Posted on 02/07/2014 9:04:18 AM PST by taildragger
Two months ago, Emma Roller and I wrote about the possibly historic Assembly of the States in Mount Vernon. Momentum had been building oh-so-slowly on the right for a new, state-led constitutional convention, which could pass amendments far quicker than the Congress could. (And no one sees a scenario, any time soon, where there'll be 67 conservative votes in the Senate to pass amendments.) The reaction: Largely just a lot of doubt that this would come to anything.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
That being said, IMO, Coburn is correct to call this a Constitutional Convention.
A Constitutional Convention is a gathering of delegates for the purpose of creating a new constitution OR changing an existing one.
If 34 states held a convention to change just one word of the Constitution, that could be correctly called a Constitutional Convention. This is just my opinion based on my research and understanding.
Lastly, I'm perfectly happy with whatever we agree to call, just as long as we get it done.
Okay, thanks. I didn't think you were serious. Now I know.
Well, first I note that this is not a response to my comments regarding an Article V convention concerns. Second, I have stated several times above that I am not arguing against such a convention just uging caution and making sure that is our only alternative at this point in time. I also said it may very well be our only alternative. I'm just going to immediately knee jerk, jump on board based on the naive wack job ravings I've heard so far on this thread who's only real defense of the idea seems to be that they heard the favorite talk radio host suggest the plan.
I'm sure that happens a lot.
Why do so many on this board have such a difficult time with basic logic? I don't think you can even call them low information, if you haven't figured this out by now you don't have an information problem, you have a processing problem.
You obviously have never read Article V of the United States COnstitution. I will therefore give you the opportunity to do so now: Article V 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.
Nothing in the constitution would prohibit this.
You obviously have never read Article V of the United States Constitution. I will therefore give you the opportunity to do so now:
Article V
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.
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
The National Archives is the administrator for Constitutional amendments. The process with them is well-defined.
Many states have even very recently submitted proposed Constitutional Amendments. This is not at all an unknown process.
What is different is to call a convention for proposing amendments where all the states work together to sort out which proposals will garner 2/3s support.
But the process of submitting them is the same. Congress gets to do only one thing and that is to determine during the ratification process whether the amendment goes back to the state legislatures or to state conventions of delegates.
The state legislatures setup their respective state convention of delegates.
This process has been done often before and the only difference is to call a convention of states. The 17th Amendment was initially a convention of states application but Congress realizing the people were serious decided to take it up themselves. However, they did choose the convention of delegates approach to ratification because it conformed with the popularism at the time.
All the above is for the benefit for the readers looking in. You on the other hand have made wrong statements and have attempted to defend or to promote hysterical notions that have no basis in reality or history. Thus, you should take the time to research and get your facts straight before spouting off. Engage the brain before letting the tongue fly.
Convention of States - Alabama Way to go Alabama! A good introduction.
'Convention of states' to rein in government? Another great summary explanation.
The Case for an Article V. Convention. Fantastic explanation of Article V convention to the Mass State Legislature.
Recommend watching the above videos first and then on to:
Convention of States Lots of information here.
A Summary of Mark Levin’s Proposed Amendments by Jacquerie
Chapter 1 of Mark Levin’s Book, The Liberty Amendments
Mark Levin, Constitution Article V, and the Liberty Amendments
Article V Project to Restore Liberty
Rep. Bill Taylor introduces a Convention of States
Mark Levin Article V, Liberty Amendments youtube video hub
Three hour video of C-Span interview with Mark Levin
Gaining Steam? Nearly 100 Lawmakers Descend on Mount Vernon to Talk Convention of States The beginning.
Convention to Propose Amendments to the United States Constitution
The Other Way to Amend the Constitution: The Article V Constitutional Convention Amendment Process
Friends of Article V Convention Links
Article V Convention: Path of Least Resistance By Robert Berry
Article V Handbook - for State Legislators
State Legislators Article V Caucus State Legislators, Join up at this site!
Send this list of links to your State Representatives and Senators here: Contact your State Legislators.
Sample Letter to state Representatives regarding the Convention of States Project and also, Talking Points. Both from Here.
Let’s all work together to get this going. Call or write your state Senator today.
The Federal Government is broken. We owe it to The Founders and ourselves to attempt a rational Article V amendment process.
The national archives has no constitutional power and no power whatsoever with regard to a state initiated amendment process. There has never been State convention convened for the purpose of offering constitutional amendments before so there is absolutely no precedent for conducting the same. Other than the 2/3s requirement convening the convention to offer amendments and the 3/4 requirement to ratify an amendment there are no rules for the process at all. They would be making them up as they wenet along with nothing to bind them. You haven't refuted a point I've made yet, If you can offer a shred of constitutional authority to refute the above I'd love to see it.
So you think The Federalist #39, 43, 85 which each deal in part with amending the constitution through the state amendment process were written by naïve wack jobs?
Please show me where Federalist .#39, 43 or 85 were ratified into our current constitution giving these tracts the force of law? Since our current constitutional set up in American bears no resemblance to the one envisioned in The Federalist I don't think anyone would feel bound to follow that tract.
Show me where you know the constitution better than James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton.
I'm sure that happens a lot.
The constitution didn't exist when those people wrote "The Federalist Papers" so it is not a commentary on our constitution. Nor does "The Federalist Papers" carry any weight as binding precedent in any federal court in the country. Once could make a persuasive argument that anything "The Federalist Papers" said about the amendment process that didn't make it into the text of the US Constitution was thus specifically rejected by the original convention. So what direct influence would it have in this context?
Stop it, yer killin' me with comedic idiocy!!!!!
Ciao, clown.
As usual you can't offer any fact or argument to rebut a thing I've said. You really think the US constituted had already been drafted when The Federalist Papers were written? Really? That's what our schools are putting out today?
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.