Posted on 01/12/2016 2:18:31 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/01/delegates-article-v-convention-cant-controlled-state-laws/
Article Titile: Delegates to an Article V Convention Can’t be Controlled by State Laws!
Well Gee , the senators and reps that we send to DC cannot be controlled by State Laws EITHER and THEY can ALSO propose NEW AMENDMENTS TOO!
We already send Senators and Reps to D.C. Who say one thing and vote another way, what is the difference...
If the State Legislatures cannot be trusted more than our Senators and Reps we might as well just give up right now, right?
This Part of this article is a BLATANT LIE
Method 2: Two-thirds (34) of the states call for a federal constitutional convention, and then three-fourths of the states ratify whatever amendments are proposed by the convention. (This method must be avoided at all costs. This method could lead to a runaway convention in which our original Constitution would be scrapped and a new Constitution would be substituted consequently stripping us from our bill of rights.) There is a proposed Constitution already waiting for the New States of America.
” Two-thirds (34) of the states call for a federal constitutional convention, and then three-fourths of the states ratify whatever amendments are proposed by the convention.”
2/3 call for convention to PROPOSE NEW AMENDMENTS not a “CON-CON” That is like saying whenever the FEDERAL SENATE AND HOUSE vote on an amendment and calling THAT a CON-CON.
The Ratification process (3/4 of the states) is the EXACT SAME if the Amendment comes from the FEDERAL Senate and House or from the (34 or 2/3rds of the 50) STATE House(s) and Senate(s), Except Nebraska which is a Unicameral House/Senate.
RIGHT NOW THE FEDERAL HOUSE AND SENATE have sent the following AMENDMENTS to the STATES for RATIFICATION (the Washington D.C. CON-CON as you would call it).
Unratified Amendments
Six amendments adopted by Congress and sent to the states have not been ratified by the required number of states. Four of these, including one of the twelve Bill of Rights amendments, are still technically open and pending. The other two amendments are closed and no longer pending, one by terms set within the Congressional Resolution proposing it (†) and the other by terms set within the body of the amendment (‡).
Congressional Apportionment Amendment
(pending since September 25, 1789; ratified by 11 states)
Would strictly regulate the size of congressional districts for representation in the House of Representatives.
Titles of Nobility Amendment
(pending since May 1, 1810; ratified by 12 states)
Would strip citizenship from any United States citizen who accepts a title of nobility from a foreign country.
Corwin Amendment
(pending since March 2, 1861; ratified by 3 states)
Would make “domestic institutions” (which in 1861 implicitly meant slavery) of the states impervious to the constitutional amendment procedures enshrined within Article Five of the United States Constitution and immune to abolition or interference even by the most compelling Congressional and popular majorities.
Child Labor Amendment
(pending since June 2, 1924; ratified by 28 states)
Would empower the federal government to regulate child labor.
Equal Rights Amendment
(Ratification period, March 22, 1972 to March 22, 1979/June 30, 1982, amendment failed (†); ratified by 35 states)
Would have prohibited deprivation of equality of rights (discrimination) by the federal or state governments on account of sex.
District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment
(Ratification period, August 22, 1978 to August 22, 1985, Amendment failed(‡); ratified by 16 states)
Would have granted the District of Columbia full representation in the United States Congress as if it were a state, repealed the 23rd Amendment and granted the District full representation in the Electoral College system in addition to full participation in the process by which the Constitution is amended.
Worst Case Scenario of the Convention of States is that we end up with a bigger list on Wikipedia of “un-Ratified” amendments.
Every-time our US senators and US Representatives vote on an amendment someone with yellow stained in the crotch pants thinks it is a CON-CON.
We already send Senators and Reps to D.C. Who say one thing and vote another way, what is the difference...
If the State Legislatures cannot be trusted more than our Senators and Reps we might as well just give up right now, right?
I totally agree. The beltway has totally failed us. We have taxation and absolutely no representation. What is left? The Founders gave us the Article V process. We are derelict if we don't pursue it.
Our state senators and reps feel strongly about state's rights. If their duties are limited by state statute and 38 states have to ratify any proposed amendment, I don't see how that can potentially fail.
The Convention of States is Only for proposed Amendments to the Constitution. Period. If it veers from that, it is null and void plus the attendees may face fines and criminal charges.
We see the path if we do nothing. .
Sack,
I read the article at your link.
What do you propose?
Go with the status quo?
I see an Article V convention of States as our last resort.
It is time, now, before it is too ate.
“... the main organization behind the Con-Con movement ...”
-
I know that you know the difference between
an Article V convention of the States and a “con-con”.
But I don’t know why you post comments like you don’t know the difference.
lol, So true. Education of Truth is the key! Most people just don't understand the process and immediately start yelling Con-Con, runaway convention, new constitution, blah, blah. Get the facts people and take one step at a time. It can work. It will work!
Right on, You are correct.
Let’s imagine a worst Case scenario WITHOUT an Article V. Just the “usual way” of proposing amendments, and say a Majority of the Senators and Reps got replaced with “Obama Pod People”:
As it stands if 2/3rds of the Senators and Reps decided to abolish the entire Constitution via ONE singular amendment that simply says “The U.S. Constitution is null and void and we declare Obama the Emperor” they COULD DO IT! And they could Pass it!
However it would take 3/4 of the state Legislatures to ratify it.
If we could keep the pod people out of at least 13 states legislatures we could use the 13 States to Save the republic from the pod people.
If we have to worry about “pod People” they would have to do a LOT MORE WORK to even propose their amendment using Article V just with the sheer number of people that would need to be involved,(thousands or tens of thousands) versus just taking over 66 in the senate and 290 in the House.
And even THEN they the whole 3/4 ratification BY the states (Thousands if not TENS of thousands) people involved again....
Article V is the “States Veto” Check on an overran Federal Government. Why would the federal government EVER propose an Amendment to Limit THEIR power? The States DO have the motive to LIMIT federal power, not grow it.
If we cannot use Article V to reclaim Federalism (ie. the Partitioning of power: Federal, States, Local). Then we have lost the American Republic and now live in the Era of the “American Empire”....
The Senate and House at that point are just Ceremonial...
The Senate and House at that point are just Ceremonial...
Or as Levin calls it, a Soft Tyranny that we live in now. The Uni-party Congress just does what Obama wants.
We have to pursue Article V. We owe it to the Founders, ourselves and generations yet unborn.
If we can’t pressure the states to fight for THEMSELVES and THEIR POWER on OUR BEHALF, we are already finished.
But WE HAVE TO TRY, if we try and fail at least we have the moral and LEGAL high ground when moving to the NEXT STEP OF REBELLION!
That STEP being State nullification, Next after that is Secession and if that is not peaceful, Civil WAR!
Yup, one step at a time. Article V first and we’ll go from there if we have to.
Here is the Indiana statute that will govern commissions.
BTW, your source's history regarding the 1787 convention is AFU. The states were going to convene regardless of congress, and delegates were indeed limited, some more than others. Delaware's demand of equal state representation, resulted in the key compromise of two senators per state.
If you wish to compare a state amendments convention with a familiar institution, compare it to the electoral college. Both are federal rather than popular, and are/will be limited by state law. If the states are so politically insane, why haven't we had a 'runaway' session of the electoral college?
“Nice. Three years ago, when he was a mere senator. Before you fell in mad love with Trump. Fine.”
You assume too much. I actually paid attention and researched government lawyer Cruz and therefore I was off the Cruz BS wagon long before Trump showed up. I and many others got kicked out of here for daring to criticize Cruz not long after that.
Unlike the evangelics who push Cruz for no other reason, I don’t get emotionally involved with candidates. Should Trump change his immigration, Trade, NO PC, economics policies, I’ll gladly throw him to the curb just like I did Cruz.
The ability to "change words around" led to the writing of an amicus brief in the landmark 2nd Amendment Heller decision he argued before SCOTUS, as well as defending the sovereignty of US Law from the International Court of Justice. Kinda more important than the Apprentice with respect to the constitution...
I keep getting back to the idea that doing nothing is not an option.
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.