Article V Convention: Path of Least Resistance

American Thinker ^ | February 1st 2014 | Robert Berry

[Jacquerie]

In what is taking shape as a sort of Great Awakening, state legislators have begun to learn that they hold equal status with Congress when it comes to proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, a handful of state legislators from each state, as yet unknown, are destined for the annals of American history the moment the nation's first Convention for Proposing Amendments is gaveled to order.

The process, found in Article V of the U.S. Constitution, requires the legislatures of at least two thirds (34) of the states to pass resolutions demanding that Congress call a "Convention for Proposing Amendments" -- an ad hoc assembly where state legislators, voting state-by-state, may propose (but not ratify) amendments.

The thought of such a thing, while horrifying to Congress, represents the last constitutional method to reform a federal government run amok. And nothing more clearly illustrates the divide between flyover country and the federal city than the remedies that are sure to be proposed and later ratified by the states. To the ruling class, nothing could be more anathema than the prospect of amendments requiring term limits, balanced budgets, single-subject bills, and commerce clause reform.

Few on the Hill seem to be taking notice of the gathering clouds -- a situation that the states would do well to exploit. If anything, the nascent "Article V movement" is little more than a curiosity among the ruling elite. Congress, aware of Article V, has every expectation that the states will continue a 200-year losing streak when it comes to coordinating the resolutions necessary to trigger the process. This is entirely due to the fact that the founders left Congress in charge of counting the resolutions.

[1010RD]

Let’s remember the Alamo and win this fight!

[Jacquerie]

Agree. I understand his point, yet I think the states' slow and measured approach is best.

Besides, if the states pass resolutions identical to the one below and commission their delegates to the limits implied by it, I think the convention will have plenty of leeway.

Section 1. The legislature of the State of ______ hereby applies to Congress, under the provisions of Article V of the Constitution of the United States, for the calling of a convention of the states limited to proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.

[DoodleDawg]

The bonus of taking this path of least resistance is that there are already 18 states with valid resolutions of this type — and those resolutions never expire!

Two-thirds of the states is 34. Only 16 more to go, ten of which are Blue States. Like I said, good luck.

[DoodleDawg]

If you feel that way, then no harm can be done if conservatives press for a state amendment convention.

If I feel that way? Where exactly am I wrong?

[vg0va3]

@GeorgiaGirl. Hope everyone is home safely after this weeks events.

You are not "the one" telling me anything I did not know. But, thank you anyway.

I will start with your premise regarding, "all the corruption going on from Senators being appointed by the state legislatures". Exactly how much corruption was documented to have occurred? Read to find out only 1 case the first 70 years of our nation and 9 until the 17th Amendment was ratified. Consider the number of people elected and only 10 cases found.

Please take a look at the facts behind the 17th Amendment in a study by Todd J. Zwyiki Senators and Special Interests: A Public Choice Analysis of the Seventeenth Amendment. This piece may help you understand that the argument you are making is completely backwards.

Consider that a removal of the 17th is exactly what is needed to return a strong Representative Republic. "In order to channel the potentially destructive forces of democracy, the Founders restrained the majority's will through federalism, separation of powers, and other "auxiliary" institutions designed to alleviate the excesses of democracy. The ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913, providing for direct elections of U.S. senators, undermined the twin structural pillars of the Constitution: Federalism and the separation of powers."

The argument you make is that a return to the time before the 17th Amendment we would suddenly see lobbyist in the capitals influencing the specific votes on behalf of their masters. People buying elections to gain control of candidates.

What we have now is just what you fear. Only they travel to one city to gain influence and control, Washington DC. Instead, they would have to coordinate in 50 state capitals to achieve what they now get in 1 federal capital.

I hope this information will help you better understand the reasoning and the true impact of the 17th Amendment so you will not make such incorrect statements as, "Repealing the 17th amendment will do nothing to restore the constitutional republic."

Now, I again ask. What solution do you propose to restore the constitutional republic? And this time, take a little time to think it out if necessary.

[Georgia Girl 2]

The only way to stop influence pedelling and other legislative corruption is through term limits. Repealing the 17th Ammendment will not accomplish that. Its a waste of time. Thats my opinion. I don’t need ot provide you with any evidence. You seem capable of ferreting it out for yourself. :-)

[Jacquerie]

There's been probably several dozens of Article V posts at FR since the release of Levin's book last summer.

If you are interested in learning, you can go to his site or conventionofstates.com. All of your concerns and more are addressed.

[Jacquerie]

Do you understand why the framers created a senate of the states rather than a second popularly elected body?

[SampleMan]

You are under the impression that only red state America would want an Article V. Open the door and you might be surprised at who comes in. Of
There is absolutely no reason to believe that blue states wouldn’t jump at the opportunity to have an Article V.

[theBuckwheat]

While the senate is almost 50/50 R/D, this battle takes place far more at the level of state legislatures and governors. There the ratio is far more conservative than liberal, and the trend is for liberals to continue losing ground.

[Cyber Liberty]

Correct on both counts. George Soros has already said he’d love to see an Article V. I just don’t trust this bunch to do the job.

[Political Junkie Too]

Where exactly am I wrong?

You may be confusing the legislative focus of a state house with the popular voting whim of the people.

Many states that voted for Obama have state legislatures and/or governors that are Republican-controlled, or at least more evenly split than the presidential voting result.

The interests of governing a state may be different than the interests of the individual in the voting booth, regardless of who is at the top of the ticket.

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

1. The current problem is not the Constitution, it is the willingness to defy the Constitution. How will changing the Constitution help?

You start by proposing non-discretionary amendments. What if an amendment to repeal the 17th amendment passes, or a term-limits amendment passes? Do you really think that a sitting Senator can "defy the Constitution" and refuse to vacate his seat?

2. A Article V convention is a pandora’s box. The Left would love to rewrite the Constitution, so that they could start being Constitutionally correct. Their rewrites will be a long list of group rights and a short list of individual right repeals.

Are you one of the people that the author of this article was writing about?

---

But today the idea of restricting the scope of an amendments convention is in play for a very different reason: to placate fear-mongers who gratuitously assert that the assembly would be the constitutional equivalent of a nuclear bomb. Though completely discredited, this remnant of opponents from the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) dustup of the 1980s sees only sinister plots. To this day, the opponents continue to feign ignorance of the distinction between an Article V Convention for Proposing Amendments -- which, needless to say, proposes amendments -- and a full authority Constitutional Convention.

---

-PJ

[vg0va3]

I ask that you not make definitive statements about me with which you have no idea. I am under no impression. I choose to speak with facts on my side.

You may simply not know that there were democrats at the recent Artivcle V planning meeting in Mount Vernon (December 2013).

You tell me to open the door. Well, I have not only opened the door, I have opened my mind, sat down and spoken with some of the most liberal leaning Democrat state legislators in this country to discuss this issue. And we came away in agreement that this is a viable option to give them too a say in our federal law making regardless of our political philosophy.

That is my basis for this belief. What basis do you have? Your gut?

So far, I have provided you with a well written article regarding the impact of the 17th Amendment. How it created the easy system we have today for special interest groups (ALL OF THEM) to overcome state government objections. Did you read what I gave you?

You have yet to explain your logic regarding your opinion about an Article V State convention process? It seems to be just as you have formed your opinion about repealing the 17th Amendment too? Share your logic not opinion.

You know, people should consider arming themselves with ACTUAL facts rather than unsubstantiated progressive dribble. It makes it appear that they either have a vested interest in the current system (federal lobbyist, federal employee or federal beneficiary) or they have simply bought the Progressive scare tactics without a discerning eye of their own.

Sad really. Many seem to prefer to hide behind the veil of ignorance and scream for a return to constitutional government and feel like the have achieved something over igniting their minds and truly understanding how to get back to that point.

How about you? Interested?

[vg0va3]

Did you know that with the implementation of the 17th Amendment terms have grown substantially longer? The reason is that with both the House and Senate are now representing the same constituency. The lobbyist only have to influence 1 group of voters to gain favor. No longer must they deal with 2 differnt masters with 2 interest.

@GeorgiaGirl “That’s my opinion. I don’t need to provide you with any evidence.”

I understand. Hard to do so when don’t have any evidence.

Since your response was so evolved I will address opinions as follows:

Opinions...they are just like the anus...everyone has one...they stink...and rarely does any one want to hear them. In the future, if that is the depth of your argument, you may want to take that into consideration (IMHO). :-)

[Repeal The 17th]

“...with the implementation of the 17th Amendment
terms have grown substantially longer...
the House and Senate represent the same constituency...
lobbyists only have to influence 1 group of voters to gain favor...”
-
Excellent point.

[Jacquerie]

Indiana Senator Long has set up the next meeting of the states this coming June. At some point, the dinosaur media and uniparty will recognize the threat we pose. When that happens, a coordinated firestorm will come down on the movement.

If we think the garbage thrown at Tea Partiers has been bad, . . . I just hope we are up to the task.

[Phlyer]

If all we did was get true compliance with the one we have, we'd 'win' on all the other issues.

How would you propose we do that?

I don't have a high-likelihood proposal for that. I wish I knew how to get the country back to the actual written Constitution we already have. My point was that adding more language to a document that is essentially being ignored is not a solution either. And it carries with it the risk that we'd end up compromising whatever portion of the Constitution still remains effective despite the statists wishes.

Ultimately, "We, the People," need to take back our government. So my solution is grass roots activism like the TEA Party to run candidates who pay more than lip service to the Constitution. We did it with Ted Cruz here in Texas.

[Repeal The 17th]

A storm is definitely coming over this.
But if not this, then what?

[Phlyer]

If amendments anywhere near those suggested by Mark Levin are ratified,

Well, that's a huge premise with little likelihood of success, but even assuming it were so . . .

I'll head off into a digression for a moment, but I believe it is relevant. In the Bill of Rights, there is only one amendment which is uncompromised - the 2nd. It says that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." All of the others have limitations. The 1st merely says "Congress shall make no law" which did not stop the courts from making law on the topics. The 4th says the people are secure in their persons and property from "unreasonable" searches (and then goes on to identify cases where a warrant may be issued to further compromise our privacy). Each of the others - except for the second- has a similar 'escape clause' for reasons that seemed reasonable.

Then add in that the courts have taken a 'shadow and penumbra' of the 14th amendment to invalidate the clear and unambiguous language of the 10th amendment.

So, my expectation is that things like a balanced budget amendment would have exceptions for things like wartime, or during 'national emergencies' . . . and end up meaning nothing.

I really believe the 17th amendment should be repealed, but it hasn't always been the case that Republicans controlled a majority of the state houses and governorships. And the amount of power concentrated at the federal level is so great, that you can bet there would be major money issues with securing an appointment as a Senator. Can you promise, for example, that it wouldn't evolve to the case where a vote is held within each state to select the Senators, who are then ratified pro forma by the state houses?

It's not hard to find a way around each of the proposed amendments - considering that anything that can have a prayer of being passed even with Republican (who are not generally conservative) control of state houses will have exceptions. Or be something that statist judges can interpret to be in conflict with some other part of the Constitution, thus allowing them to pick and choose what to enforce.

Better to advocate a return to the actual, currently written Constitution. If we as a nation return to believing what the plain words say, then we can worry about changing those words. Otherwise, it won't matter.