Skip to comments.Call a Constitutional Convention, Already! Article V: A gift from the founders.
Posted on 03/14/2014 5:46:08 AM PDT by bestintxas
e've talked endlessly about using a Constitutional convention to wrest the reins of government from entrenched interests and put them back in the hands of the people. Enough talk: It's time to put the theory into action.
To recap, the Constitution may be amended in two ways: by a two-thirds vote of Congress, or by a convention called by two-thirds (34) of the (50) state legislatures. All amendments to date have arisen through the first mechanism, although conservatives and libertarians increasingly are calling for state lawmakers to pursue the second. If 34 states pass convention measures, Congress must convene a convention to discuss amending the constitution. In the words of James Madison, who was instrumental to the drafting of Article V, "If two thirds of the States make application, Congress cannot refuse to call one." Even the centralizer Alexander Hamilton conceded that the wording of Article V leaves "nothing...to the discretion of Congress."
The publication of Mark Levin's The Liberty Amendments seems to have brought this simmering talk to a boil. In his book, Levin suggests several amendments: to establish term limits for members of Congress, to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, to establish term limits for Supreme Court justices and provide a legislative override of their opinions, to limit federal taxing and spending, to restrict the federal bureaucracy, to promote free enterprise, to protect private property, to grant the states more direct power to amend the Constitution and check Congress, and to ensure that voting is open to citizens only. A non-profit called Citizens for Self-Government, run by Tea Party leader Mark Meckler, is organizing grassroots support for a convention. Lawmakers in Georgia have even come to taking votes on the matter.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
With 38 States acting together, one can dismiss the Congress, fire the President, even do away with the Supreme Court.
Th ultimate power in the land, 38 states.
What could the feds do about it? NADA.
Be careful what you wish for.
we need to do this NOW
Magic fix ping!
This and other writings can be so frustrating. Yet again, Article V is NOT a “constitutional convention”; it is utilizing a Constitutionally-provided second mechanism to create Constitutional amendments. Ratification takes the same path as the first mechanism (Congressional-proposed amendments).
Noted writers have preached endlessly on how the first con-con was in fact a coup d”etat over our first constitution, and a great mistake!
Find these writings elsewhere.
congress will ignore anything that occurs. they ignore all of their constitutional requirements now.
We need another coup d’etat. (Dependent populations need not apply.)
What for? The constitution we have now isn’t followed, what makes you think a new one would be any different?
It’s NOT a “constitutional convention”.
It’s an Article V convention of the states to ratify proposed amendments.
The amendments are pre-proposed and require 38 states’ legislatures to approve them.
The “liberal takeover” that detractors are afraid of can’t happen.
It only takes 34 to get things started, however, one MUST keep in mind that it will be necessary even at 34 to have some blue states in the mix. How is that going to work? Well, you have an opportunity to watch. Just go to http://themountvernonassembly.org/index.html and read.
“The liberal takeover that detractors are afraid of cant happen”.
Never say can’t, and see below four seconds after your posting.
Pardon, that would be see above...
the circus and bread, football mentality, prevails...we ain’t goin’ nowhere !!!
Dick.G: AMERICAN !
Paging the Awfulizer/You-Can’t-Do-That crowd in 10 ... 9 ... 8 ...
Do you want another Commie 5 year plan to be caved in to by doormat RINOs?
They’re already here.
Not if you count guns. It’s what the 2nd Amendment was for.
We don’t need a Constitutional convention to draft a new constitution. We need people in positions of authority who adhere to the document we have.
Roger that. We need a “new constitution” just like we need a “new immigration law”.
Wise advice. The GOP may control a majority of the state houses at the moment, but that can certainly change. Plus remember most Republicans in office are not conservatives. Those unintended consequences can be nasty you know.
Once the Convention is called, there are no limits on how much change can be done. That being said I am all for a Convention of States because no matter how many amendments they propose, the amendments still have to be ratified by the states.
There is precedent in past COS where a delegation went outside the bounds of the call topic. I don’t have the exact reference handy of the date and topic, but I’m recollecting the gist of things: The other delegations recognized the breech of protocol of the errant delegation, and voted them down.
In this case, a 2014 COS (2015 COS?), the call topic is ‘Reigning-in a run-away federal government’. An errant delegation trying to ram thru a statist-like amendment won’t get far, IMHO. And, even if some kook amendment got thru, as you point out it would still have the major hurdle of getting ratification by 38 states.
“...Congress must convene a convention to discuss amending the constitution.”
Aaaaaaand, who says they will. What if they will not do it?
Endless debt and infinite money enables endless and infinite government. For a variety of reasons we must remove from government the power to create money out of thin air by which it:
1) puts us all in debt serfdom to pay the interest;
2) diminishes the purchasing power of the money we have saved;
3) buys votes with constituency groups that become dependent upon “benefits” that become a form of “in-kind income” that competes against paying jobs at the lower skill levels;
4)is able to finance going to war even when citizens would not vote to pay additional taxes to support it;
5) expands bureaucracies, the things they regulate and the number of armed people they employ to find and arrest people who violate regulations they didn’t even know existed, or even violating foreign laws. Recall that Gibson Guitar was raided for importing wood that lacked the proper label. Excess bureaucracy sent Abbie Schoenwetter to federal prison for shipping lobster in plastic instead of cardboard. Excess bureaucracy defines the drainage ditch in your back yard as a federally protected “navigable waterway” that you are forbidden to “disturb”.
A government that can create its own money does not have to ask taxpayers for permission to spend more to feed its self-serving spending. When states start calling for a Convention to consider amendments to the Constitution, the first topic must be to restrain federal spending. A government that must live within its means is a government that must focus on the important things rather than imposing evermore intrusive laws and regulations having the weight of law.
Every day more people are coming to the judgment that a carefully organized effort to repair the constitution via the States’ power to propose and ratify amendments has less risk to our liberty and prosperity than the present trajectory of the federal government and especially the federal bureaucracy.
What could go wrong?
Find these writings elsewhere.
Very true. The Philadelphia Convention acted illegally by moving beyond its mandate to revise the genteel Articles of Confederation:
The takeaway from the Constitution over the Articles of Confederation is that the AofC had a mechanism for amendment that the Constitution completely ignored. The Constitution declared its own and separate validation method.
Supporters of the Art V Con-Con (calling it a COS is the misnomer) rely on the fact that the Constitution would require a proofing mechanism that wouldn’t necessarily be followed. After all, there is precedent to NOT follow it in the event of a total rewrite (and a total rewrite is what you’d get).
You won’t get the liberty amendments with a Con-Con; you’ll only get the liberal ones. More to the point, when the Constitution is bastardized by this process (and it will be), what you’ll get, almost immediately, is a civil war.
If you have any doubt, consider this: liberals have tried for decades to erase the import of the 2nd amendment so that they can remove an individual right to bear arms. For liberals, the single biggest opportunity to do what they have not been able to do in the Courts would be a re-write or outright elimination of the 2nd amendment. If you don’t think they wouldn’t resort to outright illegal tactics to make sure that is one result of the Con-Con, then I refer you to Obamacare for what the left is willing to do to the process in order to get what they want.
So. what will YOU do when the new and improved Constitution removes your right to bear arms?
“We dont need a Constitutional convention to draft a new constitution. We need people in positions of authority who adhere to the document we have.”
And since that ain’t happening lo these many years, your fix is exactly ........ what?
“So. what will YOU do when the new and improved Constitution removes your right to bear arms?”
Instruct my State delegation to vote no if inserted.
BTW, your moniker needs changing, as we were unsuccessful and it is another 6 years for the next primary. (That it, unless you are advocating that we elect a Dem as Texas Senator in the fall?)
Your state delegation, if chosen today, would be picked by Joe Straus. Do you really think they’d listen to you?
Zactly. So the Libs could pass an amendment that says government provided healthcare is a right, but when 17 (or more) states vote "no", it is over.
We dont need a Constitutional convention to draft a new constitution. We need people in positions of authority who adhere to the document we have.
We need several more clear and concise amendments that term limit polticians and federal judges and to double down on the chains we placed upon politicians to prevent them from screwing with our lives any more than they already have.
The “Liberty amendments” are a re-affirmation of the Original bill of rights, unlike the “progressive amendments” that tell the people what they can and cannot do... The “Liberty Amendments” tell the polticians not to tread on us...
Article V ping.
Roger that. Article V ping!
There are no Washingtons or Madisons or Franklins or Rutledges or Randolphs or Masons or Gerrys around today to send to a constitutional convention. I’m not sure I would like a document created by the Pelosis and Reeds and McConnells and McCains of the world.
If you feel that amendments will be ignored, then no harm can come of them.
Why do you assume Pelosis and Reeds and McConnells and McCains will attend a convention of the states?
I've seen what the circus in Jeff City do. You may be perfectly content to put yourself in the hands of politicians at any level but I have my worries.
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.
Well, the Framers disagreed with you. The early state constitutions leaned heavily toward democracy. Governors were kept weak and often appointed by the legislatures. Property was far from secure.
It didn't work out. Too much popular will lead to the problems that brought about the federal convention.
The Framer's design fragmented power between the states and the new government they created. The 17th Amendment did away with vertical division of power and overnight we went from a federal republic to a democratic republic.
We can blame 99% of our current troubles on the 17th Amendment, and no semiannual series of elections will cure what ails our dying republic. The states have the constitutional authority to reclaim the power they gave away 101 years ago. It must be done.
We are generally disappointed with state legislators because we ask little of them.
I am not content to put myself in the hands of one prez, nine blackrobes, and 535 congressmen from a distant, mentally detached, and oblivious, Rome like city-state.
I urge you to find out why, on your own...
"Opponents of an Article V convention appear to be more worried about the potential for a runaway convention than they are about the runaway federal government that has already distorted or rendered meaningless several constitutional provisions: the Commerce Clause, the Fourteenth Amendment, the Establishment Clause, the Tenth Amendment, and so forth."
"We can encourage our state legislatures to call for an Article V convention run by the several states that may not succeed, or we can try what we know for certain does not work: voting in the same old establishment politicians to Congress and the presidency. To me, the choice seems easy."
Research links on the Article V process and the Liberty Amendments:
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.
I would recommend watching the above three videos first and then:
Convention of States Lots of information here.
A Summary of Mark Levins Proposed Amendments by Jacquerie
Ulysses at the Mast: Democracy, Federalism, and the Sirens' Song of the Seventeenth Amendmentby Jay Bybee. Repeal the 17th!
Article V Convention: Path of Least Resistance By Robert Berry
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.
Excellent Article V Letter to a State Assemblyman by Jacquerie
Lets all work together to get this going.
The Federal Government is broken. We owe it to The Founders and ourselves to attempt a rational Article V amendment process. If it doesn't work, or is hijacked, then fine, it's on to what we're all expecting anyway, revolution. It's your call America.
thank you, my checking has long since been done...
If you have a plan that will accomplish that (since that's exactly what we've been trying to do for a century), I would be very interested in seeing it!
Article V requires that they do. I they do not, they are in breech of the Constitution and it moves to the courts.
If you have an alternate plan, I'd be interested!