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 citizens—through their state legislatures—the 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 ...
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:
http://conventionofstates.com/category/learn/
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.
http://conventionofstates.com/why-it-will-succeed/
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 don’t 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?
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.