Don't let Florida fall for the big con (Anti Convention of States fear tactics here)

National Association for Gun Rights ^ | 03/20/2015 05:03:38 am | Dudley Brow

[CSM]

“demanding a state-initiated Article V Constitutional Convention.

I’ve ignored the Constitutional Convention con (more aptly named “Con-Con”) job until now — “

Dear Author,

You are talking about 2 completely seperate things. Get your head out of your a$$ and do some damn research.

[CSM]

“COS has not been done. Revolution has.”

True. However, the revolution was required because there was no constitution in place to address tyranny. The Framers gave us the Article V tool so that we could have a peaceful remedy.

Remember, the Founders tried for peaceful remedies for nearly a decade, they were not able to execute any redress that was enforceable. The result was bloodshed.

We were given the Article V process as the last and final peaceful solution. It is worth at least trying it, before we start killing each other.

[Publius]

This article is full of misinformation and disinformation.

[Publius]

Here is some help for those who don't understand the complete Article V process. It's the usual pedantic boilerplate I post to these threads, but it lays the process out.

***

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 apply to 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 unless every state deprived of that right approves. If California wants five senators, every state must have five senators. To permit violation of this principle, every state would have to ratify the amendment, not just three-fourths.

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

[zzeeman]

This article is full of misinformation and disinformation.

That's an understatement!!

[AnonymousConservative]

Suppose everything goes perfectly. At best we have a new constitution that the government will ignore, just as they ignore the one now. At worst, the people involved are compromised by the statists, and we end up with the Statist wet-dream codified into the very fabric of our Constitution.

Anybody who has not extensively examined the history behind LE Intelligence and political activism shouldn’t be near these decisions.

New York had a sitting Governor (Patterson) who held a press conference in which he announced that the heads of his state PD surveillance division walked into his office, revealed they had bugged and wiretapped him throughout his tenure as a state legislator, and unless he became a puppet governor, with someone else wielding power from behind the scenes they would ruin him, using affairs he and his wife had that they had documented. He later said he had ten other legislators tell him they were blanketed under coverage too, and it was a huge problem for any legislator that needed to be dealt with.

The media gave it a few paragraphs of coverage, before announcing other officials in the State PD said it was probably just a few rogue individuals running an off the books surveillance op, and not interesting at all. The media never mentioned it again. The Attorney General who was assigned to investigate it ignored it, and when the next election came around the Attorney general walked into the Governor’s office, and his predecessor quietly disappeared.

We’ve seen federal surveillance actually plant classified documents on Sharyl Atkisson’s computer, using an illegally installed, extra Fios line at her house. If things are that far gone, and you think a small change to the Constitution will remedy it, you’re smoking crack, and taking a hell of a risk with the only thing we have left to support our argument for freedom.

[Jacquerie]

An Article V convention cannot amend the constitution.

Scotus has been busy amending it since the mid-1930s. Obama has been just as busy, and has assumed tyrannical powers. He has demonstrated that he is ready to deal with rebellion.

Your position denies we, the sovereign people the power to peacefully reframe a government..

[Jacquerie]

I am certain that structural changes, of the sort proposed to Mark Levin, would diffuse power across fifty states. Division of power is the bedrock of freedom. Our pre-1913 history proves it.

A Summary of Mark Levin’s Proposed Amendments.

[Jacquerie]

Uh, make that “proposed BY Mark Levin.”

[PapaNew]

Hmmm. National Association for Gun Rights. Wonder how they compare to the NRA and if the NRA is so paranoid about fixing this mess.

Reminds me of the scene in Zero Dark Thirty where the CIA Director (?) asks in a CIA meeting who could tell him if Osama bin Laden was in that building and they all fudged except for the girl in the back of the room. Later in the elevator, he says to someone, “They’re all cowed” [except for the girl who didn’t care about anything but getting this guy].

“The counsels of war breed timidity and defeatism” (MacArthur).

[Jacquerie]

Posts 28 and 29.

[Jacquerie]

<>If you believe that, I have the Brooklyn Bridge to sell.<>

What you have is zero knowledge of the Article V process.

[GILTN1stborn]

And your solution is? IMO The Constitution is the only answer.

[Darren McCarty]

Here's the problem with the delegation. 1. Who are the delegates? Who selects them. Politicians.
2. We'll be battling the democrats AND bad Republicans.
In order to get 2/3, what would happen? What deals will be made and what would be sold down the river?

Yes I am a pessimist. If the bullets are flying because SHTF, I'll be up to the family lands doing what I have to do around people I trust.

[Darren McCarty]

I've read up on it and the different forms proposed.

The problem is the same thing. The system isn't broke. The people are. The people are the problem, and the same people that broke the system would be the delegates.

[Jacquerie]

The passions of people are the same now as they were 1787.

The states will send delegates with specific powers, commissions. Florida has already provided for this.

The most common alternative suggestion from opponents to Article V is to enforce the existing constitution through the election of more conservatives.

Insistence that all we need to do is elect good men and women is no different from the Progressive belief that socialism will "work" once the best brains are put in charge. Both rely on a fantasy, that their conservative or progressive politicians are immune to nature. These dogmas are comfortable ruts which have been refuted throughout history, and reflect a naiveté and ignorance of American history, government and passions common to all men. Given the chance, men will grasp power and money, no matter the damage their avarice and ambition do to the larger society.

What has been forgotten or probably never understood by both progs and some Article V opponents, was accepted as an undeniable truth to the Framing generation; liberty is secured through the division of power. It clearly hasn’t been secured by nonexistent self-enforcing words in the constitution. In fact, just about all that remains in force from our constitution is the structure of the government. We still have the institutions of congress, courts and a president, but little more. Nearly every other clause has been excised or bastardized such that they’ve been inverted to allow infringement of our liberties.

Undivided power is despotic; it can be nothing else.

So, if the goal is restoration of liberty, and liberty requires division of authority, the question is how to return the states to the senate. Since our oppressors in DC will never divest themselves of power, and the framers provided a way to go around DC, it stands to pure logic that an Article V convention is our only hope.

[Gaffer]

An Article V convention cannot amend the constitution

Here is Article V from the archives:

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

So, here's the problem. What happens if at the conclusion of a CoS there are 3/4 (the same CoS that only needed 2/3 to propose it) approving of a proposed amendment? One hundred and forty three words with several options within itself that contain an option for CoS to make and amendment.

My problem is that there are a multitude of explanations about how this CoS (that hasn't been done before to my knowledge)would operate, what its protections are, how delegates are chosen and so on. The Article V is only 145 words (including the title), yet there are volumes of hypothetical explanations on how something that has never been done before will go.

I look back at this country's last few decades of nominations, elections, fraud, trickery, subterfuge, false candidates, strawmen, a colluding cabal of media and politicos and moneymen, and I just don't come away thinking this gambit could be pulled off in a sterile environment.

[Gaffer]

You sure do have a lot here for an Article that is only 143 words long. Where exactly is this process (with all the added explanation) you cite contained in Article V?

Seems to me a lot of it is supposition, views of prior concerned people and a mix. We’d have had a much better handle on “the process” had we (the US) done a Convention of States before.

[Gaffer]

Thanks....

[Jacquerie]

If certainty is what you seek, you'll find little of it in self-government.

However, Machiavelli, Thomas Gordon (Cato's Letters), James Madison, as well as history have shown that the people can typically be counted on to make the right decisions when they are informed.

An Article V convention would bring our founding principles to the forefront of national discussion.