.
True enough. We have the Constitution we have as a result of a "runaway" convention, at least to hear George Mason tell it, and I have a sneaky sympathy for his point of view even though I'm glad it turned out the way it did.
To this one: What happens of the states meet in convention to propose amendments, and Congress fails to designate the method of ratification?
We can look at past ratification methods proposed by Congress for the 27 amendments that have been made so far.
Ratifying conventions have only been used on one occasion, that being for the ratification of the Constitution's 21st Amendment in the year 1933. All other proposed constitutional amendments have been offered to the state legislatures for ratification.
One can presume that, based on past intent by Congress, that State legislatures is the preferred method by Congress for ratifying amendments to the Constitution.
Previous conventions? What are you talking about? There has only ever been ONE constitutional convention, and it was not called under our current constitution.
There is no precedence for congressional control
True enough regarding an actual constitutional convention, but you were speaking of Article 5 conventions. There are no precedents whatsoever for Article 5 conventions, because congress has never called an Article 5 convention.
However, regarding congress' authority to run/control such a convention, one can turn to the last paragraph of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution: [The Congress shall have power] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Article 5 gives congress the power (and responsibility), under certain conditions, to call a convention for purposes of amending the constitution.
I'm pretty sure Article 1, Section 8, empowers them to set the rules for carrying such a convention to execution.
To your observation that despite your sneaky sympathy you're glad for the way the constitutional convention turned out, one might say the same of the war between the states.