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

Skip to comments.

Alaska Senate and Florida House Pass Convention of States Application
Convention of States Project ^ | April 21, 2014 | Jim Kinney

Posted on 04/21/2014 2:46:24 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll

Momentum for the Convention of States Project has spread from the peach trees of Georgia to the mountains of Alaska to the beaches of Florida.

The Alaska Senate passed the Convention of States application (HJR 22) on Saturday by a vote of 12-8, and the Florida House passed the Convention of States application (SM 476) today by a voice vote.

Congratulations to our teams in Alaska and Florida! They’ve done a fantastic job and deserve all the credit for this important victory. Thanks to everyone who made a call or wrote an email–your voice was heard, and we’re two steps closer to holding the first ever Article V Convention of States.

In both states, the House and the Senate passed identical versions of the bill, so no reconciliation will be necessary.

Once we receive final confirmation from the state legislature, Alaska and Florida will join Georgia in their call for a Convention of States to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: articlev; convention; conventionofstates
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last
Two more steps...
1 posted on 04/21/2014 2:46:24 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

ping


2 posted on 04/21/2014 2:48:33 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 5thGenTexan; AllAmericanGirl44; Amagi; Art in Idaho; Arthur Wildfire! March; Arthur McGowan; ...

Article V ping.


3 posted on 04/21/2014 2:51:06 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Da Bilge Troll

Idiots. There is no way a convention of the States as governed by the pols we have today could come out anything but badly. It makes no sense to modify the Constitution when the government ignores the one we have.


4 posted on 04/21/2014 2:52:22 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The tree of liberty needs a rope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Idiots. There is no way a convention of the States as governed by the pols we have today could come out anything but badly. It makes no sense to modify the Constitution when the government ignores the one we have.
*******************************************************************

I agree. And I worry that in the event that a convention of the States ever comes about, the progressives and RINOs will seize effective control by stacking the participants and result in a “Runaway Convention” destroying the Constitution.


5 posted on 04/21/2014 2:54:48 PM PDT by House Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Publius

Thanks Publius. Do you know if these are for the CoC proposed by the Citizens for Self-Governance? So far, that’s the one CoC I favor. I’m not comfortable with any old CoC.


6 posted on 04/21/2014 3:05:49 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

This is the Mark Levin project. Three states so far, and 31 to go.


7 posted on 04/21/2014 3:06:38 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Da Bilge Troll

V


8 posted on 04/21/2014 3:10:54 PM PDT by VRW Conspirator ( 2+2 = V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Da Bilge Troll; Publius; Repeal The 17th
When will the Left strike?

When will this really get national attention? Given recent western events, the near daily Obama outrage, I think the movement can only grow.

I didn't take careful notes regarding support from national political figures these past few months, but IIRC Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, (others?) have expressed public support, without making a big push for it.

9 posted on 04/21/2014 3:19:22 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

I know the one in FL is COS.


10 posted on 04/21/2014 3:20:54 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Publius
3 down 31 to go Are you sure about that? I thought the threshold was 3/4 of states which would be 38 states. I hope you're right because while 34 will be VERY difficult, 38 would be virtually impossible. The states just start getting too blue after the mid-30s...
11 posted on 04/21/2014 3:22:37 PM PDT by rhinohunter (Freepers aren't booing -- they're shouting "Cruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuz")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rhinohunter
Here is my usual 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

12 posted on 04/21/2014 3:24:43 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Da Bilge Troll

Let us pray that the steps we take today be done in good faith and good hearted interest of the preservation of our rights.


13 posted on 04/21/2014 3:35:14 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Da Bilge Troll

Two more states. Interesting. Again, I think it’s largely an exercise in futility but fairly harmless. One question I have though for the folks favoring this is how to deal with the problem of the individual states not exactly being friendly to the idea of limited government or expanded liberty.


14 posted on 04/21/2014 4:00:30 PM PDT by RKBA Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Very good news!! 31 to go!


15 posted on 04/21/2014 4:04:31 PM PDT by cotton1706 (ThisRepublic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rhinohunter
Are you sure about that? I thought the threshold was 3/4 of states which would be 38 states.

34 to call for a convention, 38 to ratify any resulting amendment.

16 posted on 04/21/2014 5:02:32 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat
Convention of States.
17 posted on 04/21/2014 5:04:18 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Da Bilge Troll

Now that it has been determined that states cannot rescind their resolutions, what is the count of states?


18 posted on 04/21/2014 5:07:24 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (WoT News: Rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides; Carry_Okie
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
-

19 posted on 04/21/2014 6:58:58 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th
An Article V Convention of States has no authority to re-write or even to amend the Constitution.

Neither did the Federal Convention.

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.

And you think our august Congress wouldn't run with it? You think the courts wouldn't back them up?

Anybody can propose Amendments. What's wrong with starting that discussion here as you and I have done before in a reasonably productive exchange (without rancor or nastiness I might add)? It might take a few months, but there are some very smart people here who just might run with it.

The convention would operate on a one State = one vote system; with each State carrying the same weight.

One look at the map shows why that is a problem. Such a convention is heavily weighted toward the demands of liberals.

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.

I just don't buy this.

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.

Ask yourself: What Amendments do you see that would get 3/4 of the States to agree? I can think of a couple, as I have mentioned, with regard to clarifying the Supremacy Clause and the manner of treaty ratification. Those are no-brainers. IMO, such is where we need to start.

20 posted on 04/21/2014 7:17:37 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The tree of liberty needs a rope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Da Bilge Troll

Does it matter which house of a State legislature passes the resolution? Do both houses have to pass it for it to count?


21 posted on 04/21/2014 7:35:46 PM PDT by CraigEsq
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Thanks for the link. I did take a look. But I think they are not responding to a more basic question. The underlying assumption that seems to underpin these efforts is that the individual states are more likely to support a limited role for government than the Federal government would. I think that assumption is a false one.

The states exert far more control over our day to day lives than the Federal government does. So we want an arrangement where at the end of the day the states have even more power? Where is the evidence that the states will act with any more restraint than the Federal government?


22 posted on 04/21/2014 11:38:13 PM PDT by RKBA Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat
The 17th Amendment, Gateway to Despotic Government
23 posted on 04/22/2014 1:07:00 AM PDT by Jacquerie (Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

An interesting article and thank you for providing. But it still doesn’t answer the basic question: where is the evidence that the states will act with any more restraint than the Federal government? That is to say, where is the evidence that states and localities are any less likely to smash down doors over relatively minor offenses (numerous states), ban certain classes of weapons (CT, NY), increase taxes (numerous states) conduct road side cavity searches (TX), etc?


24 posted on 04/22/2014 1:54:06 AM PDT by RKBA Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
When will this really get national attention?

In my opinion, the less attention, the better, at least at this point.

IIRC Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, (others?) have expressed public support

Support from national pols is good but irrelevant since this is entirely a states matter.

25 posted on 04/22/2014 1:26:23 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
Now that it has been determined that states cannot rescind their resolutions, what is the count of states?

I don't believe that has been determined. There has been no lawsuit filed to my knowledge.

There are currently two separate Article V convention efforts underway - the one in the above article which follows Mark Levin's plan - and another (prior) track that is restricted only to a balanced budget amendment. It is the prior one that has the rescissions under debate. It would not affect this "track" at this point.

26 posted on 04/22/2014 1:33:38 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat
how to deal with the problem of the individual states not exactly being friendly to the idea of limited government or expanded liberty.

That may be true of some states, but not all. The Missouri legislature, for instance, is very interested in both of those. I'm sure there are others as well. It remains to be seen how many fall on each side.

27 posted on 04/22/2014 1:36:56 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CraigEsq
Do both houses have to pass it for it to count?

Yes, if the legislature is bi-cameral (Nebraska, IIRC, is uni-cameral) then both houses must pass the resolution. No governor's signature is required, however.

28 posted on 04/22/2014 1:39:22 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides
the progressives and RINOs will seize effective control by stacking the participants

How will they do that since a) each state gets 1 vote and b) the participants are chosen by the state legislatures and c) any amendments proposed must still be ratified by 38 states?

The worst-case scenario is that nothing comes of it at all!

29 posted on 04/22/2014 1:46:52 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Da Bilge Troll

Please put me on y’alls PING List.


30 posted on 04/22/2014 8:28:12 PM PDT by Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius

You have given us a lot of information. If there is a ping list, please add my name.


31 posted on 04/22/2014 10:35:29 PM PDT by matchgirl (An Ambassador is dead and Al Qaeda is alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf; Jacquerie; Publius
Please put me on y’alls PING List.

Well, I don't have a ping list but there are two that I know of for this topic. Send a PM to Jacquerie and Publius - er, never mind, I'll just ping them here.

32 posted on 04/23/2014 2:26:28 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Da Bilge Troll; matchgirl

Done!


33 posted on 04/23/2014 2:41:32 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Da Bilge Troll; Jacquerie

Graewoulf is now on my list.


34 posted on 04/23/2014 2:46:36 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Publius

Got it.


35 posted on 04/23/2014 2:59:24 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
I agree. We ain't got George Washington, Ben Franklin, James Madison, etc. no mo!" We have the likes of a Community Organizer as President, a black crook as Attorney General and states like Massachusetts, New Jersey, "Nu Yawk," Illinois, Delaware, Rhode Island, California, Washington, Oregon etc. etc. Just the type of States we wish to have send delegates to any "Convention." Good Lord such a convention would probably pass an amendment declaring marriage to be man with man,and man with animal; all wealth to be taken from any person whose net worth is greater than $0.50 and given to just everybody in the whole world! No white may vote or hold public office, etc. etc.
36 posted on 04/23/2014 3:10:56 PM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Publius

“Thank you, thankyouverymuch.” (Elvis Presley)


37 posted on 04/23/2014 7:10:51 PM PDT by Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Da Bilge Troll

Is this different from a Constitutional Convention?


38 posted on 04/24/2014 10:20:43 AM PDT by wastedyears (I'm a pessimist, I say plenty of negative things. Consider it a warning of sorts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius

I’m sure we’d all like for the Second Amendment to be amended to simply read “The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.”


39 posted on 04/24/2014 10:24:01 AM PDT by wastedyears (I'm a pessimist, I say plenty of negative things. Consider it a warning of sorts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

The liberals would still hijack it, and call for an amendment to remove the Second Amendment.


40 posted on 04/24/2014 10:25:34 AM PDT by wastedyears (I'm a pessimist, I say plenty of negative things. Consider it a warning of sorts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears

Can’t happen.
Stop posting disinformation.


41 posted on 04/24/2014 10:30:36 AM PDT by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Da Bilge Troll

The Federal Government doesn’t follow the Constitution as written, and you think they’ll follow amendments to it?

They’ll do as they darn well please. If they like the amendment they’ll follow it, and if they don’t they’ll ignore it.

The real question is when, how, and who is going to make them follow the constitution. Get that process done, and you won’t need any amendments.


42 posted on 04/24/2014 10:37:19 AM PDT by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears
Is this different from a Constitutional Convention?

Yes. The Constitution does not authorize a "Constitutional Convention". This is a Convention of the States to Propose Amendments as specified in Article V of the Constitution. In effect, it takes the place of Congress for this purpose. Amendments then have to be ratified as normal (by 3/4's of the states).

43 posted on 04/24/2014 1:39:09 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: AEMILIUS PAULUS
such a convention would probably pass an amendment

The convention cannot "pass" amendments. It can only submit them to the states.

44 posted on 04/24/2014 1:42:43 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: greeneyes
"The Federal Government doesn’t follow the Constitution as written, and you think they’ll follow amendments to it?"

So what's the harm?

"They’ll do as they darn well please."

They're doing that now. So again, what's the harm?

"Get that process done, and you won’t need any amendments."

We've been trying to do that for at least the last 50 years and we have arrived where we have arrived. Do you really expect Washington to reform Washington? Do you have a plan? If so, let's see it.

45 posted on 04/24/2014 1:48:42 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Da Bilge Troll
Look. People are becoming desperate today. There is hardly a minimally intelligent soul that today does not realize our government is broken.( Look who was voted President, look who is Attorney General) It is broken beyond the repair by the usual political means. Our great ones are gone we are left with a cesspool of demographics, many who like witch doctors, Voodoo and "Freebies." You want those people tampering with our constitution? The only cure is coming and it will not be nice. I can only hope the people whose ancestors founded this country can win the final struggle!/p>
46 posted on 04/24/2014 1:53:56 PM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: AEMILIUS PAULUS
"The only cure is coming and it will not be nice."

I agree. The result also will not be nice. Avoiding that, if possible, is worth a risk (which I believe is minimal anyway).

47 posted on 04/24/2014 2:05:11 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Da Bilge Troll

You apparently missed the point I was making. Apparently no one knows or has a plan to enforce the current law, so how do you intend on enforcing new laws/amendments?


48 posted on 04/24/2014 3:07:19 PM PDT by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: greeneyes
"no one knows or has a plan to enforce the current law,",

Well, that's not entirely true. So far, the term limit for the president has not been ignored, for instance. That's the key: the amendments proposed by Mark Levin are similarly structural and would be much more difficult to ignore.

49 posted on 04/24/2014 3:28:12 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Da Bilge Troll

“no one knows or has a plan to enforce the current law,”,

Well, that’s not entirely true. So far, the term limit for the president has not been ignored, for instance. That’s the key: the amendments proposed by Mark Levin are similarly structural and would be much more difficult to ignore.

*********************************************************
Way to dodge a question, and ignore the main point. So far the enemies of the constitution haven’t tried to have a third term, big deal.

They sure as heck have trampled all over the constitutions and many laws picking and choosing not only which laws they will enforce, but also who they will take action against.

So tell me your plan for enforcement of current law and proposed new amendments.


50 posted on 04/24/2014 3:38:45 PM PDT by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 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