Posted on 02/07/2014 9:04:18 AM PST by taildragger
No. Each delegate (or commissioner) is limited by their state legislature.
No.
You can't argue with a sick mind; I believe it was Joe Walsh who postulated that and you are living proof. In either sense.
Or given unlimited power by their state legislature, whichever the case may be.
Which is just another way of saying you can't refute a single point I've made. You, apparently, can't argue with a superior mind either.
No.
Every point you tried to make has bee authoritatively refuted. Repeatedly.
Your pretense to the contrary is amusing and resulted in my Joe Walsh reference.
Your latest joke post provokes a more obscure Joe Walsh reference: “You Need Professional Help”.
You haven't even attempted to refute a single point I've made. You just ramble on about nothing and quote drugged out former rock stars. Not much of defense. Now I know why you qoute Walsh, because you "couldn't get much higher".
Good points! But what kind of a time frame do you project for such divisive amendments to be ratified, especially since the states are divided on the issues anyway? (You do know that only the states have the constitutional authority to ratify a proposed amendment to the Constitution, rgiht?)
In fact, since amending the Constitution is arguably not an option in the near (foreseeable?) future, that's why I've been encouraging patriots to try to elect 2/3 conservative majorities in both Houses of Congress in this year's elections. This is because a Congress controlled by conservative supermajority will be positioned as follows.
Conservative supermajority control of Congress will have the power, under Constitution's Clause 2 of Section 7 of Article I, to overide presidential vetoes. This means that Congress will be able to repeal Obamacare Democratcare without Obama's signature.
And even if patriots miss the mark for conservative Congress this year, they can still start building for 2016.
This current COS movement has been underway for several months, mostly following suggestions from Mark Levin's book Liberty Amendments.
It is clear that you do not listen to Mark Levin. Your loss.
Who said the National Archives had what you claimed it did not? The fact is this agency of the federal government has been appointed as the administrator for processing constitutional amendments for a very long time and they have set procedures for how the process works. Your initial rant was there were no procedures. Well, there are procedures and they are well-defined inside the National Archives. Then you go off on another rant that the National Archives has no power yada yada which just shows you are full of hot air.
You were given a suggestion to do some research and yet you prefer ranting. A little research on the National Archives shows there are well known procedures for processing Constitutional Amendments. Do the research and quit ranting.
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.
There have been calls for an Article V convention by a very significant number of states, enough to reach the threshold. In 1912 with respect to the 17th Amendment, there were 46 states in the Union and 31 were needed for calling an Article V Convention (AVC) or COS. In 1912, 27 states had formally called for an AVC with 2 more having passed state resolutions for an AVC and preparing to formally call for one, the total was to be brought to 29. Arizona and New Mexico achieved statehood that year and indicated they would call for an AVC so that the total would come in at 31. An AVC or COS was only a short time away when Congress backpedalled and decided to take up the amendment themselves.
So states and US History do have a recorded process to call an AVC. Thus, your rant about there being no precedent is FALSE.
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.
Nonsense. The National Archives has application forms and a procedure to gather, certify and present the petition forms to Congress. The procedures detail exactly who in Congress should be contacted; the Senate Leader and the Speaker of the House. Also, a courtesy copy is given to the President even though the Office of the President is not integral to an Article V action.
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.
Plenty of refutation has been provided, you just want someone else to do your homework because it's obvious you haven't done yours.
The problem with the "Constitution" is that, as a consequence of 100+ years of parents not making sure that their children are being taught the federal government's constitutionally limited powers as the Founding States had intended for those power to be understood, citizens have suffered the following consequence. All three branches of the corrupt federal government have been able to get away with slowly expanding their powers beyond constitutional limits without much voter resistance; voters have been asleep at the wheel.
Also, as I mentioned to another freeper, some of the amendments people are proposing are arguably divisive. And since it takes 3/4 majority of the states to ratify amendments, the states presently divided on other issues anyway, I have serious doubts that the Constitution can be amended at this time.
I see what you did there.
If there is this kind of hard-headed obtuseness from various freepers,
our educational work is truly going to be a challenge.
With all due respect,
Do you SERIOUSLY think there will EVER be 67 conservative senators... EVER? And I didn’t say RINO repubs either...
With the 17th amendment, Senators are elected by the big cities in every state...
No chance of this strategy... Article V was Article V for a reason... Last ditch effort before the shooting...
Read Jeff Head’s post... It has to be an assault on DC from all available means...
The page at the following link has a table which shows the history of Congress using Clause 2 of Section 7 of Article I to override presidential vetoes.
List of United States presidential vetoes
I'm glad that you expressed your concern about the necessary 67+ votes. This because Congress has evidently overriden the vetoes of many presidents, including relatively recently Bush 41 and 43, and also Clinton.
But also note that another freeper has indicated that the best that patriots can do for 2014 elections in the Senate will fall one vote short necessary "Republicans" to override vetoes. But I encourage patriots to not give up.
Also, I deliberately say "conservatives" to include both Democratic and RINO conservatives. So even patriots cannot get 67+ sincere Republicans in Senate, Senate may still have enough conservatives to override vetoes.
I think we will all agree times are VERY different now than Bush 41 & Clinton... The DEMS have all gone Communist and with the exception of a VERY FEW Repubs, there is NOTHING but the Uniparty...
The tipping point is past for a solution from Washington. Even if the Repubs win the Senate, Mccain and his gang will do EVERYTHING within their power to thwart the conservatives like Cruz, Paul & Lee...
If you could get an electoral map with 67 Repub Senators, I bet you’d have trouble even getting a simple majority to agree... It’s going to take YEARS to fix the Senate that we do NOT have to use this as an only strategy...
I think it’s time for US to Cloward/Piven DC...
Please be more specific with your critique. I'm looking at problems with amending the Constitution at this time in a practical perspective as far as I'm concerned.
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.