Missouri Court Ruling Supports Convention of States as a Constitutional Option

Convention of States ^ | June 28th 2018 | Unknown

[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 legislature’s 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 organization’s 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 government’s abuse of power through fiscal constraint, by limiting its power and jurisdiction, and by imposing term limits on officials and members of Congress.

[scouter]

I’m not convinced that in the current political climate the amendments that would likely come out of such a convention of states would be amendments I would support. I suspect they would be amendments that would explicitly give the federal government the powers that it has arrogated to itself, making it nearly impossible to undo.

That being said, the court made the right decision.

[Jacquerie]

Yep. They’ll work.

[Jacquerie]

Actually, it wouldn't disappoint me if the COS met and adjourned without sending recommended amendments to the states. It would put to rest the fear of a "runaway" convention. Now, as long as the convention did not adjourn sine die, it could agree to meet again, say the next year, without thirty-two more state applications.

Toward an Annual Article V State Amendments Convention.

[Svartalfiar]

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.

Close. States don't have rights, just like the FedGov. Both have powers as granted to them by the people. Rights are only inherent in the people. Government only has powers.

[Jim Noble]

A court ruling on a case that a court should never have heard in the first place is not a victory.

Just like Bush v. Gore, every time a court takes a case which is outside of it's limited and defined powers, WHATEVER THE OUTCOME, it increases the illegitimate increase of the judicial power.

[Jim Noble]

That being said, the court made the right decision

No, they didn't.

The right decision was to refuse to hear the case, on the grounds that it was a political question outside the scope of any court's authority.