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, wouldn’t 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 ...
Article 1, Section 8 is why I presume they have such control bestowed upon them.
The ONLY thing Congress does is,on the request of states, to “Call” the convention. To order it to happen.
That is it. It has nothing to do with the running of it, the voting in it, or anything else. After the “call” (basically an invitation),the whole thing comes from the states.
And it is not a complete rewrite of the constitution. The states propose amendments. There are safeguards in place to have a level of support to first propose, then to ratify the convention.
All this does is remove the total chains of tyranny we are being strangled by and rebalance the power back to the states.
Why do YOU support continued federal tyranny, and oppose a method our founding fathers thought was important enough to use, for such a time as this, to save our republic by CONSTITUTIONAL means?
If it is so dangerous, why did our founding fathers put it in the constitution?
Read the history of Article V and why this portion was added before you make unfounded allegations.
More on Article V
http://conventionofstates.com/article-v
We are approaching a crossroads.
One path leads to the escalating power of an irresponsible centralized government, ultimately resulting in the financial ruin of generations of Americans. The other path leads to the restoration of liberty and an American renaissance.
The correct path can be found within Article V of the United States Constitution.
Many people don’t know that there are two methods to propose amendments to the Constitution, both found under Article V.
1.Congress can amend the Constitution at any time if 2/3 of both houses of Congress agree.
2.A convention of states can be called if 2/3 of states submit applications. These applications must all deal with the same issue (i.e., limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government).
The Founders knew the federal government might one day become drunk with the abuses of power. The most important check to this power is Article V. Article V gives states the power to call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution.
By calling a convention of the states, we can stop the federal spending and debt spree, the power grabs of the federal courts, and other misuses of federal power. The current situation is precisely what the Founders feared, and they gave us a solution we have a duty to use.
After the states propose, debate, and vote upon the proposed amendments, they will be sent to the 50 state legislatures for ratification. Three-quarters of the states must agree for any of the proposed amendments to be ratified.
Congress has no authority to stop such a process. The Founders made sure of that.
We are appraoching a crossroads.
Which will we choose?
http://conventionofstates.com/learn-why-convention-safe
The most common objection to an Article V convention is called the “runaway convention” objection.
It envisions a doomsday scenario in which delegates disregard the original issue, rewrite the Constitution, and change the entire American system of government. While this initial response is understandable, it is based on fear and misinformation.
Here are the facts:
1. There is a clear, strong single-subject precedent that would almost certainly be declared binding in the event of a court challenge. There have been over 400 applications from state legislatures for an Article V convention in the history of the Republic. No such convention has ever been called because there has never been an application from two-thirds of the states for a single subject. In addition to this, there is a huge amount of historical precedent that limits interstate conventions to a particular subject. (See Dr. Robert Natelson’s handbook here: http://www.alec.org/publications/article-v-handbook/).
2. Ratification of any proposed amendment requires the approval of 38 states. It only takes 13 states to vote “no” to defeat any proposed amendment, and the chances of 38 state legislatures approving a rogue amendment are effectively zero.
3. Improper changes to the process can be legally challenged by state legislators. The Supreme Court has held that Congress acted unconstitutionally when it changed the rules of the process in midstream. See, Idaho v. Freeman, 529 F.Supp. 1107 (D.C. Idaho 1981) (vacated on the ground of mootness.) CSG’s Senior Fellow for Constitutional Studies, Michael Farris, was lead counsel for Washington state legislators in that litigation—the last major Article V case in U.S. history.
4. There is absolutely no historical precedent for a runaway convention. Many opponents of a convention of the states make the historically false allegation that our Constitution was adopted as the result of an illegal runaway convention. Such an argument was invented by the enemies of the Constitution and is unsupported by historical fact. (See “Was the Constitution Illegally Adopted?” by Michael Farris at http://www.hslda.org/courtreport/v21n4/V21N401.asp).
American citizens must evaluate the relative safety of two choices. We can allow Washington, D.C., to continue abusing the Constitution and the rights of the people with the vague hope that someday Washington will see the light and relinquish power. Or we call a convention of the states, trusting it will behave properly and one of the many lines of defense will stop any misuse of power.
We believe the choice is clear. A convention of states is the safest means by which we can preserve our liberty.
However, there is nothing to say the Supreme Court should decide this matter. Who would decide the matter? These are all open questions for which there is some guidance from history but it is an area of constitutional law where the wise would be wary of categorical assertions.
Article I Section 6 prevents a sitting Congressman from participating in the convention:
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
I know that there have been some legal analysis documents posted that debates this point, but I submit that a Convention of the States for the purpose of proposing amendments is exactly a civil office under the authority of the United States, since its very creation is authorized by Article V of the Constitution.
As such, a sitting Congressman would have to resign his seat in Congress in order to participate in the convention, if his purpose is to disrupt the convention's objectives.
-PJ
Jacquerie, I know that you strongly believe that an Art. V. Convention is the only way to save the nation, and that you’re passionate about that belief.
I’m equally as passionate that an Art. V will be a disaster.
If a convention is called, the left isn’t going to quake in their boots that we’re going to take back the government. No. They’re going to lick their lips that they FINALLY have a mechanism to cram down the 2nd Amendment.
And.
They will break every rule and throw aside every protection you believe exists to do so.
The left plays to win, at all cost. They look at cheating to do so as a badge of honor, an indication of just how far they’re willing to go for their beliefs.
Our side? Our side pushes to promote our agenda only and just so far enough so as not to induce too terribly much media scorn. Can’t get blackballed from the beltway party list, don’t you know.
You speak of no precedent for Congress to intervene. That’s the point, there’s no precedent for any of it. When Congress makes up their own role (an invasive one) and all three branches of fedgov signs off, then what?
If we get an Art. V, they will bastardize the Constitution, trash the 2nd Amendment (and 9th and 10th, and more), and dare you to oppose this new “law of the land”.
Then what will you do? I’ve said this before: you won’t get liberty amendments, you’ll get liberal ones. And then. You’ll get a civil war.
I’m perfectly happy to have an Article 5 convention, as long as everyone involved understands the risks, especially the risk of congress exerting (or attempting to exert) its control over the proceedings and the outcomes (the proposed amendments).
In my original post, I was simply pointing out that the poster’s proposed solution to the anti-convention folks’ runaway-convention argument is not really a solution.
You make an excellent point regarding the 3/4 of states requirement for ratification of any/all amendments. Until the states are more than 75% Marxist, there is little danger of our constitution being officially gutted - although regrettably, huge portions of it have been effectively gutted already.
But look what just popped up. As some of us predicted before Obama was inaugurated, he is attempting to amend the Constitution without bothering with the states, without bothering with the House of Representatives, merely by co-opting two thirds of the Senate and himself, by treaty.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3085548/posts
No member of congress would have to sit as a member of the convention in order for congress to exert (or attempt to exert) control over it.
There were half a dozen or so before the 1787 convention. Conventions of states/colonies were nothing new.
The threat to an Article V amendment convention would emerge from a congressional attempt to appease the states. Our first ten amendments were proposed by congress in order to head off an Article V convention lead by anti-federalists still smarting from their loss.
Your necessary and proper clause use is creative, but not applicable to controlling a convention.
Uh, congress SHALL call a convention when two thirds of the states apply.
There is no Article I Section 8 power to control a convention.
Nothing in the record of the constitutional convention or state ratifying conventions supports your premises.
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.
Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers
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 don't like 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 how the ruling class will try to dominate an Amendments Convention.
Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee
Holy crap.
It looks lie for the time being we should stow away the fanciful “what if” discussions/arguments surrounding Article 5, and concentrate on saving the whole document.
See you on that thread.
The legislatures can initiate this on their own, if they choose.
Why would they do so? For one thing, to increase their own power. For another, to clear DC so that they (the farm club) can move in.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A5.html
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.
Thanks!
Both.
Congress is required to call a convention whenever 2/3 of the stats say they should. It’s not optional, and it doesn’t look as if they can call a convention on their own whim.
They are to choose between two methods of ratification: ether 3/4 of the state legislatures (the usual method) or ratification conventions in the states, of which 3/4 must ratify.
It’s not as if Congress can either just call a Con Con randomly or refuse to call one when 2/3 of the states say so. Nor can they pick just any means of ratification. they must choose one of the two above, and that still requires 3/4 of the states to ratify, no matter which of the two they choose.
I would think that it "shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution."
I can't tell yet if you are also attempting to purposefully confuse the two terms.
-PJ
“Nothing in the record of the constitutional convention or state ratifying conventions supports your premises. “
By the same token, there is nothing in the last 100 yrs of federal governance that supports your premise that Washington would keep their hands off a Con-Con.
There is much to support the supposition that all three branches of the fedgov would move heaven and earth to cram down any attempt by the States to intervene with their unification of powers.
You say that can’t happen because the Constitution says so. I’ve seen many things the Constitution constrains happen. When the convention is a runaway of federal involvement DESPITE the fact that can’t happen, then what?
When all three branches agree and the media backs them, then what do you do?
To me, it’s a non sequitur that we’re going to call a con-con to end federal blasphemy of the Constitution and by doing so, the fedgov is going to follow the rules and allow that to happen. The sentiment so certainly expressed by proponents of a con-con that the fedgov is going to follow the Constitution as we try to stop and reverse them from a long history of not doing so - that scares me. Be careful for what you wish.
I would presume that Congress, under its power to “call” such a convention, would determine the meeting place and the beginning date. Other than that, I don’t think it has power to set any of the rules.
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.