Skip to comments.Oklahoma Won't Apply for Constitutional Convention, Votes Not There | Article V
Posted on 03/13/2014 5:42:36 PM PDT by VitacoreVision
The Oklahoma state House of Representatives decided not to apply for a constitutional convention.
Oklahoma Won't Apply for Con-Con, Votes Not There
13 March 2014
After a close battle that featured several late nights, the Oklahoma State House of Representatives has decided not to vote to apply for a constitutional convention (con-con) under the authority of Article V of the Constitution. Put simply, the votes needed to approve the con-con application were not there, and it's now dead for this year's legislative session in Oklahoma.
This is a crucial victory in the struggle to protect the Constitution and the fundamental liberties it protects from the possible ravages that could result from a second constitutional convention.
Dr. Mike Ritze, a key member of the constitutionally minded bloc of the Oklahoma House of Representatives who successfully derailed the Con-Con locomotive in the Sooner State, told The New American that the fight was close and the hour was late, but in the end, a majority of his colleagues decided they did not want to open the Pandoras box of a con-con. Ritze supports state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws as the far safer approach for reining in the federal government.
The good doctors sense of the threat to freedom posed by an Article V convention is right. Historically, constitutionally, and legally such a convention as is being promoted by many on the Right and the Left is unsafe and built on the weak foundation of the hope that delegates to such a convention would preserve the Constitution as we know it today.
Opponents like Dr. Ritze, however, prefer to follow the sound advice of Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.
Advocates of an Article V convention counter that there are safeguards built into the process that would ultimately protect the Constitution from amendments that could repeal the Bill of Rights.
The problem with such comforting promises, however, is that a con-con would not be peopled with delegates devoted to keeping the core principles of the Constitution intact. Rather, there are billions being spent by George Soros and other admitted socialists and progressives who admit to aiming at making fundamental changes to the Constitution should an Article V convention actually occur.
The New American has covered the manifold menaces lurking within the Article V con-con movement. Ritze reports that many of these articles and other materials produced by The New American were instrumental in convincing his colleagues in the Oklahoma House to choose not to call for a con-con.
Of course, the claim that without such a convention the country will soon fall into ruin and annihilation was the very attitude anti-Federalists once called "the argument of tyrants."
Friends of the Constitution congratulate Dr. Ritze and his fellow representatives for their wise decision to protect the Constitution from tinkering by those anxious to take a wrench to the delicate gears of our Republic.
The battle is not over, however. Legislatures in several states are considering similar bills supporting calls for a con-con of one sort or another. Liberty minded citizens in every state, therefore, are encouraged to contact their state representatives and senators, informing them of their opposition to an Article V con-con and to familiarize these lawmakers with the significant and irreparable harm that such a convention could do to our Constitution and the liberties it protects.
Article V ping.
well, I am glad they did not have the votes for a Constitutional Convention or “Con-Con”.
I am disappointed that they will not be applying to the Convention of States for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution.
What is it about the terms Article V Convention and Convention of the States that makes certain people turn into dolts who just can’t get it through their thick heads that neither term sounds like, looks like, or means constitutional convention. Sheesh!
It’s not over, yet.
The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps: Proposal, Disposal, and Ratification.
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.
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.
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.
Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and one implicitly forbidden subject.
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.
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.
i call it a disaster.
The above statement seems to be based on the constitutional myth that the product of a con-con is a new amendment to the Constitution. But the product of a con-con is actually a proposed amendment to the Constitution which the states can then then choose to ratify or ignore.
No, it’s not. They will come around to a CoS.
“... the Oklahoma State House of Representatives has decided not to vote
to apply for a constitutional convention under the authority of Article V of the Constitution ...”
Somebody does not know what the hell they are talking about.
I don’t know if it is the author, the author’s sources,
or the Oklahoma House of Representatives.
It certainly isn't. Right now there is a lot of confusion between the meaning of a Constitutional Convention and the Convention of States. AS people learn and explore the disaster being put upon us by a runaway government, I think they will come around.
The real damage to this country is being done by a congress that applauds the usurpation of their powers and constitutional responsibility by this president. I wonder what they think of the precedents he is setting and what could happen under a future president with even more destructive or oppressive tendencies.
Let it V, Let it V...
We will keep trying.
happy to hear that
It aint over until we revolt.
“This is a crucial victory in the struggle to protect the Constitution and the fundamental liberties it protects from the possible ravages that could result from a second constitutional convention.”
IDIOTIC. Stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
If any of the conservative Justices on SCOTUS are replaced by creatures like Soto-Mayer, the chaos created by the Warren Court will seem like small change. The morons who consistently get elected to office pull the same kind of crap year after year - inflating the budget, eroding our rights, etc and they are elected again and again. Spending is out of control.
We are NOT talking a “Constitutional Convention” as the drones in John Birch keep saying. A Convention of the States is a convention directed at SPECIFIC PREDETERMINED ISSUES. Anything else - such as finagling with the Bill of Rights is off the table. Read The Liberty Amendments by Mark Levin. He is a constitutional scholar and worked in the Reagan Administration. HE supports the Convention of the States.
Unless we take drastic steps to address serial office holders, judicial abuse, and the budget, the nation as we know it will soon cease to exist and THAT is what a Convention of the States will do - take power on key issues out of the hands of Congress, the Courts and the President, ALL of whom have long demonstrated they are unfit to carry out the responsibilities with which they are charged under the Constitution.
Article V allows for an amendatory conference by the states, not a “con-con”. There is no provision for a second constitutional convention; these guys know this, and they just want to thwart the process. Business as usual is NOT an option when the Federal government is wild, unlawful, and rogue.
Article V is really the only peaceful means we have left. After that, it’s secession, then CW2, coup d’etats, and tyranny.
You may recall a map posted on this forum several years ago that showed the overwhelming number of Republican counties across the U.S. It would seem all that is necessary is for those counties to convince a number of state governments to get on with it.