Push for Constitutional Convention Gathers Steam

Chicago Tribune ^ | November 30, 2014 23:20 GMT | Albert R Hunt (Bloomberg)

[Up Yours Marxists]

Rising frustration with Washington and conservative electoral victories across much of the U.S. are feeding a movement in favor of something America hasn't done in 227 years: Hold a convention to rewrite the Constitution.

Although it's still not likely to be successful, the effort is more serious than before: Already, more than two dozen states have called for a convention. There are two ways to change or amend the founding document. The usual method is for an adjustment to win approval from two-thirds of the Congress and then be ratified by three-quarters of the states. There have been 27 amendments adopted this way.

The second procedure is separate from Congress. It requires two-thirds of the states, or 34, to call for a convention. The framers thought this was necessary because Congress wouldn't be likely to advance any amendments that curtailed its powers. But this recourse never has been used.

[John Valentine]

YOU ought to follow your own advice. Every post on this thread over your name has been a recitation of ignorance and fear born of ignorance. Educate yourself, PLEASE, before gumming up this forum with crap.

By the way, how are our present Constitutional circumstances working out in your esteemed opinion?

And by the way, as for control, how you doin’ with that one, as well. Congress under control just fine in your opinion?

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

You think this, the most lawless administration in our history would let that opportunity go by without twisting arms in the States and getting their agenda into the proposals?

I doubt that 3/4 of the states would ratify any of Obama's garbage Amendments, whatever they might turn out to be. He'll be lucky if half of them do.

[PGalt]

BTTT!

[Califreak]

If it ain’t broke don’t fix it!

The govt’s failure to follow it does not make the Constitution obsolete

I agree-this is not a good idea

They will demolish what’s left if they do this

[Hostage]

I can see now you have no clue of what goes on at the State level when you say the Tea Party has no foothold there. That’s a revealing shot.

I am well aware of the graft at the federal level but also know that people at the State level are not so easily bought off as you might think. Look at the gains of disenfranchised State Conservatives. I know many of them personally in Washington State. Colorado, Virginia, Illinois, Michigan and Texas through family and business contacts. They are not about to give up any of their recent gains to any federal level GOP operative for any amount of money because it is not a unilateral decision of theirs to make.

The Tea Party movement has become more hardened and more circumspect to those that approach them. They are more a force today than at any other time since 2010 irrespective of what the national media says.

I have one close business partner in a populous state who is a current personal friend and boyhood friend of that State’s Republican Governor. They are so aware of the tactics used by the GOP Establishment that I can say with confidence they would not hesitate to call any RNC operatives on the carpet to the state press about any graft or offered bribes and they would do so immediately before any press had the chance to implicate them.

IF IF IF ... the GOP Establishment were to target a Republican Governor for ‘acquisition’ by offering unspecified amounts of pork in return for throttling down an Article V movement in the state, I know the one Governor I am thinking of would immediately make a press release with those exact conditions and let the people decide. In other words, Tea Party minded office holders are not about to be compromised because they know it would entail the eventual loss of their constituency and hence their time in office. And the reason they are in office to begin with is because they were elected by people that still hold traditional American values and morals.

Your view is a dismal view that better fits a scene like that of Mississippi than a state where concerned state level politicians and their supporters are working to effect real reform through Article V.

I am proud of the leaders and supporters of Article V. They have my admiration for their awareness, wisdom, strategy and devotion to American ideals. They are of course aware of the cynicism that pervades politics; they are after all highly sophisticated people.

I grew up in DC within earshot of Presidents and Vice-Presidents through my family’s connections. All of the Beltway class was enlarged during the time of LBJ in my youth. Today that Beltway class is arrogant and their condescension is irritating. They do not hold a candle to the people I see at the State level that are working on organizing Article V. It is interesting to see them act as if any state level politician was no more than a hustler who just fell off the turnip truck. How wrong they are and how confused they become when they discover the depth and quality of Tea Party minded people in the states. Their operatives don’t stand a chance to penetrate and grind down Tea Party people. Even in Mississippi there is a groundswell of payback coming. And their solidarity is strengthening inside their states and across state lines.

The Tea Party movement is growing and Article V will be one of their major platforms.

[Publius]

In 1967, when 32 states had requested an Amendments Convention to reverse the "One Man/One Vote" decision, a debate opened up in the Senate about the requirement that Congress call a convention.

Sen. Everett Dirksen (R-IL) said that the Constitution was clear on this, and Hamilton had said so in Federalist #85.

Senators Brewster and Tydings (D-MD) said that the legislatures that produced those petitions were themselves mal-apportioned, and Congress could legally ignore those petitions.

Sen. Charles Percy (R-IL) said that an Amendments Convention would be under the control of "the worst elements in American politics", by which he meant conservatives.

Dirksen was firm and introduced a bill to determine how delegates to an Amendments Convention would be chosen and how the convention would be conducted. He based this on two Supreme Court decisions, one from 1921 and one from 1939, that gave Congress wide latitude in regulating the amendatory process. His bill went nowhere, and when Dirksen died in 1969, the wind went out of the sails of the movement. (I should note that modern legal thought believes that Congress has no say in the matter; an Amendments Convention is the property of the states.)

Tydings, Brewster and Percy all believed that because Congress was a sovereign body, no court could order it to call a convention no matter how many states applied, due to the doctrine of Separation of Powers.

Then a few years later, in the Adam Clayton Powell case, the Supreme Court ordered the House to admit Powell because he had followed all the rules of New York State in winning his election. The fact that he was a corrupt sleaze ball was not of constitutional significance. Once admitted, the House could expel him via a two-thirds vote, but the House had to admit him first. The House had given the Supreme Court a stern warning not to take this case, but when the Court decided against the House, the House knuckled under without argument. Eventually, Charlie Rangel solved the Adam Clayton Powell problem in a primary election.

If Congress clearly refuses to do its duty to set the time and place for a convention, the Supreme Court might intervene. Or it might declare it to be a Political Question and determine that the voters should remove obstructionist congressmen and senators if they want a convention so badly.

This is a gray area. The ALEC Document thinks the Supreme Court would order Congress to call a convention, but the ABA Document doesn't see that, believing that Congress would do its solemn duty.

[Publius]

Please read Post #12 and go to the link. The key is which Constitution the federal entity follows, the Living Constitution or Original Intent.

[Hostage]

Congress cannot refuse to call it.

What does it mean by ‘call it’? It means the National Archives Office is directed to accept and log in amendments that have been passed by 34 states, start the clock and send them out for ratification to all states.

There is no one in Congress that could stop that from happening. There is no law to stop it. And no law can be passed to stop it that would not be subject to a constitutional challenge.

So it’s not going to happen.

[ThunderSleeps]

I have found is that people respond to being treated with respect.

You ought to take your own advice, **s.

[Kaosinla]

Aside from this poorly written article, we have been in an ongoing constitutional convention for a 100 yrs. Nine robes no longer interpret law, but rewrite it changing the course of the country. Congress has abdicated it’s constitutional powers and put the vast administrative state in control. The Executive has assumed law making powers, by decree refuses to enforce any law it disagrees with, and creates agencies/appoints officials that have no accountability to the voter.

This is a small sample of the despotism and corruption of the Fed. And, the solution will never come from D.C. where treason prospers. This seems to be the only “chance” before a call to arms.

[Publius]

You are confused.

To "call" a convention means to set the time and place of the convention. This is how it works.

1. The states send petitions to Congress for a convention to discuss a specific subject, or for a general convention open to all subjects.
2. The Archivist of the United States tabulates the petitions to Congress, and if a minimum of 34 states request a particular type of Amendments Convention, the Archivist sends a memorandum to Congress.
3. Congress passes a Joint Congressional Resolution setting the time and place for the Amendments Convention and names the subject matter. In terms of Contract Law, the states are the Principals, the Amendments Convention is the Agent, and the language of the subject matter is the Agency Agreement.

This is our bone of contention from my previous post about what happened in 1967.

1. Once the convention meets, assuming it passes one or more amendment proposals, those amendment proposals are delivered to Congress via the Archivist using a written memorandum.
2. Congress decides whether the states are to ratify via State Legislatures or State Ratifying Conventions. It passes a Joint Congressional Resolution sending the proposed amendments to the states with instructions as to how ratification is to be accomplished.
3. Letters of Ratification are sent to the Archivist, who tabulates them. If any proposed amendment is ratified by 38 states, the Archivist sends a written memorandum to congressional leadership.
4. Congress "accepts" the ratified amendment into the Constitution via a Joint Congressional Resolution.

I hope this clears up the confusion.

[Happy1947]

I wouldn’t trust anyone in government to write a Christmas card let alone slaughter the U.S. constitution.

[John Valentine]

Respect is tough to earn, and it can be easily lost. Repeated posting of ignorant, ill informed garbage will do the trick for you real quick.

[Hostage]

I wouldn’t say my presentation was ‘confusion’. I would say your presentation expounded on the general flow and provided some details.

As a matter of practicality, time and place will not be set by 535 members of Congress. I believe they could care less the place and might be a bit concerned about time but not enough to delay anything.

All administration including time and place will fall I will wager to the National Archives Office who will radio the proposed time and place set by the administrative body chosen by the States. As for contract law interpretation as to who is principal, agent, agency , that sounds like someone with an insurance background threw in some framework terms to professionalize the effort. I’m not sure it’s required but it does no harm in my view.

The basic flow should not be all that different than an amendment proposed by Congress except that the National Archives Office must deal with a minimum of 50 entities as opposed to one of Congress. Even so it is possible that States can consolidate their application with the requisite minimum 34 state certifications and send the one consolidation to the National Archives Office. Nothing written in stone there.

The National Archives is a federal office that is responsive to Congress and I will bet will act as a proxy for Congress in these matters. I don’t see where 535 members of Congress have any say-so on what flows in and out of Archives except when it comes time for ratification and a vote or resolution must be made regarding ratification by state legislatures or state conventions.

The National Archives Office will I am sure be tasked to keep the clock on the 7 year limit for ratification and to gather ratifications for tabulation. Once 38 ratifications are returned to Archives, then it becomes a part of the Constitution with requisite copies to the federal judiciary and congressional committees overseeing them but in general without any say of Congress. The most I see for any role of Congress is in the form of a sort of Amicus Curiae.

Nothing in Article V compels Congress to draw a formal resolution as to time and place. The text of the Constitution merely says Congress shall ‘call’, however the term ‘call’ might be construed.

But if those that are leading the Article V movement want to formalize procedural elements in the interest of ‘good order’, I see nothing wrong about it as long as it doesn’t become an effort that is substantial in itself. Whatever procedures are worked out should be made with the view that future Americans use it as a template but with elements that are not burdensome or overly elaborate. It should be straightforward.

I believe the intent of the language of Article V to ‘call’ a convention was written in the late 18th century when communications and deliberations necessitated long distance travel, some entourages and the expenses related thereto. Thus, I see the purpose of having Congress call a ‘Convention’ as calling Congress to pick up the tab or at least as travel agents.

Communications as they are today do not compel such travel and convention settings although the leaders of Article V today could very well feel more comfortable and productive to travel and meet their fellow state collaborators.

I see the bulk of the effort as the background work of lawyers, legislative architects, professors and concerned persons of wisdom and experience who will draft and distribute proposed ideas and amendment drafts from their office and home computers or their smartphone or tablets while mobile. In fact, that is happening now and is funded by state grants, donors and nonprofits. So there are already elements of nascent administration that are growing, developing and will continue until formal agreements are made by a minimum 34 states and the documents or document submitted to Archives with courtesy copies to Boehner, McConnell and other concerned parties.

The ‘call’ for a convention appears will be relegated to a mere formality. It will be amusing to see how Congress will carry out that formality because the whole process is one of their demotion!

If it was just me, I’d send the proposed document to Archives with a side note to Congress that says “Screw You!”.

[Hostage]

“Slaughter” the US Constitution?

Can you say ‘Hyperbole’?

[Nuc 1.1]

It is precisely because of this lawless administration, lawless courts, and lawless congress that we need to hold an Article V Conventation of States. I see no other peaceful alternative. Is your position that that a majority of state representatives would would vote in the affirmative for the evil this administration would propose? I think not. This convention should approve the repeal of the 17 Amendment and provide the state’s with the ability to nullify SCOTUS decisions by vote of two thirds of the state. This would be a good result of the first Convention of States and would build confidence for the next CoS.

[Nuc 1.1]

It is a great idea and is vital to restoring the power of the states.

[Nuc 1.1]

You are correct.

[Publius]

Most of the "scut" work would be handled by the Archivist. Certain parliamentary acts require Congress to do something, but that "something" is purely ministerial, as the Supreme Court said in 1921 (Dillon v. Gloss) and 1939 (Coleman v. Miller).

Congress would pass a Joint Congressional Resolution to "call" the convention just as the Confederation Congress did in 1787. Another JCR would send amendments to the states for ratification, and a final JCR would acknowledge that the amendments have been ratified and are now part of the Constitution. Two of the three JCR's are simply longstanding parliamentary practice and fall under the category of general housekeeping.

The JCR calling the convention would say something like, "The states shall send their delegations to the Corn Palace in Mitchell, South Dakota, on July 1, 2016, to discuss amendments to redress the balance between the states and the federal government." That's really all it would take. Nothing else would have to be said.

[Hostage]

Publius, thank you for your exquisite, precise and illuminating knowledge of history and its relevance to these discussions. I am sure we are all enriched by it. Have you been referred to any of the state groups working on Art V matters?