Posted on 04/02/2014 12:25:48 PM PDT by servo1969
WASHINGTON – Momentum is building behind what would be an unprecedented effort to amend the U.S. Constitution, through a little-known provision that gives states rather than Congress the power to initiate changes.
At issue is what's known as a "constitutional convention," a scenario tucked into Article V of the U.S. Constitution. At its core, Article V provides two ways for amendments to be proposed. The first – which has been used for all 27 amendment to date – requires two-thirds of both the House and Senate to approve a resolution, before sending it to the states for ratification. The Founding Fathers, though, devised an alternative way which says if two-thirds of state legislatures demand a meeting, Congress “shall call a convention for proposing amendments.”
The idea has gained popularity among constitutional scholars in recent years -- but got a big boost last week when Michigan lawmakers endorsed it.
Michigan matters, because by some counts it was the 34th state to do so. That makes two-thirds.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
NO IT IS NOT!
If the Liberals thought a constitutional convention would give them everything they wanted they would have been screaming for it, instead of warning us how good it would be for them if we did...
Eliminate the Commerce Clause entirely.
http://conventionofstates.com/
Apparently, the 2/3rd's are not in agreement with that. Apparently a number of states are all over the map and some possibly an open convention which I oppose. It would not be good for that to take place IMO.
Waiting in patience and faith.
Oops, forgot. Girbilism is a profession for people who didn't pay attention back in school, can't possibly catch up in math or science, but want to mint out a degree in college without spending more than the six or seven years people of their intellectual strata require to get a BA.
For girbilists, all of the constitution is little known.
It isn't their fault. It takes up more than a couple pages. How could anyone expect them to know?
You can start with the two studies linked in post #9 on this thread. There are no court cases, because no one has ever brought a court case claiming that Congress is required to call a Convention. It makes sense to me, though, that if 11 states call for a convention to repeal the Second Amendment, 11 other states call for a convention to pass a traditional marriage amendment and 12 other states call for a convention to adopt a balanced budget amendment, you don't have 34 states calling for the same thing.
Congress shall have the power to regulate disputes between the states regarding interstate commerce ONLY when a state legislature sends a formal notice of grievance to the Congress, and Congress’ regulatory power shall be strictly limited to the specific dispute named in such notice.
Although the idea of replacing the Constitution is implicitly forbidden constitutionally, I don't know why a free-for-all convention would be constitutionally invalid. But I would not be in favor of that idea.
Well, anyway, I’m only in favor of a convention with predefined subject matter like the Convention of States. Looks like we may have a ways to go on that one.
It’s NOT a “constitutional convention.” It’s NOT a “constitutional convention.” It’s NOT a “constitutional convention.” It’s NOT a “constitutional convention.” It’s NOT a “constitutional convention.” It’s NOT a “constitutional convention.” It’s NOT a “constitutional convention.” It’s NOT a “constitutional convention.” It’s NOT a “constitutional convention.” It’s NOT a “constitutional convention.” It’s NOT a “constitutional convention.” It’s NOT a “constitutional convention.” It’s NOT a “constitutional convention.” It’s NOT a “constitutional convention.” It’s NOT a “constitutional convention.” It’s NOT a “constitutional convention.” It’s NOT a “constitutional convention.” It’s NOT a “constitutional convention.” It’s NOT a “constitutional convention.” It’s NOT a “constitutional convention.” It’s NOT a “constitutional convention.” It’s NOT a “constitutional convention.” It’s NOT a “constitutional convention.” It’s NOT a “constitutional convention.”
That’s what I think, too.
My state of Maryland is completely controlled by the Demonazicrats, who know how to corrupt everything int he system to maintain their oligarchy. I shudder to think of what kind of delegate the Demonazicrats would send to the convention.
“Seems to me the Art-V COS must be tried. IF it fails, then the Tree of Liberty will need to be watered, but we are not there, and those that are for a COS will and are working hard to make it work, and make it work POSITIVELY for a successful and federally-limiting activity.”
Agreed!
“... Eliminate the Commerce Clause entirely. ...”
-
Either that or define it:
The phrase “to regulate commerce among the several states”
that is found in Article 1 Section 8 of The Constitution
shall limit the Federal Government solely to insuring
there are no taxes, or tariffs, or restrictions,
or any other barriers to free trade between and among
any of the several states and thus allow for
unrestricted commerce between and among the states.
Upon specific application from any of the several states,
congress shall have the authority to mediate
any trade disputes that may arise among them.
Not bad.
I would change “health insurance” to “health care.”
“...the Commerce Clause, what would be good wording for an amendment to it? ...”
-
See:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3140177/posts?page=53#53
Be creative and overturn the laughable, and idiotic Wickard v. Filburn Scotus decision by constitutional amendment. That way, everything prior can stand, and all afterward is gone, a bad memory of statism.
No shortage of those; though Wickard does stand out for a special swat-down.
Walker v. US, filed in December 2000. I spent two years editing William Walker's brief prior to the filing. Judge John Coughenour in Seattle dismissed it for lack of standing. (Walker wasn't a state.) Walker's appeals to the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court were also denied cert.
“What if instead, Congress drags its heals hoping for a change in the next election of state legislatures?”
I don’t think the states should go ahead with a convention on their own, because then that throws the legitimacy of the whole thing into question, and anything it passes could be struck down by the courts. Instead, if we want a convention, and Congress won’t vote on it, we need to exercise the power of the ballot box and make this a campaign issue.
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.