Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Democrats Oppose Article V State Amendment Convention in FL Senate Rules Committee Vote
Florida Senate ^

Posted on 03/20/2014 3:17:52 PM PDT by Jacquerie

Today, Florida took another step toward reclaiming federal powers foolishly given away in 1913.

The Senate Rules Committee passed by 8-5, the following resolution:

Amendments to the Constitution of the United States; Applying to Congress to call a convention for the sole purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States which impose fiscal restraints on the Federal Government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the Federal Government, and limit the terms of office for federal officials and members of Congress.

Every Republican voted yea, every Democrat nay.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: articlev; constitution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-72 next last
The FL Senate Rules Committee vote closely mirrors that of the AZ legislature, where Republicans supported, and nearly all Democrats opposed an Article V state amendment convention.

It makes perfect sense. The Left owns Rome-on-the-Potomac and can gain nothing from amending the constitution they soil every day. Patriots have nothing to lose, and everything to gain from a state amendment convention.

1 posted on 03/20/2014 3:17:52 PM PDT by Jacquerie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

I guess the democRats don’t believe their own propaganda!


2 posted on 03/20/2014 3:21:19 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative; VerySadAmerican; Nuc 1.1; MamaTexan; Political Junkie Too; jeffc; 1010RD; ...
Rats Oppose Article V ping!
3 posted on 03/20/2014 3:21:58 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Obama has established executive branch precedents that no election can reverse. Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
It makes perfect sense. The Left owns Rome-on-the-Potomac and can gain nothing from amending the constitution they soil every day. Patriots have nothing to lose, and everything to gain from a state amendment convention.

"state amendment proposal convention."

4 posted on 03/20/2014 3:34:29 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie; All
... which impose fiscal restraints on the Federal Government, ...

Yes, Justice John Bingham's official clarification of Congress's limited power to lay taxes needs to be enumerated into the Constitution.

“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
... limit the power and jurisdiction of the Federal Government, and limit the terms of office for federal officials and members of Congress.

The Founding States had made the Constitution's Section 8 of Article I to deliberately limit (cripple) Congress's powers. So what's the new amendment supposed to do besides say "See Section 8 of Article I?"

Also, although I will support a term limits amendment, if patriots stop the tsunami of constitutionally indefensible federal taxes then nobody is going to want to be a member of Congress anyway imo.

What we need is an amendment which allows states to recall bad-apple members of Congress with a provision to allow 2/3 of all state legislatures to recall bad-apple members of a given state.

The ill-conceived Progressive Movement 16th Amendment needs to be repealed too.

5 posted on 03/20/2014 3:40:15 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraceG
Left owns Rome-on-the-Potomac and can gain nothing from amending the constitution...

There IS something for leftists in state government to gain by supporting the COS effort. Term limits.

With all the 'Rat congresscritters that have life terms, and beyond... it seems to me that 'Rat state reps/sinators can be gung-ho to get their upper-classmates regular Washington DC departures to make room for the lower classmen.

6 posted on 03/20/2014 3:45:46 PM PDT by C210N (When people fear government there is tyranny; when government fears people there is liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie; All

We need an amendment that gives 3/4 of the state legislatures the power to recall or impeach activist justices since corrupt Congress cannot be expected to do the job.


7 posted on 03/20/2014 3:47:11 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
Patriots have nothing to lose, and everything to gain from a state amendment convention.

If by state amendment convention you mean a Constitutional Convention, that's not completely true. The last Constitutional Convention in 1787 was a runaway and produced our current constitution. Which is different than the constitution ratified from the Articles of Confederation. In more ways than just the Bill of Rights.

We could end up having an amendment to the US Constitution that negates the 2nd or the 4th.

Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.

8 posted on 03/20/2014 3:47:54 PM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (Truth sounds like hate...to those who hate truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie; All
The Senate Rules Committee passed by 8-5, ...

I suspect that the 5 Democrats who opposed resolution don't understand that Congress has been stealing state revenues from Florida in the form of constitutionally indefensible federal taxes.

“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

9 posted on 03/20/2014 3:55:44 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts

> “If by state amendment convention you mean a Constitutional Convention, “

That’s not at all what we mean. If we meant that, we would say that.

There has only been one Constitutional Convention, and we have a Constitution as a result. It would defy logic to call for another one, plus it would be unconstitutional, since nowhere in that sacred document is one even contemplated.

When we make a reference to “An Article V Convention of States to Propose Amendments to the Constitution,” what we’re actually talking about is an Article V Convention of States to Propose Amendments to the Constitution, as authorized by Article V. Check it out.

I hope that answers your question.


10 posted on 03/20/2014 3:57:18 PM PDT by Strawberry AZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

I hope lots of pro Article V convention legislators are elected in November!


11 posted on 03/20/2014 4:04:19 PM PDT by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Awesome!!! Congratulations to the Patriots of Georgia, the last of the original 13, from the Patriots of Arizona, the last of the contiguous 48!


12 posted on 03/20/2014 4:04:37 PM PDT by Strawberry AZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts
You have just enunciated one of the most pernicious myths of early American history. Let James Madison explain to you in Federalist #40 why the Constitutional Convention was not a runaway convention.
13 posted on 03/20/2014 4:11:19 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
Your idea in Post #5 was brought up in the Eighties and called the Utah Option, although I have no idea what it has to do with Utah.

The idea was that if 3/4's of the state legislatures passed a resolution of no confidence in the federal government, that government would be dissolved. New elections for the House, all Senate seats, the President and Vice President would be called 60 days after the resolution received the requisite number of votes. No incumbent would be permitted to serve in office again.

Following the election, the entire federal judiciary at all levels would be fired, and the new government would fill the federal bench with all new appointees.

I'd like to see an amendment like that.

14 posted on 03/20/2014 4:16:06 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
I seem to remember a similar push for an Article 5 convention in the 70’s. The rats ran like a bunch of scalded hogs once the numbers started to add up.
15 posted on 03/20/2014 4:17:16 PM PDT by Little Bill (EVICT Queen Jean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

The timing is interesting here, in that just after the 2014 mid-terms, I imagine that other states will start to join in, leading up to the 2016 presidential race. With a far more conservative Republican congress, and hopefully a Republican president, an Article V convention in 2017 would be far more likely.

Fair warning, security for such a convention will have to be ridiculously tight, because there will be a legion of lobbyists, terrorists, spies, scoundrels, billionaires, Wall Street speculators, insane people, you name it, trying to force their way in.

The delegates will almost have to be sequestered to protect them and their families. All communications to and from the convention will have to be air tight, possibly even carried by couriers, kept out of the view of all who would spy on it. It should be limited to messages to and from the state legislatures, which should be open to inspection after receipt.

The US military should only be used for the “outer ring” of security, with security personnel in the interior rings sworn to defend the *convention*.

Seriously, security for this is going to have to be intensely paranoid, as not just the future of the United States is at stake, but the future of the entire world.

If at all possible, an enabling law should be passed making interference with the convention in any way a major felony, and authorizing the use of deadly force in all sorts of circumstances. If there is a major assault, or detected espionage, the convention may need to sit as a jury, whose decisions cannot be excused, commuted or pardoned.


16 posted on 03/20/2014 4:27:42 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (WoT News: Rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius
“Pernicious myths.” Very good. There's no shortage of them schooling around Article V.
17 posted on 03/20/2014 4:30:55 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Obama has established executive branch precedents that no election can reverse. Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

the dems know exactly what is going to happen to them with an article 5 convention.


18 posted on 03/20/2014 4:34:52 PM PDT by dadfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts

The 2nd amendment would simply be “rewritten” to mak it meangingless. Nothing to lose my ass. Liberals are just going to do nothing while conservatives make the current constitution (that is ignored by liberals) more conservative? Yeah uh huh.


19 posted on 03/20/2014 4:35:13 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
If you don't, you should write historical fiction. I don't doubt any of your predictions.

I think the primary resistance will be of the back door, out of sight variety sort of pressure on individual state legislators. The rats fear a state amendment convention, for it could be the real beginning of the end to their power.

There is no evil they will shrink from to derail return to a FreeRepublic.

20 posted on 03/20/2014 4:37:14 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Obama has established executive branch precedents that no election can reverse. Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

You might just be over the target when you draw enemy fire.


21 posted on 03/20/2014 4:39:18 PM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Today is sine die for the Georgia Legislature.
(we rednecks call it “sign or die” referring to the fate of the various bills in the hopper.)


22 posted on 03/20/2014 4:39:58 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: plain talk
Just for the sake of argument, do you think a watering down of the 2nd Amendment would make it alive out of convention? Do you honestly think that 3/4's of the state legislatures would ratify such an abomination even if it did?

Will the Left be present at an Amendments Convention? Certainly. An Amendments Convention will be a snapshot of America at that time and place.

But the purview (subject) of the convention is to be defined up front as aiming at reducing the federal government's power and enhancing that of the states. Such an amendment proposal would be ruled out of order by the presiding officer. The Left would be told that they need to start a campaign to petition for their own Amendments Convention to push the matters they wish to raise.

23 posted on 03/20/2014 4:41:07 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: plain talk
"... this is dangerous ..."
"... this is a terrible idea ..."
"... other important things might be changed ..."
"... they will attack the Bill of Rights ..."
"... the right to free speech or right to bear arms could be taken away ..."
"... they might try to re-write the entire Constitution ..."
-
An Article V Convention of States cannot amend the Constitution.
-
An Article V Convention of States is simply a formal gathering of delegates
by at least 34 states, to discuss, debate, and "propose amendments" to the Constitution.
-
The State resolutions calling for an Article V Convention of States all use the same language.
"...for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution which:
- Impose fiscal restraints on the Federal Government;
- Limit the power and jurisdiction of the Federal Government; and
- Limit the terms of office for federal officials and members of Congress."
-
Any proposal not within the stated purpose of the Convention of States
(fiscal restraints; limits on power and jurisdiction; limits on terms of office)
would be unauthorized, rejected, and not approved by the Convention of States.
-
Any proposal that emerged as a "proposed amendment" by the Convention of States
would still require ratification by 38 states, the same as with any other proposed amendment.
-
An Article V Convention of States cannot amend the Constitution.
-
Read more at: http://www.conventionofstates.com
-

24 posted on 03/20/2014 4:42:50 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts

see post 24 below:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3135525/posts?page=24#24


25 posted on 03/20/2014 4:43:52 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th
My usual pedantic boilerplate.

---

The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps: Proposal, Disposal, and Ratification.

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:

Implicitly 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

26 posted on 03/20/2014 4:44:30 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: plain talk
Take a stroll through the Bill of Rights. Pause at each clause. By my reckoning, the only clauses still in full effect deal with quartering troops in private homes and our right to defense counsel. The 2A is under continuous attack, and it exists as a practical matter only because of gun rights groups.

The Left’s victory is nearly complete. We are no longer a self-governing people, perhaps with the exception of Article V. It still exists; it is our last remaining hope to restore freedom.

27 posted on 03/20/2014 4:44:51 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Obama has established executive branch precedents that no election can reverse. Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio
Or, as sailors say, “if you're not making waves you are not underway.”
28 posted on 03/20/2014 4:48:31 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Obama has established executive branch precedents that no election can reverse. Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

The attacks will come when the numbers begin to add up.
They will first come from the media.

Every possible lie misrepresentation and misconception will be told as fact.

The low information voters will hang on every word.

Some of them are right here on Free Republic.

It will get ugly.


29 posted on 03/20/2014 4:49:05 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

What a great day for Article V! Our bill here in Arizona just passed out of the House Government Committee with a DO PASS recommendation!!! 4 Republicans voted Yea, all the Democrats didn’t.

Shock.

On to the senate...


30 posted on 03/20/2014 5:10:55 PM PDT by Strawberry AZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th
Hmmm, I wonder if the next assembly of states was scheduled for June because most (all?) state legislatures will be out of session by then?
31 posted on 03/20/2014 5:19:57 PM PDT by Jacquerie ( Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Just heard on Mark Levin’s show that Michigan’s state house just passed a Convention of States resolution, 77-32. A state rep (Flowers ?) called in to tell Mark, personally.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140320/POLITICS02/303200137#ixzz2wYHSR15B


32 posted on 03/20/2014 5:20:28 PM PDT by Jane Long (While Marxists continue the fundamental transformation of the USA, progressive RINOs assist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Strawberry AZ
I hope Article V opponents at FreeRepublic notice how the Left fears an amendment convention. Leftist opposition is confirmation we are on the right track.
33 posted on 03/20/2014 5:26:42 PM PDT by Jacquerie ( Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Jane Long

Yes, that was terrific!


34 posted on 03/20/2014 5:30:00 PM PDT by Jacquerie ( Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

V


35 posted on 03/20/2014 6:02:40 PM PDT by VRW Conspirator ( 2+2 = V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jane Long

I heard that caller, too.


36 posted on 03/20/2014 6:24:14 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: plain talk
The 2nd amendment would simply be “rewritten” to mak it meangingless. Nothing to lose my ass. Liberals are just going to do nothing while conservatives make the current constitution (that is ignored by liberals) more conservative? Yeah uh huh.

Absurd; 3/4ths of the legislatures of the States would have to ratify any amendment — if you think that 38 states would willingly and knowingly drink poison then you think that every peaceable means has been exhausted.

37 posted on 03/20/2014 6:26:45 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

Fantastic explanation...

Here’s where we are...

1) Article V Convention
2) Nullification
3) Peaceful secession
4) CW2

I’d like to try the one the Founders actually WROTE INTO THE CONSTITUTION myself...


38 posted on 03/20/2014 6:55:01 PM PDT by bfh333 (William Wallace was right! ~~~ FRRRREEEEEEEEEEEDOM ~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

> “The 2nd amendment would simply be ‘rewritten’”

No one is going to “re-write” anything, not as long as there are still 13 states left standing to block it! Please do the math.

The safety mechanisms are built into the stated subject matter of the convention, and in the numbers that are required to propose and then to ratify any amendments to the Constitution. And let me really emphasize that word: “propose.”

To begin with, the reason for calling the convention in the first place is not to address what the government CAN do, but to address what the government can NOT do. The subject of the convention is specifically limited to proposing amendments that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, that limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and that limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress. Any proposal by any delegate that would fall outside of these parameters would be declared by the chairman of the convention to be “void ab initio,” or dead on arrival, and there would be no further discussion of the matter. You must know, don’t you, that that’s the way conventions work?

Secondly, delegates to the convention will be selected by the various state legislatures. If you look at the numbers of Red state legislatures (26) versus Blue state legislatures (18)*, conservatives have a sizeable majority, and one that only stands to increase in the upcoming election, both in state governorships and chambers of the legislature controlled by conservatives.

Certainly there will be states like California, New York, Illinois, Hawaii and others that will send their flaming extremists, but it’s a one-state, one-vote system. Even if the liberal delegates were somehow able to approach the number of conservative delegates, no leftist proposal expanding the power or scope of the federal government can be passed inside the convention without a 2/3 vote of the states, and that just isn’t mathematically possible.

Lastly, after the Convention of States has done its work and adjourns, nothing will have been changed. Nothing. All that will have happened is that a bill of PROPOSED amendments – there’s that word again - similar in process to the first ten original amendments - our Bill of Rights - will have been submitted to Congress, which then must in turn send them back out to the legislatures of the several states for ratification, either by convention or a vote of the legislature.

Again, math is our friend here. Article V of the Constitution requires that 75% of the states ratify any proposed amendment before it becomes the Supreme Law of the Land, which also means that it would take only 13 states to kill any hair-brained proposal that might have somehow managed to slip through. Remember, the proposed amendments must stand or fall as written - no state can make any changes, not even a single letter. If the states can’t agree in the numbers required, the proposal fails for lack of support.

The bottom line is that there are multiple levels of safeguards in place to prevent a “runaway” convention - we have nothing to fear from those who would “hijack” the process. All of this fear-mongering is nothing more than tired, transparent scare tactics, like the old trope that George Soros is secretly funding the Article V movement, because the radical socialist extremists plan to take control of the convention and not only re-write the Constitution, but do away with conservatism completely.

If that were indeed the case, why wouldn’t liberal Democrats be all over this legislation? Aren’t they smart enough to understand how dangerous such an event would be to freedom and liberty? Why is it that when Article V legislation is passed, it’s done without a single Democrat vote? Shouldn’t we expect at least one Democrat to break with party orthodoxy and vote to repeal the 2nd Amendment, to establish a $25 national minimum wage, and to abolish conservatism, all in one fell swoop?

I submit to you that they would do just that if there were but one single word of truth in the arguments being peddled by the fear merchants of the John Birch Society. There isn’t, so they don’t. The Birchers insist that the Constitution is sacrosanct, that it can’t be violated or tampered with, that it must be followed as written to the letter of the law… all except that part in Article V, that is, where it authorizes the states to hold conventions to propose amendments.

In as many words, they say that they don’t trust the people to have sense enough to conduct a convention properly, that we should trust in our current form of government to correct itself, that everything will be fine as long as we just keep voting for change... us... the idiots, the dupes and the fools too stupid to run a convention... but we should keep voting.

How’s that been working out so far?

Seriously, there is something, indeed, that we DO have to fear, and that’s our current runaway federal government. We should also fear what will most certainly happen to our Constitution if we do nothing.


39 posted on 03/20/2014 7:32:51 PM PDT by Strawberry AZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: bfh333

> “I’d like to try the one the Founders actually WROTE INTO THE CONSTITUTION...”

Brilliant!


40 posted on 03/20/2014 7:33:52 PM PDT by Strawberry AZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

I neglected to include the citation for my Red state / Blue state comparison...

* Source: https://www.statescape.com/resources/partysplits/partysplits.aspx


41 posted on 03/20/2014 7:36:36 PM PDT by Strawberry AZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
> So what's the new amendment supposed to do besides say "See Section 8 of Article I?"

Howsabout making it an impeachable offense to knowingly vote for any measure that does not first pass constitutional muster? Just musing here... the kind of things one does before going to a convention.

nobody is going to want to be a member of Congress anyway imo.

I think that you are exactly right, to this extent: They'll not want to go for the same reasons as the money-grubbing, power-hungry, opportunist career politicians that they'll be replacing, that's for sure! They just might have other motives, like doing what's best for the country instead of what's best for their re-election fund, because, by golly, there's that Lifetime Term Limits thing to remind them that someday soon, they'll be returning to the real world with the rest of us to live under the laws that they pass. This Article V is starting to look like a magic bullet...

What we need is an amendment which allows states...

I'm not even going to finish your quote there, just to make the point that YOU can fill in the blank! That's what this convention will be all about... great minds coming together with great ideas, to propose, discuss and dispose... debate for as long as it takes to fully vet the issues and the solutions... and do so in the full light of day, not in some smokey back room! And the best part of all of this...? Just let the media try to ignore it!

Bottom line here, Amendment10, is that, for what it's worth, I like the way you think!

42 posted on 03/20/2014 8:01:08 PM PDT by Strawberry AZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Strawberry AZ

Liberals and judges don’t follow the Constitution now so even if you prevailed (you won’t) it is a meaningless exercise for people that like to preach to the choir. A few states will send their flaming liberals? Obama carried 26 states. But people waste their time with all sorts of nonsense. So have at it. However I will oppose it and encourage everyone I know to oppose it.


43 posted on 03/20/2014 8:08:21 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: C210N
There IS something for leftists in state government to gain by supporting the COS effort. Term limits.

Wow... I never thought about it in the way that you just described, but but you could very well be right.

This may be one of the major issues that brings the parties together on this whole Article V movement - lifetime term limits. Kind of like a bunch of young members of the tribe jumping up and down to break the tip off an ice flow so one really old Eskimo can just float out to sea.

One less old Eskimo... I like it!

44 posted on 03/20/2014 8:10:51 PM PDT by Strawberry AZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie; All
The ill-conceived Progressive Movement 16th Amendment needs to be repealed too.

I must have been interrupted when I was making post 5. I meant the 17th Amendment but 16 can go too.

45 posted on 03/20/2014 8:21:51 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Publius
You have just enunciated one of the most pernicious myths of early American history

Hear, Hear, Publius!

To those who insist on dragging out that tired old saw, it should be sufficient to note that what emerged from that assembly was an AMENDMENT to the existing Articles of the Confederation which was submitted to Congress, which in turn unanimously approved said amendment and referred it to the 13 states for ratification.

Now, before anything else occurred, it's important to note that the ratification process set forth in the amendment, which was, in fact, the soon-to-be new Constitution, contained two important changes which were both required for ratification to occur.

First, rather than have 13 state legislatures approve the amendment, as required under the Articles, the Constitution called for each state merely to approve the calling of a state convention to ratify the amendment. If that were approved, then the ratification of only nine states was deemed sufficient.

The fact is that ALL 13 states legislatures approved the calling of state conventions to consider approval of the new amendment / Constitution, and in so doing, the requisite unanimous approval for the new nine-state ratification process occurred.

Eventually, all thirteen states adopted the Constitution, thus further negating any claim that the Constitution was somehow illegally approved.

It's a matter of history*.

Source: David F. Guldenschuh, JD

46 posted on 03/20/2014 8:55:18 PM PDT by Strawberry AZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: plain talk
I will oppose it and encourage everyone I know to oppose it.

I'm sorry that you feel so defeated, and regret that you have given up on your country. Personally, I can't buy into your defeatism.

It is, however, one thing to feel that another's efforts are meaningless and futile, and another entirely to say you'll actively oppose them.

Thank you for the heads-up... I would have expected no less from the Democrat Party. It would appear that there are more enemies of Freedom and Liberty than I might have guessed.

47 posted on 03/20/2014 9:06:07 PM PDT by Strawberry AZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts
... The last Constitutional Convention in 1787 was a runaway and produced our current constitution.

Yes, the Constitutional Convention was a runaway convention, an attempt to resolve issues with the existing Articles of Confederation.

However ...

Neither the runaway Constitutional Convention, nor any such Convention in the future, produced a ratified new Constitution, but a proposed new Constitution for the states to later ratify if they so choose. This is because, after the delegates to the Convention had finished and signed the final draft, they then had to get out and sell the draft to the states for ratification, just as the states would have to ratify any amendments proposed by future Conventions.

"The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and ratified by conventions in eleven States." --United States Constitution, Wikipedia.

48 posted on 03/20/2014 9:30:44 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Strawberry AZ

Given up on my country? No. Given up on you. Definitely.


49 posted on 03/20/2014 9:32:37 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

If amendments won’t be followed, then no harm can be done. Why oppose a convention?

States will send delegates with commissions. They will not send representatives. Delegates are identical to agents. Their discretion will be limited to the power their states give them. States will not send representatives with plenary authority.

Do you oppose other clauses in the constitution?


50 posted on 03/21/2014 1:36:16 AM PDT by Jacquerie ( Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-72 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson