Did Michigan just trigger 'constitutional convention'? Bid gains steam

FoxNews.com ^ | 4-2-2014 | Barnini Chakraborty

[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.

[GILTN1stborn]

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.”

AMEN to that

[Liberty Valance]

Good luck.

[PapaNew]

Well, the first step is ensuring we have a convention of states that are unified about the subject matter and the limitations on the subject matter. But if the convention thing doesn't work, then states will need to start nullifying.

All I'm saying is if Congress unreasonably and unconstitutionally does not call the convention, then the states could make the convention itself the start of the nullification process.

Legitimacy is a constitutional question. The federal government's authority is only legitimate as far as it is constitutional. IMO, the states at some point have a legitimate right to deal with and resist an unconstitutional federal government.

[American Constitutionalist]

I think the government has got it’s stinking tentacles in both.

[Da Bilge Troll]

couldn’t find anyone trustworthy

So your solution is... ?

[Da Bilge Troll]

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.

There is a good chance this could all end up before the Supreme Court. I think even Kagan would have trouble voting against the states on this one.

[JimSEA]

Inforce what we’ve got.

[Da Bilge Troll]

Inforce what we’ve got.

How? Do you have a plan? I'd be very interested.

[JimSEA]

My plan is the same as the Democrats, gain control of the executive and legislature so judges at all levels act in respect of the Constitution. Like Obama has said, elections have consequences.

I don’t want the Constitution opened up to authoritarian changes.

[Da Bilge Troll]

gain control of the executive and legislature so judges at all levels act in respect of the Constitution

Great plan, though we had such control from 2001 - 2007 and I don't recall it slowing the Commies down very much and we got Justice Roberts in the deal. In fact, it sounds a lot like what we've been trying to do all my life with such great success.

When do you start implementing your plan? Do you have an organization building? Do you think we could we get it done this century?

[bfh333]

Good Luck... It took 100 years to get us here and Progressives control most EVERY means of messaging... Let’s see... Education, Movies, TV, most social media...

The constitution will not be “opened up”... A convention of states could ONLY propose amendments... It would still take 38 states to ratify any proposed amendments...

Do you love the current constitution? Guess what... THIS IS ARTICLE V OF THAT CONSTITUTION!

The Founders KNEW we would arrive at this place... It’s the backstop... Voting ALONE is not going to get it done!

[bfh333]

The Democrats / Progressives will send delegates. The convention will decide it’s rules for how they deal with proposals at the convention. That means that the convention will be VERY NARROWLY defined... State Legislatures have put laws in place to deal with “rouge” delegates some with severe penalties...

So if MD wants to send delegates, I’m sure they will be welcome... But they won’t have much power...

AND ANYTHING PROPOSED AND VOTED OUT OF THE CONVENTION MUST STILL BE RATIFIED BY 38 STATES!

[JimSEA]

If that’s what you want to do, you need authoritarian control. You have to disenfranchise your opponents. Jail their leaders for treason. That will take more than a new Constitution, it will require a civil war and a Putin like leader. No thanks.

[Da Bilge Troll]

If that’s what you want to do, you need authoritarian control.

Huh? I was talking about YOUR plan. My plan is a Convention of the States.

[JimSEA]

What comes out of a new constitution? I’m suggesting it will have to be authoritarian to meet the grievances of either side. Can conservatives coexist with progressives - no. Any new constitution will have to address that fundamental question. The progressives are incrementally criminalizing us. Will everybody voluntarily go along with a new constitution that they believe doesn’t favor them.

[Da Bilge Troll]

What comes out of a new constitution?

What "new" constitution? No one is proposing a "new" constitution.

[precisionshootist]

"Since 99% of Federal Law hangs its hat on the Commerce Clause, what would be good wording for an amendment to it?"

I think it should simply be removed completely. At the time of the founding it was needed but today market forces alone will resolve any problems.

Lets not take any chances this time. If we have to wonder what power the feds should have then the answer should be no power whatsoever.