the Con-Con Cometh...
Posted on 11/07/2013 3:03:07 PM PST by Jacquerie
INDIANAPOLIS - The leader of the Indiana Senate has invited lawmakers from every state to join him Dec. 7 at Mount Vernon, George Washington's Virginia home, to discuss the state-led process for crafting amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Senate President David Long, R-Fort Wayne, asks in a letter written to fellow legislative leaders that each state send a bipartisan group of three delegates to the "Mount Vernon Assembly."
He said the meeting will lay the groundwork for a Convention of the States that would, when established by Congress, propose amendments to change various provisions of the Constitution.
"The authors of the Constitution included a state-led amendment option as a check on a runaway federal government," Long said. "The dysfunction we see in Washington, D.C., provides an almost daily reminder of why this option is needed now more than ever."
The initial meeting won't actually consider potential amendment topics, Long said. Instead, it's intended to set up the rules to be followed if and when a constitutional convention is called.
There are two authorized methods for changing the nation's fundamental governing document. The only one that has been used is when two-thirds of Congress proposes an amendment and three-fourths of the states (38 states) ratify it.
However, the Constitution also permits what has come to be known as an "Article V convention," named for its placement in the fifth section of the Constitution.
Under that scenario, two-thirds of state legislatures (34 states) ask Congress to call a Convention of the States for proposing constitutional amendments. If the convention approves an amendment, it then can be ratified by three-fourths of the states and added to the Constitution without congressional approval.
Because an Article V convention has never been called, there are no clear rules on how it would begin — does every state have to pass an identical convention request? — what rules the convention would follow or whether it could be limited in scope.
The primary criticism of the convention idea is the possibility that a "runaway convention" will scrap the entire Constitution.
In fact, the current U.S. Constitution emerged from a convention called to recommend fixes to the Articles of Confederation, America's first constitution.
Long tackled the "runaway convention" issue earlier this year for Indiana by winning approval of two new laws that severely restrict the ability of a Hoosier delegate to a future Article V convention to make decisions outside the explicit instructions provided by the General Assembly.
An Indiana delegate that acts contrary to the wishes of the legislature not only is automatically replaced, but also faces up to three years in prison.
"I was proud to see Indiana lead on this issue in the most recent legislative session and I will continue to support it as a legitimate tool of the states to push back against federal overreach and restore a more proper balance of power," Long said.
He said the Mount Vernon Assembly will devise a "prudent and cautious process" other states can follow to ensure an Article V convention remains focused on specific subjects.
Long has indicated he supports a convention that would propose amendments limiting the power of Congress to impose taxes and regulate business.
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
The Supreme Court has already rewritten the Constitution.
I would rather the people do it through their elected representatives.
Article V merely offers another route to offer amendments that goes around the tyrants of Washington, DC.
Almost every time an amendment has been made, it has unintended consequences. Between amendments and courts legislating from the bench, there is no doubt that the original Constitution isn’t being followed.
I have severe reservations about a Constitutional Convention. I don’t trust most of the politicians/people these days to help the situation, especially in a process that doesn’t have any rules to begin with.
The politicians these days just ignore the rules, and make stuff up and do what they want anyway. And what they want is not good for individual liberty, and the LSM so far seems to be able to sway the majority of the people to vote against the interest of liberty.
How are reps to overturn freedom destroying scotus decisions?
I’m adding this to my support-for-now list. The hurdle of passing any amendment would be high, and it might be a good way to fix what’s wrong with how The Constitution has been mis-interpreted.
Please read the column.
This is an idiot idea.
There is not a single person in American political life today that I’d trust with improving on what we have.
All this talk reminds me of how many on the right thought term limits would be great until the GOP won the majority in 1994.
Face it folks we simply don’t have anyone who could possibly do better than the Founders.
State explicitly that the Supreme Court decisions were wrong and the Court must adhere to the corrections being made or else its appellate jurisdiction will be curtailed.
the Con-Con Cometh...
What we have now can be taken away by the Supreme Court, including homo Roberts.
Sef-ping.
I, for one, love the idea of term limits on the Supreme Court. There are a few other amendments which would be wonderful too. Please don’t yell NO until you have all the facts.
Amen!
I have read that column. Not sure I agree with all of it. I just don’t have any faith that a ConCon would give us anything better than we have, and more than likely it will be worse.
I would support repealing the 17th amendment, but I am happy with the current constitution. I would like for Congress to quit abdicating their responsibility by letting the President and the Courts do whatever the heck they want, and passing laws to give the President ever more power just so they have a scapegoat.
The last thing in the world we need right now is a Con Con. A poor idea.
The founder’s vision was corrupted. It is time to return to federalism, to divide power once again between DC and the states.
Please read the column.
Thank you for sharing your feelings.
It begins.
PS. I also would like for the State’s to stand up for the 10th amendment, and tell the Feds to take a leap.
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.