Article V Legislation Passes Arizona House, Heads to Troubled Senate

Vanity ^ | 04-15-14 | Michael Alexander (Vanity)

[Publius]

Article V ping.

[William of Barsoom]

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.

[Jacquerie]

Hmmm, at the expense of being accused of tinfoil, I wonder if the senate prez hasn't gotten a phone call reminding him of his fine family.

[Repeal The 17th]

For those who say:
"... this is dangerous ..."
"... this is a terrible idea ..."
"... liberal States might send extremists as delegates ..."
"... 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 has no authority to re-write or even to amend the Constitution.
-
An Article V Convention of States is simply a formal gathering of delegates from
at least 34 states (two-thirds), to discuss, debate, and "propose amendments" to the Constitution.
-
The State resolutions currently circulating call for an Article V Convention of States using 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."
-
When/if the two-thirds threshold is met, each State would send delegates to gather in the convention.
The delegates would be selected by the various State legislatures.
The delegates would discuss, debate, and "propose amendments" to the Constitution.
The convention would operate on a one State = one vote system; with each State carrying the same weight.
-
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 require ratification by 38 states (three-fourths), the same as with any other proposed amendment.
-
An Article V Convention of States has no authority to re-write or even to amend the Constitution.
-
Read more at: http://www.conventionofstates.com
-

[ilgipper]

so, do nothing?

[Jacquerie]

What then, is the solution?

Are Americans capable of free, self government? Should we accept Washington, DC tyranny? Are we suited for nothing better?

[Publius]

My usual contribution...

---

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.

• The Congressional Method requires the House and Senate to pass an amendment by a two-thirds majority.
• The Amendments Convention Method requires the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to petition Congress to call a Convention for Proposing Amendments. The states may request a single-subject convention or a general convention open to all subjects. Once the two-thirds threshold is reached, Congress is required to set a time and place for the convention.

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:

• State Legislature Method, or the
• State Ratifying Convention Method.

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:

• No amendment may be added to the Constitution concerning slavery or capitation taxes until 1808. We’re past that deadline.
• No amendment may be added to the Constitution to change the principle of equal representation in the Senate. So if California wants five senators, every state must have five senators. To permit this principle to be violated, this provision in Article V would first have to be amended; it would be a two-step process.

Implicitly forbidden:

• The Constitution of 1787 may not be abrogated and replaced with a new document. Article V only authorizes “a convention for proposing amendments to this Constitution”; therefore, the Constitution of 1787 is locked in place forever. Congress and an Amendments Convention have exactly the same Proposal power; therefore, neither Congress nor an Amendments Convention can start over. Both bodies can only propose amendments. To permit the drafting of a new constitution, this provision in Article V would first have to be repealed; it would be a two-step process.

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

[afsnco]

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.

[Strawberry AZ]

You are right, William... but most of us already know this. We've known it for years, and we just keep re-stating the problem. This movement is about a remedy, and from the inside, it looks and feel like the real deal. Get your spirits up and get on board. You know what will happen if you don't.

[Publius]

You're confusing two different movements.

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.

[Jane Long]

BTTT!

[themidnightskulker]

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.

[Publius]

Our leaders obey the Constitution to the letter.

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.

[Strawberry AZ]

It’s my understanding we’re a long way from the 34 states required.

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/

[Strawberry AZ]

The problem resides with the politicians and those who interpret it, not the document itself.

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.

[themidnightskulker]

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.

[nathanbedford]

Nathan Bedford's first Maxim of the American Constitution:

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.

[VRW Conspirator]

V

[Strawberry AZ]

Impeccably flawless...