Posted on 02/04/2014 3:08:58 PM PST by cotton1706
The specific wording is,"The Congress ... shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments," when requested to do so by 2/3 of the States. Don't see anything in there about limiting the freedom of such a Convention.
I understand that amendments made in past Congresses use the National Archives as administrator for the proposal and ratification process. For states to activate their Article V provision, they must 'apply'. This has been done recently on a number of issues but we don't hear it much because most of the amendments have weak support among the states. The Balanced Budget Amendment made news because there was significant support for it.
So we note that states have in the recent past proposed to Congress certain amendments and have lodged their proposed amendments via the National Archives. So Publius says correctly that states can propose specific amendments.
Article V does not say an amendment proposal must accompany an 'application'. It merely says they may require Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments. Ostensibly they may call for a general convention for proposing amendments.
So again Publius is correctly pointing out the obvious that states can call for specific amendments as they have in the past or call for a general convention where proposed amendments are worked out under the penumbra of the called Convention.
Article V only authorizes “a convention for proposing amendments to this Constitution”; therefore, the Constitution of 1787 is locked in place forever.
Somewhat ironic, since that is all (most at least of) the delegates to the 1787 Convention were authorized to do. It is at any rate irrelevant, as sufficiently broad amending equates to a new Constitution in practice.
Large portions of the Articles of Confederation (AOC) actually greatly resemble the US Constitution. The historical context was quite different. The Articles were always thought to be a temporary provisional means of governing while the process of making a permanent governing document was in work. And indeed the US Constitution was not suddenly created at a Constitutional Convention. It was discussed, written about and debated for many years prior to the CC.
Article V does not allow for calling a Constitutional Convention, it allows only a Convention for proposing amendments. The AOC had no such restriction. It is possible but unlikely that 3/4s of states could amend to expand Article V to allow for a Constitutional Convention.
No amendment may be added to the Constitution to change the principle of equal representation in the Senate.
True. However, it's always seemed to me that an amendment could be passed deleting this provision, then one changing Senatorial representation as desired. A moot point, since I believe there is zero support for any such proposition. And it couldn't pass half the states, much less 3/4, anyway.
Actually Publius is off here. There are three clauses that were off limits to change, not just the two that Publius noted. They are Art. I, Sec. 9 concerning slaves; Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, concerning the taxing power of Congress; Article I, Section 3, Clause 1, concerning equal representation of states in the Senate. The first two have timed out and the last may be considered permanent unless the states unanimously adopt to overturn it.
Thank you very much.
I’ve had some crazies comment on it, but maybe the ones I sent it to will see it and think about it. :)
Far too many people still don’t fully understand the process.
Is the structure of the federal government the root of the problems or is the occupants of federal offices that are the problem.
Aside from Amend. XVII, it is the latter.
Correction:
Is the structure of the federal government the root of the problem or is it the occupants of federal offices that are the problem?
By your logic, many amendments of the Constitution are unnecessary, not just the 17th.
Do you think the 26th and 27th Amendments were necessary and do they work as intended?
Y’all do know that a Constitutional Convention would be a disaster, right?
All those “positive rights” that Leftists keep talking about will be in any new document. You know, “rights” to food, shelter, medical care, education, internet access, etc. - things the rest of us have PAY for.
They would also curtail free speech in the name of preventing “Hate.”
And as for limiting it to specific items like fiscal responsibility - just try to get that past a judge.
The things that WOULDN’T be in the new charter are stuff like property rights, self defense, and free speech.
I confess that I don’t either...but I hope it will help take our country back!
“Y’all do know that a Constitutional Convention would be a disaster, right?”
Any amendments would need to get through 38 state legislatures. Leftist amendments would not be popular. They couldn’t even get the ERA through...in the 1970’s, at the very height of liberalism’s popularity...even after an extension!
Geez, I hope you are right.
But I seldom see the bright side of things these days.
Geez, I hope you are right.
But I seldom see the bright side of things these days.
I think the 17th is of greater consequence than either of those. Secondmost would be the 16th.
Why are putting words in my mouth?
“Any amendments would need to get through 38 state legislatures.”
Not so. There’s an alternate.
An excellent start. Proper that it would come from a FReeper named “Publius.” Thanks.
“Any amendments would need to get through 38 state legislatures.”
Not so. There’s an alternate.”
What do you mean? An alternate what?
> “...or is the occupants of federal offices that are the problem.”
If the above is more important than amending the Constitution to curb abuses, then most amendments made were unnecessarily made.
Sure the 17th and 16th are deleterious to the freedom of US citizens and representation in Washington DC.
But we need more amendments now. The 26th and 27th amendments were unnecessary but they work as intended. We can make amendments now that are necessary and will work as intended. We should repeal the 16th and replace it with the FairTax. We should repeal the 17th or at amend to give state legislatures power over their US Senators such as allowing them to recall their US Senators.
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.
