Skip to comments.Col. Allen West Endorses Convention of States Project
Posted on 04/23/2014 8:27:13 AM PDT by cotton1706
Allen West Joins Sarah Palin, George Will, Tom Coburn, David Barton and Many Others in Call for a Convention of States
Former Congressman Col. Allen B. West is the latest conservative thought leader to endorse the Convention of States Project. Article V of Constitution gives the citizensthrough their state legislaturesthe opportunity to call a Convention of States to propose Constitutional amendments to limit the scope, power, and jurisdiction of the federal government.
The US Constitution was written placing restraints upon the federal government. Today, the federal government is growing beyond all bounds ever imagined by the founders. This is something I clearly experienced being a Member of the 112th Congress. However, the founding fathers realized this could be an issue in the future and enabled States the power to restrain and put the federal government back in the Constitutional box, he said.
Thank goodness the founders had the wisdom to provide us with Article V of the Constitution, which gives us the right and power to hold an Amending Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to restrain the scope and power of the federal government. When you look at the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government a proposal for a federal balanced budget amendment is ideal to be taken up by the States' legislatures, as many sovereign States have balanced budget amendments. Under the system of federalism, I support the efforts to gather a constitutional Convention of States consistent with Article V and honoring the 10th Amendment.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
I’m dubious about this... what’s the assurance that the provisions of the current Constitution will remain? Liberals would love nothing more than to wipe away the 1st and 2nd Amendments.
“Im dubious about this... whats the assurance that the provisions of the current Constitution will remain? Liberals would love nothing more than to wipe away the 1st and 2nd Amendments.”
It’s just a means for the states to submit amendments to the states. Amendments that would never get through the Congress. 17 state legislatures could stop any amendment.
What is to stop the Dems and RINOS in congress from getting together and proposing amendments that squash conservatives?????
Congress can already propose amendments.... Have been doing so for 200+ years
An Article V CoS is only to Propose new amendments, something Congress can already do, but in effect BYPASSING congress with the interest of the states as a whole in mind....
Any amendment recommendations coming out of a CoS still require ratification by the States.
The biggest misconception about this process is the assumption that the Amendments resulting from the Convention would be immediately functional.
Find more at http://conventionofstates.com/
Article V ping.
You can’t change the Constitution with a minority!!! 2/3 of the states must ratify any changes to the Constitution!!
How many states must do this? Can’t one or two states put forth changes and have each State vote to ratify until you have the 2/3 majority vote!!!
2/3 of the states must ratify
Isn't it 2/3 of Congress, and 3/4 of states?
I'll look it up to make sure...
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.
NOTHING IS TOO EVIL TO PUT IT PAST THE INTENTIONS OF THE SOCIALISTS.
Conservatives have been demeaned and discounted and HAVE simply sat and took/TAKEN it ... over and over. Conservatives seem to be afraid of saying any derogatory actions of the liberals. God help America.
Since we have turned more and more liberal as a nation, (abortions, same sex marriages, over spending outrageously, nearing fiscal irresponsibility), and still we sit and take it.
NOT SMART. We may see the destruction of our nation and most all that made it prosperous, and Christian, serving God and obeying the commandments of God Almighty, and the LORD Jesus Christ. God is not mocked.
Political correctness is destroying brick by brick the foundation of America. WHAT ARE WE DOING ABOUT IT? TIME TO TURN TO THE LORD IN REPENTANCE AND TURNING AWAY FROM THE EVIL BEING IN CONTROL OF OUR GOVERNMENT.
PRAY FOR AMERICA TO DO THE RIGHT THING!
I was also opposed to any sort of convention until I heard Levin's case. Now I can see it's the only way to go for long-term change back to our founding principles.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
That is all I’m going to say!!!
“You cant change the Constitution with a minority!!! 2/3 of the states must ratify any changes to the Constitution!!”
No, 2/3rds of both the House and the Senate are necessary to submit amendments to the states (67%) but 3/4ths (75%) must ratify.
And to answer your other question, no states can’t just submit amendments to each other. They must come either from the Congress or from a Convention.
However, one of the amendments in Mark Levin’s book makes just this suggestion, an amendment to the Constitution to allow individual states to submit proposed amendments for other states to consider.
And since there are 26 Blue states then the chance of any amendment that Conservatives want being adopted is nill.
So we know what Mark Levin would propose as amendments. Do we know what amendments New York would propose? Or California?
“And since there are 26 Blue states then the chance of any amendment that Conservatives want being adopted is nill.”
Not true. You can’t look at this through the red/blue presidential lens.
Republicans currently hold control in 56 legislative bodies, to the democrats’ 41. In 26 states, the republicans hold both chambers.
Assuming things stay the same after November, and all 26 of those states pass several proposed amendments, that leaves only 8 to go. And unless the amendment itself has a ratification time limit, the amendment would just hang around until some of the other states’ control changed, which has happened frequently lately.
This is very doable. The congress isn’t involved and the governors wouldn’t be involved. Only the legislatures.
And as a bonus, in 2010 the republicans gained 700 legislative seats, and 19 legislative bodies. This may be another banner year, and with the democrats putting so much money trying to protect the US Senate, there’s very little extra for down-ballot races.
The Left already won. We have to take it back. Where have you been?
The states are coordinating restrictive language. Only amendments that limit federal power can be discussed. The legislatures can immediately recall rogue delegates. One state, one vote.
But do yourself a favor and get up to speed:
So what if 16 states decide they don't want to be censored or limited to th eamendments you want and decide not to play. No convention.
Thirteen. 3/4ths are required for ratification - that's 38.
Nope. Twelve. 3/4ths are required for ratification. That's 38.
You are correct. So that is the worst case scenario. Is that a reason not to try?
I agree. These are historic times. More and more people recognize there is much amiss about these United States. It is a mistake to box the states into the red/blue paradigm. Sure, most American haven't even read the constitution, and far fewer are aware of Article V.
Still, most Americans can hardly avoid the contradictions of supposedly living in a free country, yet daily face the heavy hand of a distant government more interested in expanding its power than securing our liberty, safety and happiness. We have become a nation largely of Bastiat’s plunderers, in which our rulers every two years ask us to condone criminality.
OTOH, times make the man. The founders came within a few votes in 1775 of asking for dominion with Great Britain, to enter into union just as Wales had done. Had that happened, colonials by the names of Adams, Madison, Jefferson, Henry, Hamilton, . . . would be footnotes to history. It was the times that made those otherwise hardly known men remarkable, memorable and worthy of the admiration of the ages.
We are in a somewhat similar situation. Men we know little of may step forward and make their mark on American history. As this movement catches on, I think we'll see a resurgence of just what it really means to be an American.
T4TP! I am interested in how this goes, but I’m just a natural skeptic. I seem to have given the impression I’m against it, but that is not exactly the case. I know some are certainly against it, but that’s not a good way to describe my views on it.
“Nope. Twelve. 3/4ths are required for ratification. That’s 38.”
You’re right. I had 34 in my head because I think that’s the number of states needed to call for a convention.
Well, then, it just gets things underway a bit earlier, doesn’t it.
Yup, I figured that. ;)
What of it? They would first have to pass the convention, then be ratified by 38 states. How likely is that?
2/3 to request; 3/4 to ratify ANY amendment—
QUOTE from COS:
Ratification of any proposed amendment requires the approval of 38 states. It only takes 13 states to vote no to defeat any proposed amendment, and the chances of 38 state legislatures approving a rogue amendment are effectively zero.
I’m against it.
The limits that we need and require, are as much to prevent lawyers, judges, district attorneys, and attorneys general ... from the adventures they take at taxpayers’ expense ... as limits are needed at the national level.
The kinds of laws to limit those adventures, we need to see throughout at least 3/4ths of the states.
Indeed, much of what people hope for with a Constitutional Convention, we need to see happening at the state level and locally ... but we’re not there yet.
Lawyers and judges, district attorneys and attorneys general, are lost in extra-constitutional space, where they find unlimited words and definitions in between any two letters of the law. The neither adhere to nor respect fences around government -— and it seems they regard themselves to *be government* and to *be the law makers* despite the principles of original intent and enumeration of powers.
If term limits are going to be passed, let us begin at the state level where the success of it is necessary to be a foundation for national success.
At issue, is the simple fact, that the formerly-federal government, has taken it upon itself to be *the government,* and federalism is dead.
So, it is up to at least 3/4ths of the states to be willing to sacrifice and fight with pen, and with sword if necessary, to re-establish federalism.
The war is not the states versus the union, but instead, the states versus the government-no-longer-federal.
We need at least 3/4ths of the states determined to make federalism work.
A Constitutional Convention cannot correct the sloth of lawyers, judges, district attorneys, and attorneys general who ignore federalism and states’ rights ... in addition to individual rights and individual property rights.
The struggle begins at the local and state level, and only when the corrections we may wish to see happening at the national level, are already working at the state level, can a Constitutional Convention succeed.
Then, if the government-by-judiciary still fails to adhere to the federal re-establishment, it will not be a Constitutional Convention that we need, but a Convention to Seat a New Continental Congress.
About as likely as Mark Levin's amendments are to pass the Blue states.
No, 2/3rds of both the House and the Senate are necessary to submit amendments to the states (67%) but 3/4ths (75%) must ratify. But if 3/4 the States call for a convention then the House and Senate don’t have a say!!!
“But if 3/4 the States call for a convention then the House and Senate dont have a say!!!”
What’s your point? The whole idea of a convention is to go around the Congress.
Agreed I was arguing with the Obama plant which he probably works for the IRS Or BLM!!!
Well there ya go. If that's the worst we have to worry about, I think it's worth the try. Don't you?
THAT has been the big bugaboo with me re this Art. 5 stuff.
And beyond that, even if they successfully passed something, and preserved what we already have; who is going to ENFORCE it, Eric Holder?