Posted on 01/04/2014 12:29:11 PM PST by Da Bilge Troll
Discussing the possibility of amending the U.S. Constitution drew approximately 100 legislators from 32 states, according to an Idaho lawmaker who attended the event. He described it as “a great start.” The lawmakers gathered in Virginia at the Mount Vernon estate of President George Washington.
But, he added, a long process still lies ahead before amendments can even be drafted.
“It went very well, it’s a great start,” said Sen. Marv Hagedorn, R-Meridian. “The most exciting thing for me is that we have a good plan of action. This is not going to happen quickly, and we’re moving forward with full transparency.” Hagedorn was the only member of Idaho’s Legislature to attend the gathering.
Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides two paths by which the Constitution can be amended. One is through two-thirds of both chambers of the U.S. Congress authorizing an amendment, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the states. The other begins at the state level, where two-thirds of all the legislatures ask Congress to call “a convention for proposing amendments.”
In the latter scenario, states would send delegates to this convention to propose amendments. Then, three-fourths of the states would have to ratify any amendments approved by the convention, either by a vote of the legislatures or through special ratifying conventions.
As a precursor to a “convention for proposing amendments,” Wisconsin state Rep. Chris Kapenga, R-Delafield, organized the event the weekend of Dec. 7 at Mount Vernon. “I’m very happy with how it turned out,” Kapenga told IdahoReporter.com. “We were pleasantly surprised not only with the turnout, but with the discussion that took place. It was all very positive.”
Kapenga concurs with Hagedorn, in that he notes that a long, slow process lies ahead. “As a next step, we’ll be releasing a resolution very soon,” he explained. “We’ll do another meeting at the Indiana state Legislature in either the spring or early summer of 2014, and there we will plan a drafting conference.”
Kapenga stressed that the Mount Vernon meeting was intended only to confirm interest in amending the U.S. Constitution and to begin putting together a plan of action. “We were dealing with process, not subject matter,” he noted, adding that “there are absolutely no outside organizations involved in this, and if this happens it will be the will of the people as expressed by their state legislators.”
Hagedorn and Kapenga confirm that the gathering included both Democrats and Republicans, but that most of the legislators in attendance were Republicans. “One of the Democrats in attendance spoke up at the event and said that they wanted total transparency with this process, and I appreciated that,” Hagedorn said.
Prior to the Mount Vernon gathering, Rep. Grant Burgoyne, D-Boise, told IdahoReporter.com that he supports an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would require the federal government to balance its budget (except in times of war and other emergencies).”
Sen. Curt McKenzie, R-Nampa, also favors a balanced budget amendment for the federal government, noting that “I definitely think there’s been a shift in the mindset among the people regarding states’ rights. People are more concerned about the expansive nature of our federal government and the need for the states to put some controls on it.”
While many legislators around the nation attribute “The Liberty Amendments,” a book from author and constitutional scholar Mark Levin, as providing inspiration for a convention, some legislators remain skeptical and even fearful of the idea.
“I have never been in favor of this,” Rep. Judy Boyle, R-Midvale, told IdahoReporter.com. “I am too fearful that it would be a runaway convention. People have tried to assure me that it won’t happen, but they haven’t convinced me. I don’t know that there would be amendments proposed at a convention like this, so much as there might be a complete change made to our Constitution. I know people mean well, but I’m not willing to risk our Constitution. I’m not sure that people who have the best interests of our freedoms at heart will be those who are appointed to be a delegate to a convention like this.”
Boyle is not alone in her opposition. “There is just no way to control the outcome of a convention,” agreed Sen. Monty Pearce, R-New Plymouth. “It’s difficult to see that we have sufficient numbers of principled people who would want to preserve our Constitution in the midst of a process like this.”
Despite opposition here at home, Hagedorn remains confident that a convention to propose amendments would be a productive thing. “For an amendment to the Constitution to happen, three-quarters of the states have to ratify that particular amendment,” he explained. “Each state has one equal vote. Each amendment would have to be ratified by 38 states. Thirty-eight states are not going to agree on something like, for example, radically changing the Second Amendment.”
Kapenga concurs with Hagedorn. “For anybody who looks at this process and has concerns, I’d tell them that the process, itself, is constitutional. I’d also ask ‘do you have a better solution?’ This is a constitutionally authorized action, there is no question about this.”
Both McKenzie and Hagedorn report that they are working on legislation to enable Idaho to move forward in the process during the 2014 legislative session.
A news report about the Mount Vernon event can be viewed here. An interview with one of the other event organizers who worked with Kapenga, Indiana Sen. David Long, R-Fort Wayne, can be viewed HERE
ping
I share the concern. We can't even impeach a president that needs to be impeached. We lost Virginia by not showing up at the polls. All we needed was moderate turn out.
We need a uniter. Let's put CARSON/PALIN in the WH, and then we'll talk.
No thank you on Carson.
2nd Amendment > all.
Commissioners with virtue will be appointed to a COS, as well as commissioners without virtue. Given that they are appointed by state legislatures, with strict controls (see Indiana’s relevant legislation), and given one-state-one-vote, I believe the preponderance will be with virtuous reps. If it were not so, and we were to avoid a COS, then it is all but over anyways. If more populous states had more votes or if congress appoints reps, which is NOT the case, then there is cause for concern. And finally, there is the fact that whatever amendments were to be proposed... the 3/4 ratification requirement by state legislatures insures that whatever is the result, the current Constitution will stand... and be fortified in its ability to rally itself against erosion and progressivism.
They refuse to honor their responsibilities now so what is there to make anyone believe that they will honor the next one?
I have always looked at the people who want to dissolve our nation and form several smaller countries as more than a little off the mark. Then I listened to the new Mayor of NYC in his communist rant during his swearing in ceremony. Really he is stating that he wants a communist situation in NYC. He is telling everyone that he intends to have this communism as soon as he can make it happen. He even wants us to believe that somehow taking a ride in a horse drawn carriage is a great economic sin that denotes us as racists or salve owners. SCREW HIM.
We have become a different people. There are now the liberals who live in the beehive cities who believe that their way of life is all that there is in this country. Their way of life is all that matters or all that can possibly be important. They are wrong but way to limited in vision to understand this. I would ask these people to take a few seconds and think about where their food water and power comes from. They also need to ask themselves where all their waste goes when they have consumed all the things that the cities are forced to import.
After they take a few seconds to realize that they are not self sufficient but totally dependent on the people they want to deny importance to then need to ask themselves one more question. What will happen to the cities if for five days everything going into and out of their cities was just stopped. Nothing in and nothing out. No trucks bringing food, no water in the pipes or canals, no power in the big tower lines, and no waste water or garbage going out.
They seem to think we have no value and our opinions and votes should not or do not count. Sooner or later we will have to demonstrate to them that they are badly mistaken.
Splitting up our nation is not something I want to see happen but I'm beginning to believe that it is the only way for rural America to survive in liberty and freedom.
We don't need a new constitution for all, we need the cities to have one of their own. We will keep the one we have.
Another state on board.
Article V ping!
A little off topic, but I think the first thing that must be done, before anything else, is to bring about an end to voter fraud. That should be on the front burner for all of us, unless of course for those who ardent communists, the status quo is working well for them!
The amendment ratification process ensures protection of our liberty. The convention can only propose amendments it cannot implement them. This protects us from a runaway convention.
The COS’s purpose is to Keep and Restore our current Constitution. Conservatives have been trying to get congress to “do everything that is needed to force our president congress and courts to follow the constitution we now have...” BUT, in spite of all that, its gotten only worse. MUCH worse. The COS, IMHO, *IS* the next step (before, as you state, we resort to break-up... or CW-III). The COS will not change one word or punctuation mark of the Constitution. It WILL add amendments, and some may change prior amendments (eg, repeal of the progressive’s 17th amendment).
I know “They refuse to honor their responsibilities now...”, but *they* are still on the surface abiding by it while stretching the envelope and finding any rational to get around it. We need to propose amendments to tighten up the language, put in place term limits, require budget with an amendment rather than legislation, and so on. If this were not so, then the game is over, and go directly to CW-III/break-up. BUT, I do not believe that is the case yet... (and, fwiw, I’m in a behind-enemy-line state!).
If the masterminds on the Potomac followed the constitution, there wouldn't be need for an Article V amendment convention, nor for FreeRepublc.
As a plan of limited government the constitution is gone. It is way beyond time to restore it. There is no guarantee that will happen.
They refuse to honor their responsibilities now so what is there to make anyone believe that they will honor the next one?
Through structural changes of the sort that cannot be ignored. The first reform is to boot the popularly derived demagogues from the senate and return the senate to the states. James Madison determined this vertical separation of power between the states and the new government they created was central to securing our liberty. He was right and we have suffered mightily from the mistake of the 17th Amendment.
DaBilgetroll has two great links in his post. Here at ConventionofStates.com in the right sidebar are FAQ.
The answer to our problems is to return to the Constitution we already have, not to throw everything on the table and give the Commies a change to steal our God-given rights. The states could do it if they'd band together and remind Congress and the White Hut who made whom.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Obviously, I support repealing the 17th Amendment (and the 16th). However, we need other Constitutional reforms (e.g., Congressional term limits). No one reform should be seen as a panacea.
>>Before we go on to change our constitution we need to do everything that is needed to force our president congress and courts to follow the constitution we now have.<<
Exactly right.
Why change everything when we can simply enforce laws already on the books? We can’t just change everything that’s good. We have to fight like hell to keep it.
We will keep the one we have.
Exactly. The Rats have a few districts in each swing state where they can generate all the votes they want and no one even questions the fact that there are many more votes than residents in these districts. We'll never win again if this is not fixed.
Proposal:
There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.
Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.
Disposal:
Once Congress, or an Amendments Convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:
The State Ratifying Convention Method has only been used twice: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.
Ratification:
Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three-quarters of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.
Forbidden Subjects:
Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and one implicitly forbidden subject.
Explicitly forbidden:
Implicity forbidden:
I have two reference works for those interested.
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 dislike 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 the view of the ruling class toward the process.
Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee
Because the federal government couldn't care less about the Constitution. How do you propose we get the feds to obey it? The entire federal government is a runaway Con-Con. An Article V Convention at least gives us a chance to counter the feds.
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.