Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did Michigan Just Trigger 'Constitutional Convention'? Bid Gains Steam
Fox News ^ | 4/2/14 | Barnini Chakraborty

Posted on 04/11/2014 1:32:11 PM PDT by JeepersFreepers

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.”

“Based on several reports and opinions, Michigan might be the 34th state to issue such a call and therefore presents the constitutionally-required number of states to begin the process of achieving a balanced budget amendment,” Hunter wrote.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News
KEYWORDS: amendment; concon; constitutional; convention; mi; michigan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 next last
To: C210N

It is obvious that your mind is made up. If a Constitutional Convention comes to pass I hope you are correct, but I have not found any proof that it it can’t go in a direction that none of us will like.


61 posted on 04/11/2014 4:34:06 PM PDT by c-b 1 (Reporting from behind enemy lines, in occupied AZTLAN.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: JeepersFreepers

This is really a “raise-the-bridge/lower-the-river” issue, IMHO. The lower-the-river endeavor is this constitutional convention. It could change the whole landscape. The raise-the-bridge angle would be to 1) clarify the 14th Amendment to make it say exactly what it was intended to say 140 years ago, and specify what it WASN’T intended to say; and 2) eliminate the commerce clause entirely as being an obsolete vestige whose necessity and times no longer exist (and, at the same time, poof! goes the Commerce Department).
I believe that with those two refinements, the Constitution could still be our Lex Rex, and the libs would be hard pressed to govern, either legislatively or administratively; because there is not a single substantive action taken by liberals within the past 60 years that wasn’t entirely predicated upon the 14th Amendment and Commerce Clause, applied wrongfully, by the Supreme Court.
So I say let’s raise the bridge.


62 posted on 04/11/2014 5:09:25 PM PDT by Migraine (Diversity is great -- until it happens to YOU..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
The 17th is definitely one of the worst but I don’t trust the state legislatures to pick good senators either.

You miss the point. Senators are supposed to be representatives of the state legislatures. Representatives are representatives of the people. When both of them are elected by the people, we have pure democracy. Pure democracy always devolves to the masses voting themselves funds from the public treasury.

63 posted on 04/11/2014 5:18:41 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The best way to control opposition is to lead it ourselves." -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

It makes sense but you’re going to play hell convincing people to give up their “right” to vote for senators. Pete Hoekstra was no conservative firebrand but he made an offhand comment about needing to fix the 17th Amendment and was met with immediate sustained screeching about wanting to strip people of the right to vote.

As far as the legislatures electing senators, obviously it would be better as far as the GOP is concerned but I’m not very trusting of the state legislatures either. On the other hand, it might just get people more involved in legislative politics which would be a good thing.

I’m still thinking my way through this but I can’t ignore the fact that it would be an awfully hard sell with the people.


64 posted on 04/11/2014 5:43:29 PM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

“Every high school student should be required to know the simple options for amending the Constitution in Article V before being allowed to graduate.”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

When I was a public school student we WERE required to know that along with a lot of other things that people who hold a degree in history or political science or any other degree don’t know now. I had to be able to write out the whole procedure of how a bill goes through congress and explain what a “pocket veto” was. We even understood that any “money” bill could only originate in the house, not the senate. Seems even people in the senate and house don’t know that now.


65 posted on 04/11/2014 7:04:10 PM PDT by RipSawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: kidd
It takes 37 states to change the Constitution.

Not really, 5 corrupt judges can do it.

Even worse a President can issue an EO and it requires a super majority to undo it, at least during his tenure.

66 posted on 04/11/2014 11:23:47 PM PDT by itsahoot (Voting for a Progressive RINO is the same as voting for any other Tyrant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LS
but once the can of worms is opened, EVERYTHING is on the block.

In case you haven't noticed, everything is already on the block.

67 posted on 04/11/2014 11:29:37 PM PDT by itsahoot (Voting for a Progressive RINO is the same as voting for any other Tyrant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: central_va
The current standing army of 400,000(and shrinking) couldn't crush tiny Delaware and occupy it.

Every alphabet government agency has been armed, I have no clue why. :)

68 posted on 04/11/2014 11:38:22 PM PDT by itsahoot (Voting for a Progressive RINO is the same as voting for any other Tyrant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Publius

I now what AN. Amendment involves, “with or without Mike Allen “and this is no amendment and you damn well know that. But, hey, go right ahead. Six weeks after something like this starts you’ll all be standing around wondering how Thad libs got control of it.


69 posted on 04/12/2014 4:08:34 AM PDT by LS ('Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually.' Hendrix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Sigh. Beyond folly.


70 posted on 04/12/2014 4:09:05 AM PDT by LS ('Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually.' Hendrix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Name calling. Which means my argument won. Thank you.


71 posted on 04/12/2014 4:10:13 AM PDT by LS ('Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually.' Hendrix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: MeganC

Fear monger? You mean like Mercy Otis Warren who in the Constitutional debates repeatedly warned that even the Bill of Rights wasn’t strong enough? Or George Mason or Patrick Henry, who said that a convention would lead to an uncontrollable federal government? Those fear mongers?


72 posted on 04/12/2014 4:13:35 AM PDT by LS ('Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually.' Hendrix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
And the agents of the states in 1787 supposedly had instructions on dactyl what they were supposed to do.

So, if the Tea Party keeps nominating people, a handful of which actually get elected, and then sees many of those (Rubio, tBrown) quickly cave, do you really think that the selection of commissioners would be different?

Let me suggest what the Ohio delegation would look like: it would NOT be one of hHe few Tea Partiers we can trust, such as Jim Jordan, but we would see Bob Taft brought back, probably someone like Mike DeWine, and then for "balance" a "moderate" Dem in the Tony Hall mode. So, 2RINOs and an uber-lib.yeah, they'll act with our freedom in mind.

73 posted on 04/12/2014 4:21:21 AM PDT by LS ('Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually.' Hendrix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: JeepersFreepers
Any Constitutional Convention, today or in the near future, will be taken over by socialists one way or another. All conservative input will be muted and go unreported by the MSN.

The result will create a country that reflects every socialist's wet dream.

Right now, we are seeing a foretaste, under the current administration, of what will be created by such a Constitutional Convention. Electing a strictly conservative future government will not change the outcome.

As it stands, socialists have a plan, a goal, and lots of money, as well as the MSN ready to report most favorably on them - while failing to mention those things which could be seen as negative. Low information voters will lap up every sound bite.

As it stands, the Conservatives have some money, moral rectitude, FOX news, and a moldy piece of paper. Low information voters will not have a clue what conservatives are talking about, if they even hear anything at all.

No Amendments will be strengthened, only weakened or eliminated. New Amendments will enshrine socialist values.

Holding a Constitutional Convention in such an environment is the worst idea possible and will end very badly for this country.

We live in interesting times ... be careful what you wish for ...

74 posted on 04/12/2014 4:21:42 AM PDT by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mazda77
As a historian I see cycles. They aren't always exactly the same but reasonably close. We are in a Progressive cycle like that of 1902-1921. Some are longer---the Republican cycle (which was pretty liberal) after the Civil War lasted almost 35 years, and before that, the Dems dominated---in a way we can't comprehend---the US from 1826-1860---with virtually no credible opposition.

It wouldn't call it a suggestion but an understanding of where we are, and until the majority begins to shift, nothing will change. In the meantime, we need to make sure that we don't throw away what few hard-won victories we have in desperation "Hail Mary's." The wheel always turns, but it is possible to break the wheel.

75 posted on 04/12/2014 4:30:04 AM PDT by LS ('Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually.' Hendrix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: LS

Crawl into your hole and bit your pillow.


76 posted on 04/12/2014 4:33:03 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
In case you haven't noticed, there are still mitigating institutions and processes that slow change---as the Founders intended. You throw those out with such a radical move. And, FWIW , in life everything is always on the block.

The point is, do not think such a meeting would in any way be limited to either the issues which it was to address nor the direction. For example, a proposal to limit spending or balance budgets could very easily be flipped by libs to remove ALL restrictions on spending; or a proposal to further protect gun rights could (and would) insinuate language that would easily undermine the 2nd Amendment.

77 posted on 04/12/2014 4:36:36 AM PDT by LS ('Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually.' Hendrix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: central_va

That’s “bite” and it shows that not only can you not argue, you can’t spell.


78 posted on 04/12/2014 4:37:48 AM PDT by LS ('Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually.' Hendrix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: kidd
Add term limits to prevent ANYONE from serving more than two terms in Congress or the White House and I'm in.

If someone's served two terms in the US House of Representatives, they're done. They can run for President, but that's it.

Same for the Senate - serve two terms in the Senate and you can run for President -- but that's it.

No more CAREER politicians. While we're at it, NO MORE DAMN' LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT EITHER! We go back to a Citizen Legislature OR ELSE.

79 posted on 04/12/2014 4:42:12 AM PDT by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LS

Touche I misspelled bite so you are superior. My bad.


80 posted on 04/12/2014 4:42:50 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson