Skip to comments.Missouri Court Ruling Supports Convention of States as a Constitutional Option
Posted on 07/08/2018 1:51:18 AM PDT by Jacquerie
Jefferson City, Mo., June 28, 2018 A Missouri court has handed the Convention of States Project a major victory. Cole County Circuit Judge Jon E. Beetem has ruled a constitutional challenge to Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 4 (SCR4) is without merit. The SCR4 lawsuit was filed in September 2017. It claimed the Missouri legislature failed to follow its state constitution when it passed the COS Article V Resolution in May 2017.
SCR4 is the Missouri legislatures application to Congress calling for a Convention of States for the sole purpose of proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Calling a Convention of States is granted and governed by Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
This ruling validates the constitutionality of our Convention of States grassroots movement, said Missouri COS Director Brett Sterley. It sets a national precedent for lawsuits that might question our organizations intent or legal position.
Convention of States Action President Mark Meckler stated, This decision reaffirms the supremacy of the state legislatures in the Article V convention process. This is a victory for federalism. No one can stand in the way of our right, through our state legislatures, to amend our Constitution and restore meaningful restraints on the federal government.
Missouri was the 12th state to pass the Convention of States resolution. Since the COS movement launched in 2013, more than 3.3 million volunteers and advocates have pledged their support to stop the federal governments abuse of power through fiscal constraint, by limiting its power and jurisdiction, and by imposing term limits on officials and members of Congress.
Full title: Missouri Court Ruling Supports Convention of States as a Constitutional Option for Restraining Federal Power
A victory for federalism is not a good thing. So, is this ruling a victory for federalism or a victory for states’ rights? The article is contradictory.
Under a correct reading of the Second Amendment - or even disregarding that, under a correct understanding of our natural rights, referred to in the Ninth Amendment - armed rebellion is also a Constitutional option.
Of course, our founders only intended the Article V “supremacy of the state legislatures” or the Second/Ninth Amendment “armed rebellion” options to be considered and used rarely, only under the most dire circumstances, and I’d imagine also in that order. And as no court can do anything about the latter, they most certainly should never try to stand in the way of the former.
The wheels of freedom and justice turn slowly, however, those wheels do indeed turn. We The People....
You do not know what “federalism” is, do you?
Those of us who believe in the art. V convention see federalism as defined by the founders in the “Federalist papers”, not as defined by progressives. That would be, in a nutshell, federal government is defined and constrained by the states. Progressives reverse that.
Federalism originally meant a strong but limited Federal Government with those powers not granted to it reserved for the states or the people. Look up the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Yes, genius, I know federalism is a very tenuous construct of enumerated powers. Strengthening federalism is a dangerous road.
I don’t need to look up the Tenth Amendment. The federal government has enumerated powers, the states have rights. States need to restrain the federal government from becoming dictatorial.
Is it stated anywhere who or what brought the challenge to SCR4? Those senators who voted against it? Some citizen org (euphemism for group of liberal Dems)?
Federalism and the federal government are two different things. Asserting the power of the legislature to call for a convention of the states to amend the constitution is a blow for federalism and a blow against the federal government, unless it is a convention of RINOs whose goal is to bow to the radical left under the banner of bipartisanship while enriching themselves.
I was not attempting to offend. Simply inform.
COS is moving along. Awesome!!!
Under the Articles of Confederation, the government was entirely federal.
Pre-17th Amendment, the government was partially federal, but it was still accurate to refer to it as federal, as in “federal republic.”
Overnight, the 17th Amendment rendered our republic democratic. People still refer to it as federal, but the most accurate term, is “democratic republic.”
Woe to us all, for until the 17th is repealed, we are doomed to the demise of history’s previous democratic republics.
“You do not know what federalism is, do you”
That’s informative? Riiiiiiiiiiiight........
from the article:
This is a victory for federalism.
Article makes no sense
The article is perfectly clear. What do you find confusing - that some here have kicked up a storm cloud by trying to argue a definition of "federalism" rather than arguing that this is a return to the power of the state legislature as set forth in the US Constitution?
It's clear enough. The state legislature passed a resolution calling for a convention of the states to amend the constitution. Someone challenged this in court on the grounds that the State Constitution had other requirements that the state legislature failed to follow. A judge ruled that that challenge was invalid, thus affirming that the US constitution grant of powers to the state legislature is dispositive.
Now, I am not a big fan of amending the constitution which is working pretty well for us right now, but that it is a different matter.
1. Repeal Amendment 17
2. Repeal Amendment16
3. Term limits for congress
4. Override abortion
5. Eliminate welfare
5, Balance budget amendment
6. Reinstate 18 enumerated powers on congress
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.