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

Skip to comments.

The Constitutional Amendment Process
Archivist of the United States ^

Posted on 04/11/2014 3:35:48 PM PDT by Jacquerie

I post the following to address a common concern of Freepers who oppose an Article V state convention.

The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist's certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive.

In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President. President Johnson signed the certifications for the 24th and 25th Amendments as a witness, and President Nixon similarly witnessed the certification of the 26th Amendment along with three young scholars. On May 18, 1992, the Archivist performed the duties of the certifying official for the first time to recognize the ratification of the 27th Amendment, and the Director of the Federal Register signed the certification as a witness.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 17th; articlev; constitution
The Archivist of the United States, to which the states send their Presidential electoral votes, will likewise receive notice of state ratification or rejection of proposed constitutional amendments.
1 posted on 04/11/2014 3:35:49 PM PDT by Jacquerie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LS; Resolute Conservative; VerySadAmerican; Nuc 1.1; MamaTexan; Political Junkie Too; jeffc; ...

Article V ping!


2 posted on 04/11/2014 3:37:08 PM PDT by Jacquerie ( Fivers unite! We have nothing to lose and our freedoms to gain at an Article V state convention.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

The current administration thinks it can create an Amendment by Executive Order.

And this SCOTUS is 50/50 on allowing it!


3 posted on 04/11/2014 3:43:22 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Fight Tapinophobia in all its forms! Do not submit to arduus privilege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

I’m all in.
Deal the cards.
-
www.conventionofstates.com
-

Legislative Update:
Alaska:
The Rules Committee has a slight back-up in bills, but they understand the importance of passing the bill to the Senate Floor as soon as possible.

Arizona:
SCR 1016 passed the Rules Committee with bi-partisan support. The next step is the House Floor and then the Senate Floor. The Arizona legislators are hoping to get out of session early this year, so they are motivated to push things through quickly.

Colorado:
The hearing went well this week, one of the committee members was unable to attend so the vote has been delayed.

Florida:
The House Floor did not hear the resolution today,
but it is tentatively on the schedule for the 21st.

Missouri:
Waiting on the vote count from the General Laws Committee before moving on to the next committee.

South Carolina:
The second Judiciary Subcommittee hearing was rescheduled to later this month.


4 posted on 04/11/2014 3:50:58 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

The critical statement:

“In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist’s certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive.”

I read this as rescission of prior ratification have no legal basis. Once a state ratifies, and that ratification is certified, it is permanent.

This being the case, if Illinois current resolution passes, it most likely means that an Article V convention will be called.

Importantly, wherever the convention is held will have to have the tightest security the US has ever seen for such an event. Every spy on the planet, every terrorist, every corporation, and a whole bunch of others will do anything to penetrate it.


5 posted on 04/11/2014 3:53:25 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (WoT News: Rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
On May 18, 1992, the Archivist performed the duties of the certifying official for the first time to recognize the ratification of the 27th Amendment, and the Director of the Federal Register signed the certification as a witness.

There was a good reason for this.

When the Constitution was ratified, several states said that their ratifications were contingent upon a bill of rights being inserted into the new Constitution as amendments. Madison pointed out that ratification was an up-or-down act not dependent upon any conditions, but it was clear that a bill of rights was going to be necessary. Elected as first Speaker of the House, Madison was a bit slow in generating amendments, but when two states sent petitions to Congress for a “general” Amendments Convention, Madison put quill pen to hemp paper and generated 12 proposed amendments, which were slam-dunked through Congress. Ten of those 12 were slam-dunked through the ratification process and became our Bill of Rights.

Two of those amendment proposals sat out there without sufficient ratifications by the states to get into the Constitution.

In 1983, Gregory Watson, a legislative assistant to a Texas state senator, did some research into what amendments might be out there waiting for ratification, when he happened on Madison’s 12th proposal, known as the Salary Grab Amendment. Resigning from his job, he went around the country holding seminars for state legislators about this particular amendment. As a result, ratifications began trickling into the Archivist’s office.

In 1992, the 38th ratification hit the Archivist’s office, and the Archivist sent a memo to Congress that their power had just been radically curtailed. Unfortunately, the Archivist had failed to give Congress a heads-up as ratifications began to reach the critical number, and as a result Congress was blind-sided by the 38th ratification.

Congressional leadership was outraged and sent the Archivist a memo challenging the earliest ratifications as “stale” and stating that those states needed to ratify the amendment all over. The reasoning was that since 1918 Congress had placed seven year windows on ratifications, and 203 year old ratifications could not be valid.

The Archivist cited every Supreme Court decision on the amendatory process in a masterly memo, and Congress found itself in the position of having to sue in federal court to throw the 27th Amendment out of the Constitution. The year 1992 was an election year with a strong anti-incumbent tide flowing, and Congress decided that discretion was the better part of valor. There would be no lawsuit. Rather than fight in court, Congress accepted the 27th Amendment into the Constitution with a lot of grumbling and no enthusiasm.

6 posted on 04/11/2014 4:01:29 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
I post my usual boilerplate with a request that you print off and save the two documents to which I link at the end of this post. Rescission of an Amendments Convention petition is unsettled law, and the two documents have very different positions with respect to that question.

---

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

7 posted on 04/11/2014 4:03:53 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: yefragetuwrabrumuy
I hope this link works.

With respect to this particular set of petitions for an Amendments Convention, this post covers a lot of legal ground.

8 posted on 04/11/2014 4:10:21 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: Publius

Fascinating. Your post illustrates the power v. power aspect of our government. Yes, there is supreme constitutional law, but if there is no organized interest, hopefully with judicial standing, to defend and demand implementation of each and every clause, . . . we know what happens.


9 posted on 04/11/2014 4:10:54 PM PDT by Jacquerie ( Fivers unite! We have nothing to lose and our freedoms to gain at an Article V state convention.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

<>Once a state ratifies, and that ratification is certified, it is permanent.<>

It appears that way.

There is a chance IL could pass the balanced budget amendment?


10 posted on 04/11/2014 4:15:52 PM PDT by Jacquerie ( Fivers unite! We have nothing to lose and our freedoms to gain at an Article V state convention.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

The contretemps over the 27th Amendment in 1992 shows that senators and congressmen do not want to look like opponents of the Constitution and the amendatory process in an election year.


11 posted on 04/11/2014 4:16:20 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Click on that link in Post #8. The ALEC document agrees with your position, but the ABA document does not. It’s not settled law yet.


12 posted on 04/11/2014 4:17:27 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

The COS movement is gaining momentum! The next assembly of the states will be June 12th. Depending on the outcome and press release, it could have major impact not only for our constitution, but for the 2014 and 2016 elections as well.


13 posted on 04/11/2014 4:20:31 PM PDT by Jacquerie ( Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

V


14 posted on 04/11/2014 4:24:11 PM PDT by VRW Conspirator ( 2+2 = V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius

After 225 years, one would think all the points you brought up would have been statutorily settled. No such luck.

I’m not all confident congress will allow a convention. I doubt they would refuse to call a convention after 34 applications, because I don’t put it beyond congress to threaten, bribe, extort . . . do what it takes to prevent 34 applications from happening.


15 posted on 04/11/2014 4:36:37 PM PDT by Jacquerie ( Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
They haven't been settled because we've never had an Amendments Convention under the rubrics of Article V. This would be our first time, so I would expect a lot of gray areas to be litigated until they are black or white.

Congress won't bribe or threaten, but they will try to use the unwritten Single Subject Standard and Contemporaneousness Standard to sandbag the effort. Those will probably have to be litigated unless there are enough votes in Congress among conservatives to block such interference.

16 posted on 04/11/2014 4:42:44 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Publius
Once Congress, or an Amendments Convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:

State Legislature Method, or

the State Ratifying Convention Method.

This is the most important part of your post. Far too many people think of an Article V Convention as a declaration of martial law. Such a convention can only propose amendments. It can not put anything into effect. Even if such a convention tried to unilaterally impose an amendment or new constitution, how would they do so? Would the military back the convention's clearly illegal act? Would the federal and State governments acquiesce? Would the People not fight the convention's illegal act? There a much greater and realistic chance that an Article V Convention would be too divided to propose anything than that it would be unified enough to attempt a coup.

17 posted on 04/11/2014 4:58:17 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

“Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land. Kinda cool.”
Paul Begala


18 posted on 04/11/2014 5:01:54 PM PDT by Dalberg-Acton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Repeal 16-17
Your last sentence is right on the mark. Our first Amendments Convention will probably not produce much of anything, but it will set the ground rules and precedents into concrete. It's our second Amendments Convention that should produce positive results.
19 posted on 04/11/2014 5:06:36 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
The critical statement: “In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist’s certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive.” I read this as rescission of prior ratification have no legal basis. Once a state ratifies, and that ratification is certified, it is permanent. This being the case, if Illinois current resolution passes, it most likely means that an Article V convention will be called. Importantly, wherever the convention is held will have to have the tightest security the US has ever seen for such an event. Every spy on the planet and our federal government, every terroristfrom our federal government, every corporation, and a whole bunch of others from our federal government will do anything to penetrate it.
20 posted on 04/11/2014 10:04:58 PM PDT by kvanbrunt2 (civil law: commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong Blackstone Commentaries I p44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
Our only Constitutional redress is Article V and a Convention of States.

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 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

Citizens for Self Governance: Convention of States Project – a hub of 15 youtube videos on the Convention of States

Mark Levin Article V, Liberty Amendments youtube video hub

Three hour video of C-Span interview with Mark Levin

Amendments Convention Links

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

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

The Final Constitutional Option

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.

Excellent Article V Letter to a State Assemblyman by Jacquerie

Let’s 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.

21 posted on 04/11/2014 10:25:42 PM PDT by Art in Idaho (Conservatism is the only Hope for Western Civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

We are being told here in Arizona that the final vote on the Convention of States Article V Application - SCR1016 - will probably take place next Monday, April 14th, in the Arizona House of Representatives.

This may be our last opportunity to help pass this legislation during this legislative session. This bill has moved favorably through four committee hearings and will now go to the floor of the House before the Committee of the Whole for a final vote. SCR1016 is considered to be the only realistic strategy that can finally begin to reverse the fiscally unsustainable and politically irresponsible actions of an out-of-control federal government.

For those of you who are still on the fence, fearing that what the nay-sayers and fear-mongers are calling a “runaway convention” could actually happen, please understand that this is a convention of state delegates called only to PROPOSE amendments to the Constitution, amendments that would LIMIT the power and scope of the federal government. Any proposal outside of those strict parameters would be ruled out of order and would not even be debated. Besides, no matter what proposals come out of this convention, they are nothing more than that – PROPOSALS – until ratified by at least 38 state legislatures. Do the math and you’ll see that it only takes 13 states to stop any amendment in its tracks... and they could do it by simply doing nothing!

The convention itself will be an open, closely followed public forum where true conservative ideas can finally be proposed, expounded upon and debated for the entire nation to see. Ideas like term limits for Congress and all federal judges; requiring Congress to pass an annual balanced budget under penalty of law; prohibiting votes on all but one-subject bills; banning international laws and treaties from influencing our courts; clarifying and greatly narrowing the General Welfare and Commerce clauses; ending the IRS and the EPA as we know it; just to name a few. And in the exhaustive examination of these ideas, there will come clarity, refinement and precision, culminating for some in proposals for amendments that will help steer the nation back toward the course envisioned by the Framers.

We here in Arizona are being asked to please set aside about 30 minutes over the weekend and call every House member on the roster linked below, particularly the leadership of both parties, and leave a brief message for them to find on Monday. You can be assured that the opposition will be making their calls, as well.

Remember to thank them for their service to their constituents - the people of Arizona – and strongly urge them to lend their support to SCR1610, Representative Townsend’s Article V legislation calling for a Convention of States to propose amendments to the Constitution to reduce the power and authority of the federal government and return it where it belongs... to the states.

Member Roster ==> http://www.azleg.gov/MemberRoster.asp?Body=H


22 posted on 04/11/2014 11:08:13 PM PDT by Strawberry AZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strawberry AZ

Is the AZ application identical to that of the COS?


23 posted on 04/12/2014 1:26:42 AM PDT by Jacquerie ( Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: kvanbrunt2

Well said, but that the federal government would try to stop or subvert it is kind of obvious. In truth, I expect that if the SCOTUS involves itself at any level, that is, does not firmly refuse to hear any appeals about the convention, and even goes so far as to instruct the judiciary that it is not their business, there is going to be trouble.

The federal judiciary has no authority over a convention, and if the convention votes it, any federal judge who involves himself, as well as any federal agency or individual, can be immediately suspended or even arrested.

That point should not be neglected: that the convention may sit as a judge and jury, and basically order villains to prison for an indeterminate length of time, while they accomplish their purpose.


24 posted on 04/12/2014 6:05:46 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (WoT News: Rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Yes, it is.


25 posted on 04/12/2014 7:39:20 AM PDT by Strawberry AZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
or by a constitutional convention

I understand the constitutional process but there is a downside to a constitutional convention.

A constitutional convention cannot be limited to a single issue.
A constitutional convention can subject the entire Constitution to proposed changes.

26 posted on 04/12/2014 7:51:25 AM PDT by MosesKnows (Love many, trust few, and always paddle your own canoe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
...the convention may sit as a judge and jury, and basically order villains to prison for an indeterminate length of time...

I've not been able to find where a Convention of States called for the purpose of proposing amendments has that sort of authority, but I think a more likely reaction by the Establishment (including the judiciary) would be to quickly pass a few placebo bills, hoping to take the wind out of the delegates' sails, and I wouldn't rule out an attempt to propose a new "omnibus" amendment themselves... anything to muddy the waters.

27 posted on 04/12/2014 7:52:15 AM PDT by Strawberry AZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MosesKnows
A constitutional convention cannot be limited to a single issue.

Actually, it can, if done correctly. The term "constitutional convention" is an unfortunate misnomer here, and it's even more unfortunate that the excerpt comes from an official website. Nevertheless, a distinction must be made, and common usage and our understanding for the purposes of this discussion has it that there has been only one Constitutional Convention (note the capitalization), and that was to create the original document.

Technically, nowhere in Article V (nor anywhere else in the Constitution) does one find the authority for a convention to draw up a new constitution. There is authority, however, for a convention of states to propose amendments to the constitution.

No one here is calling for another Con-Con. We already have a Constitution, and one is enough. We simply believe that it needs to be clarified in a few places by amendment, a wholly legitimate and constitutional process. Like any convention, a Convention of States to Propose Amendments to the Constitution can (and will) define its scope, and, like any convention, an issue that falls outside of those strict parameters will be ruled out of order.

A constitutional convention can subject the entire Constitution to proposed changes.

Only if it's defined scope allows, and I don't see that being proposed in any of the legislation currently moving through the state legislatures.

What I do see are two bills, one drafted by the Compact for America that will apply to Congress for a Convention of States to Propose a Balanced Budget Amendment (CFA BBA), and a second bill drawn up by the Citizens for Self-Governance (CSG COS) applying to Congress for a Convention of States to Propose Amendments to the Constitution 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.

That's it, and they are both rather specific. Everyday parliamentary procedure would quickly dispose of any motion to "re-write the constitution" or to broaden the power of the federal in any way as void ab initio, or dead on arrival. Such an item would never make it to debate, let alone consideration. That's the way conventions work.

None of this is to say, however, that those who do wish to re-write the constitution can't try to pull off their own convention for that specific purpose down the block. It's a free country (sort of), and personally, I wish them lots of luck. They should do they math, though, and understand that it only takes 13 states to kill any harebrained ideas that they come up with... actually only one chamber in each of 13 state legislatures.

Bottom line here, in my opinion, is that the only legitimate "runaway" fear is that of a runaway federal government, and a Convention of States is a solution as big as the problem!

http://conventionofstates.com/

28 posted on 04/12/2014 10:02:24 AM PDT by Strawberry AZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MosesKnows
As time allows, take a slow stroll through the Constitution. While the words are still there, very little remains in effect after 80 years of unremitting fascist progressivism. The Uniparty cannot reform itself. It is up to us and our states.

We have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

29 posted on 04/12/2014 12:14:05 PM PDT by Jacquerie ( Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
the words are still there

Every citizen has a legitimate right if not an obligation to demand their representatives honor their oath to defend the Constitution.

The people have that right because they have not tampered with the words. May God bless those words.

30 posted on 04/12/2014 2:04:33 PM PDT by MosesKnows (Love many, trust few, and always paddle your own canoe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Those worried about a Convention should consider the default permanent sitting pseudo “convention” of nine judges called “The Supreme Court.”


31 posted on 04/13/2014 8:25:08 AM PDT by Prospero (Si Deus trucido mihi, ego etiam fides Deus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MosesKnows
The Constitution has been "tampered with" twenty-seven times, some to effect improvement, some to correct error. This is part of the process of perfection.

You beg for God's blessing. I believe we have that. He's done his part, now it's time for us to do ours. I feel certain that He (and we) would appreciate you pitching in.

32 posted on 04/13/2014 9:49:33 AM PDT by Strawberry AZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Prospero

Amen!


33 posted on 04/13/2014 9:50:31 AM PDT by Strawberry AZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Strawberry AZ
Constitution has been "tampered with"

You have come a long way in discussing the amendment process. From an constitutional process to tampering.

I had overlooked the notion that someone would view the constitutional amendment process as tampering.

I thought it was clear that I was not referring to the 17 amendments after the ratified Bill of Rights. The words have been twisted, convoluted, and prostituted but remain unchanged. Not a single legislative constitutional power has been added.

The salvation of the founder’s vision for America exist in the Constitution’s words, and yes, may god bless those words.

34 posted on 04/13/2014 3:32:16 PM PDT by MosesKnows (Love many, trust few, and always paddle your own canoe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MosesKnows
OK... sarcasm aside, I take your point. Now, here's mine:

You have every right to stand on principle. Just as we have the right to go to the polls every two years like the sheep that we are and send good constitutional conservatives to that meatgrinder in DC, only to see them chewed up, spit out and returned to us at re-election time as so much baloney.

You are not the only one who wants us to behave, by the way. The entrenched establishment of both parties loves things just the way they are. They, like you, pray that we continue to hope for Divine Intervention and ignore the solution to the problem that the Founders wrote right into that document you pretend to adore.

You simply cannot have it both ways: If you believe in the Constitution, then you believe in it in its entirety. You cannot cherry-pick your Articles. James Madison, among others, allowed for the fallibility of men, himself included, and helped write the remedy.

Please, take a moment and read those 143 words... words, by your own testament, blessed by God.

35 posted on 04/13/2014 3:56:41 PM PDT by Strawberry AZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Strawberry AZ
You simply cannot have it both ways

I've lost track of your point if you ever had one.

For the record, I want it one way, the constitutional way.

Praying and hoping are at best related. When I hope for something, I am wishing; when I pray for something I am demanding.

This thread began when you responded to a post I posted to Jacquerie:

I understand the constitutional process but there is a downside to a constitutional convention.

A constitutional convention cannot be limited to a single issue.
A constitutional convention can subject the entire Constitution to proposed changes.

I suggest you heed this caution regardless of your feelings.

I strongly favor a constitutional government. A constitutional government is a government with elected people who honor their oath to defend the Constitution. We do not have that situation now. A constitutional convention is not a guarantee of improvement.

Conservative voices will not be alone in a constitutional convention. I advise approaching problems informed and with eyes wide open. On another thread on Free Republic, a Congressman is proposing adding five words to the 2nd Amendment.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

These progressive thoughts will be present in a constitutional convention.

36 posted on 04/14/2014 7:08:07 AM PDT by MosesKnows (Love many, trust few, and always paddle your own canoe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MosesKnows
Thanks, Moses, but none of that is a response to my point, the point that you seem not to understand, so let me try it again...

You cannot have it both ways.

If the Constitution is to be followed to the letter, every word, than that includes the 143 words in Article V.

I cannot make it more clear than that.

I would respectfully ask that you respond to that issue. After that, possibly we can discuss other matters... maybe even your inadvertently referring to a Convention of States to Propose Amendments to the Constitution as a constitutional convention.

Sheesh!

37 posted on 04/15/2014 11:19:52 AM PDT by Strawberry AZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Strawberry AZ
Let me begin with your

Sheesh!

And see where we can go from there.

I would like to begin to by showing you that I am not alone in my assertion that a Convention of States to Propose Amendments to the Constitution is a constitutional convention.

34 States Call for Constitutional Convention

Following Article V is the objective.

I am not annoyed that you prefer calling the proposed constitutional convention a convention of states but I am curious why it annoys you that I do not.

My original intent in this thread was to suggest caution as we go forward. This is a worthwhile warning because every movement has hotheaded people who react without thinking.

I don't want you to think I am not enjoying this but I think we both realize our positions by now and further discourse would likely be pointless.

38 posted on 04/15/2014 12:53:28 PM PDT by MosesKnows (Love many, trust few, and always paddle your own canoe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: MosesKnows

On that final note, we agree.


39 posted on 04/19/2014 1:59:05 PM PDT by Strawberry AZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

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