Skip to comments.Article V Legislation Passes Arizona House, Heads to Troubled Senate
Posted on 04/15/2014 9:36:54 AM PDT by Strawberry AZ
Please consider this an update and a Call to Action on our efforts to get Article V legislation passed here in Arizona:
After months of working its way through myriad legislative hoops, SCR1016 passed the House yesterday and is now headed to the Senate for a final vote of the full chamber... no more committees, no more hearings.
I am told that the President of the Senate, Andy Biggs, has promised to oppose all attempts to allow a vote on any Article V legislation. Although a reliable conservative on most matters, he has been compromised on this issue by the John Birch Society and others who prefer the status-quo to remedy.
We are being asked, once again, to man the phone lines and our keyboards and urge this man to either step up, or step out of the way.
I've sent the following letter to Senator Biggs, with a copy to every member of the senate, and as an open letter to the Editor of the East Valley Tribune (his home district is Gilbert, AZ), plus as visible CCs to both conservative editorial columnists at the Arizona Republic (yes, there are two), Robert Robb and Doug MacEachern, to the Greater Phoenix Tea Party, the Arizona Red Mountain Patriots, the East Valley Tea Party Patriots and the Chairman of the Gilbert Tea Party, among others.
I now ask all freedom-loving patriots to join me. You don't have to live in Arizona to speak truth to power. Share your own thoughts with the Senator... and with his constituents.
When you shake a tree, you never know what will fall
- - -
When you took your oath of office, you swore to uphold the Constitution all of it, including Article V. Those 143 divinely-inspired words give specific authority (and the implied obligation) to state legislatures to propose amendments to the Constitution when needed to remedy federal overreach. Recent events on our border with Nevada have shown us and freedom-loving Americans all across the nation that the time has come, and SCR1016 answers the call.
Now, with the eyes of the nation upon us, for you to shrink from your sworn duty and obligation, and to prevent our duly-elected representatives from rising to this sorely needed task, deprives the people of Arizona their sovereign right to a full and open vetting of this critical matter.
Please trust the people please have faith in your colleagues please join them and allow the assembly to openly and fairly determine whats best for Arizona and for the nation and lastly, please look humbly to a Higher Authority for the strength to push away from the grip of those who are blinded by fear.
Allow Article V of our blessed Constitution to see the light of day. Let SCR1016 be heard.
CC: Robert Robb email@example.com; Doug MacEachern firstname.lastname@example.org; Editor East Valley Tribune email@example.com; Greater Phoenix Tea Party firstname.lastname@example.org; Arizona Red Mountain Patriots email@example.com; East Valley Tea Party Patriots firstname.lastname@example.org; Keith Sipmann email@example.com; Gilbert Tea Party firstname.lastname@example.org; Buckley Merrill email@example.com
- - -
Now, here is a list of members' eMail addresses and phone numbers (Area Code 602), followed by a list of just the eMail addys for blast-mail purposes
I've never asked for help like this... up until now, we haven't needed it this badly...
Andy Biggs President R firstname.lastname@example.org 926-4371
Gail Griffin Pres Pro Tem R email@example.com 926-5895
John McComish Maj Leader R firstname.lastname@example.org 926-5898
Adam Driggs Maj Whip R email@example.com 926-3016
Nancy Barto R firstname.lastname@example.org 926-5766
Judy Burges R email@example.com 926-5861
Chester Crandell R firstname.lastname@example.org 926-5409
David Farnsworth R email@example.com 926-3020
Al Melvin R firstname.lastname@example.org 926-4326
Rick Murphy R email@example.com 926-4444
Steve Pierce R firstname.lastname@example.org 926-5584
Michele Reagan R email@example.com 926-5828
Don Shooter R firstname.lastname@example.org 926-4139
Kelli Ward R email@example.com 926-4138
Bob Worsley R firstname.lastname@example.org 926-5760
Steve Yarbrough R email@example.com 926-5863
Kimberly Yee R firstname.lastname@example.org 926-3024
Anna Tovar Min Leader D email@example.com 926-3392
Lynne Pancrazi Asst Min Leader D firstname.lastname@example.org 926-3004
Steve Gallardo Min Whip D email@example.com 926-5830
Ed Ableser D firstname.lastname@example.org 926-4118
Carlyle Begay D email@example.com 926-5862
David Bradley D firstname.lastname@example.org 926-5262
Olivia Cajero Bedford D email@example.com 926-5835
Andrea Dalessandro D firstname.lastname@example.org 926-5342
Steve Farley D email@example.com 926-3022
Katie Hobbs D firstname.lastname@example.org 926-5325
Leah Landrum Taylor D email@example.com 926-3830
Barbara McGuire D firstname.lastname@example.org 926-5836
Robert Meza D email@example.com 926-3425
firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
As a post-script, I should add that Senator Biggs is a devout Christian. He truly believes, as I do, that the Framers of the Constitution were guided by God, and that every word is sacred. He has said this publicly in defense of his opposition to any amendment proposals. What I disagree with is his logic - if we are to adhere to every word of the Constitution as written, then that would necessarily include the 143 words in Article V. He cannot cherry-pick his Articles, upholding the easy ones, and ignoring the ones that require wisdom, strength, courage, and faith in the inherent patriotism of the American people, characteristics that he, and those who have clouded his reasoning, simply do not share.
Article V ping.
When will you (all) understand...
They don’t care what you think, or about what you want.
They know what they want to do, and how, and you (all) are an annoyance that must be “handled” somehow, but essentially ignored.
Top to bottom, from the City Council, to WASHDC, they all know what they plan to accomplish, how all the interests combine, and how to line their own pockets as luxuriously as possible, while putting it all over on you.
...with vanishingly few exceptions. Top to bottom, the entire system is corrupted and seduced.
I am saddened by this vision, but unfortunately I think it’s accurate — and more so each day.
so, do nothing?
What then, is the solution?
Are Americans capable of free, self government? Should we accept Washington, DC tyranny? Are we suited for nothing better?
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.
It’s my understanding we’re a long way from the 34 states required. AZ should’ve been the 34th state, but it’s my understanding that 12 states have rescinded their previous desire for a convention. So we’re at 22 states.
The movement for an Amendments Convention to consider a balanced budget amendment started back in the Eighties and has now reached 34 states. But some of those petitions have been rescinded. Others have been rescinded by one legislature and resubmitted by a later legislature. The Archivist of the United States is the point of capture for petitions, but Congress is the judge of validity and timeliness.
If there is an agreement in Congress that there are 34 valid and timely petitions for an Amendments Convention to consider a balanced budget amendment, then accord to Hamilton's language in Federalist #85, Congress has a sworn duty to set a time and place for that convention.
The convention, by long-established principles of contract law, would be forbidden to consider anything outside the purview of a balanced budget amendment. That would forbid consideration of Mark Levin's wider scope, worthy though it is.
A newer movement to call an Amendments Convention to consider Levin's wider scope has but one state sending a petition to Congress as of this date.
If our “leaders” will not obey the constitution now, what is the likelehood they will obey it in the future?
The problem resides with the politicians and those who interpet it, not the document itself.
But the Constitution they obey is the Living Constitution, the Constitution as a tree, the Constitution that changes and evolves even though the words don't change, the Constitution of penumbras and emanations.
When the federal entity sets up a legacy of case law that enshrines the Living Constitution, it the option and duty of the states to sharpen the language in the Constitution to prevent the manufacture of further penumbras and emanations.
This is why an Amendments Convention is so important. It is how the states propose amendments to force the federal entity to behave, lest that disobedience sever the last remaining bonds between the government and the people.
As far as having the requisite numbers to force the call, you're right. And actually, we're a lot farther away than that.
The last time I checked, there are 8 states that have successfully moved the Citizens for Self-Governance (CSG) Convention of States (COS) legislation through at least one chamber, plus Georgia which has passed it through both. Arizona is fighting to be the second, hopefully this week.
Still, that's not a bad tally for just 8 months since start-up of a process that we realistically expect to take from three to five years.
I'm afraid that those other numbers that you cite may have to do with another Article V proposal that is also working its way through the various legislatures of the several states. That would be the Compact for America (CFA) Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA).
As the name implies, that is a very promising single-issue proposal that has attracted more commitments than has the broader CSG COS. I am aware of that effort, but have not followed it closely enough to speak with any authority about the legislation's stipulations regarding passage and rescission. I do know that it's common practice in contract law, which is what the CFA BBA essentially is, to cover such contingencies, and I would be shocked to learn that something that basic would have been overlooked.
The best that I can do would be to refer you to their website: http://www.compactforamerica.org/
I agree with you, and so do the rest of the supporters of a Convention of States to propose amendments to the Constitution that will, among other things, clarify language in such clauses as Welfare and Commerce, drastically limiting if not eliminating the opportunity for liberal judicial interpretation.
Article V was written to provide the states with the authority to remedy federal overreach, by the legislative, by the executive, and most importantly, by the judicial.
My point is that there are places in the ammendments where the words “shall” and “shall not” are either ignored or disreguarded.(”It depends on what the definition of the word ‘is’ is.”)
The Constitution is not at fault, rather the blatant disreguard and misrepresentation of it.
The Constitution has become so distorted in interpretation and application that it has become at best ineffective in protecting liberty and at worst an instrument inflicting tyranny.
Nathan Bedford's second Maxim of the American Constitution:
The American Constitution is being amended everyday without the consent of the governed.
In order to believe that a Convention of the States presents a greater threat to liberty than our current state of politics one must believe:
1. The Constitution is not being amended by three women in black robes +1 liberal in black robes +1 swing vote on a case by case basis.
2. The Constitution is not being amended at the caprice of the president by executive order.
3. The Constitution is not being amended at the caprice of the president when he chooses which laws he will "faithfully" execute.
4. The Constitution is not being amended daily by regulation done by an unaccountable bureaucracy.
5. The Constitution is not being amended by simply being ignored.
6. The Constitution is not being amended by international treaty.
7. The Constitution is not being amended by Executive Order creating treaty powers depriving citizens of liberty as codified in the Bill of Rights.
8. The Constitution is not being amended by international bureaucracies such as, UN, GATT, World Bank, etc.
9. The Constitution is not being amended by the Federal Reserve Bank without reference to the will of the people.
10. The federal government under our current "constitutional" regime has suddenly become capable of reforming itself, balancing the budget and containing the debt.
11. The national debt of the United States is sustainable and will not cause the American constitutional system and our economy to crash and with them our representative democracy, the rule of law, and the Constitution, such as it is, itself.
12. The Republican Party, presuming it gains a majority in the House and the Senate and gains the White House, will now do what is failed to do even under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush and balance the budget, reduce the debt, stop regulating, reform the tax system, end crony capitalism, appoint judges who will not betray us and, finally, listen to the people.
13. That a runaway Convention of the States will occur, that it will persuade the delegates from conservative states, that it will be ratified by three quarters of the states' legislatures among whom conservatives control a majority, and the end result will somehow be worse than what we have now.
14. If we do nothing everything will be fine; if we keep doing what we have been doing everything will be fine; we have all the time in the world.
Not to blindly argue the point, but it has been noted several times without adequate rebuttal that, quite to the contrary, the executive and legislative branches of the federal government do, indeed, follow the Constitution... as it is interpreted by the judiciary. It's the interpretation that we take issue with.
There are two obvious remedies:
1) Change the interpreters. We've been doing that every four to eight years, and that just doesn't seem to be working out all that well.
2) Change the words that they are interpreting. Not change the meaning, nor change the original intent, but simply change the language for the sake of clarity, brevity, inclusion, exclusion, and/or plain-spoken specificity. In some cases, it may only require punctuation, and in any case, these changes would drastically restrict if not eliminate opportunity for liberal interpretation.
We do not have a lawless government... we have a limitless one.
At least you are an HONEST surrender monkey...
Good to know... Time to find out who is willing to do what it takes to stop the tide and save the Republic.
If this description is not you, then RUN FOR OFFICE and change things...
You are correct. The constitution is not at fault. Rather it is mendacious politicians that are at fault. Our intent with the CoS is to strengthen the constitution to deal with the people who would ignore it or pervert it to assuage their own desires. The best way to do that is to empower the states, allowing them the ability to fight back against the evil. That is the thrust of the CoS. If we can call the CoS and at this time get one amendment out, the repeal of the 17th, we would be well on the way to righting the ship of state.