Support a Convention of States to end the tyranny of the federal government

cleveland.com ^ | 4/12/15 | Jim Petsche

[Publius]

Here's another one.

***

The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps: Proposal, Disposal, and Ratification.

Proposal:

There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.

• The Congressional Method requires the House and Senate to pass an amendment by a two-thirds majority.
• The Amendments Convention Method requires the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to apply to Congress to call a Convention for Proposing Amendments. The states may request a single-subject convention or a general convention open to all subjects. Once the two-thirds threshold is reached, Congress is required to set a time and place for the convention.

Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.

Disposal:

Once Congress, or an Amendments Convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:

• State Legislature Method, or the
• State Ratifying Convention Method.

The State Ratifying Convention Method has only been used twice: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.

Ratification:

Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three-quarters of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.

Forbidden Subjects:

Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and one implicitly forbidden subject.

Explicitly forbidden:

• No amendment may be added to the Constitution concerning slavery or capitation taxes until 1808. We’re past that deadline.
• No amendment may be added to the Constitution to change the principle of equal representation in the Senate unless every state deprived of that right approves. If California wants five senators, every state must have five senators. To permit violation of this principle, every state would have to ratify the amendment, not just three-fourths.

Implicitly forbidden:

• The Constitution of 1787 may not be abrogated and replaced with a new document. Article V only authorizes “a convention for proposing amendments to this Constitution”; therefore, the Constitution of 1787 is locked in place forever. Congress and an Amendments Convention have exactly the same Proposal power; therefore, neither Congress nor an Amendments Convention can start over. Both bodies can only propose amendments. To permit the drafting of a new constitution, this provision in Article V would first have to be repealed; it would be a two-step process.

I have two reference works for those interested.

The first is from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative pro-business group. This document has been sent to every state legislator in the country.

Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers

The second is a 1973 report from the American Bar Association attempting to identify gray areas in the amendatory process to include an Amendments Convention. It represents the view of the ruling class of 40 years ago. While I dislike some of their conclusions, they have laid out the precedents that may justify those conclusions. What I respect is the comprehensive job they did in locating all the gray areas. They went so far as to identify a gray area that didn't pop up until the Equal Rights Amendment crashed and burned a decade later. Even if you find yourself in disagreement with their vision, it's worth reading to see the view of the ruling class toward the process.

Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee

[zzeeman]

Yes, it goes without saying that the posts that you and Jacquerie supply are also very informative (and have been bookmarked already!!). I also salute your patience!!

[Jacquerie]

There is no one, not a single person among the three branches who was put there outside the bounds of the constitution.

[TaxPayer2000]

There is no one, not a single person among the three branches who was put there outside the bounds of the constitution.

so then there is no tyranny? Hurray! No need for a convention then.

[Mr Rogers]

“Fine. You oppose free government. Why do you bother posting to FR?”

Are you on drugs? Or just stupid?

[ConservingFreedom]

George Soros would donate $Bs to overcome the will of the people like he did to get legalized pot

All states that have legalized pot did so by voter referendum - so how was the will of the people overcome?

[mountainlion]

Only 16% of the people in Colorado now support pot now. The wording on the referendum made it sound like they were only going to tax medical pot. Soros types put in lots of money for adds making claims that were not true.

[itsahoot]

Besides, the anti-Constitutionalists were right - words on paper never limit the power grab of a government that exists in reality. The courts and legislatures will ALWAYS redefine things until black means white and they have power. If you create the structure that supports power, then no words will stop it from taking power.

A hard fact for many Freepers to get their head around.

[MarchonDC09122009]

RE:
By the very term, “con-con” you tag yourself as someone not worth listening to.

How disappointingly limited of you to squelch arguing against the peril of a constitutional convention, just because I used a term repeated by radical conservatives, such as Phyllis Schaffly, and Beverly LaHaye in similar cautioning about amending the constitution during the “Equal Rights” Era 30 years ago.
Hope you broaden your point of view, and language.

[Ken H]

Only 16% of the people in Colorado now support pot now.

Quinnipiac poll says otherwise =>

Poll: Colorado residents still back legal marijuana (58%-38%)

Feb 24, 2015

-snip-

Voters ages 18 to 34 favored it overwhelmingly, 82-16 percent, while 50 percent of those ages 55 and older were against it, with only 46 percent in support.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/poll-colorado-marijuana-115457.html

[Ken H]

The only worthwhile amendments are structural, like repeal of the 17th Amendment, which cannot be ignored.

Exactly! It can't be ignored or cheated.

[ConservingFreedom]

Only 16% of the people in Colorado now support pot now.

Wrong - "voters support legalized recreational marijuana 58 - 38 percent." February 24, 2015 http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/colorado/release-detail?ReleaseID=2166

The wording on the referendum made it sound like they were only going to tax medical pot.

Wrong again - the ballot title and submission clause began "Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning marijuana, and, in connection therewith, providing for the regulation of marijuana; permitting a person twenty-one years of age or older to consume or possess limited amounts of marijuana" and the full text's first clause was "In the interest of the efficient use of law enforcement resources, enhancing revenue for public purposes, and individual freedom, the people of the state of colorado find and declare that the use of marijuana should be legal for persons twenty-one years of age or older and taxed in a manner similar to alcohol." http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/ballot/contacts/2012.html

[NRx]

I believe you are mistaken. See this related thread.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3275941/posts

[Jacquerie]

<>See this related thread.<>

Read it yourself. I posted to it several times.

[Mr Rogers]

“Those amendments will still need to be ratified by the legislatures in 3/4s of the states to become part of the Constitution. Do you really think the left could get over that hurdle?”

Yes, I think the left could. I’ve met a LOT of folks who would gladly eliminate all religious freedom protections, calling it “tolerance”. I’ve met many who would gladly eliminate the right to bear arms.

Think of what is tolerated in the NFL & NBA, and is pushed on TV. 50 years ago, the county would have revolted at “gay marriage”. I think a majority now want it without ever thinking about what it means. Look at what has happened in Indiana recently. Do you really think Americans today would create a document as supportive of limited government power as those in the 1780s did?

And if they did, would the courts or Congress pay any more attention to them than they have to the 9th and 10th Amendments?

[Art in Idaho]

You’re welcome zzeeman.

[Ken H]

They couldn’t cheat on the selection of senators per Article II if the 17th were repealed.

[Ken H]

Make that ‘Article I’.

[bjorn14]

True but the vast majority are owned by persons with multiple weapons. Its been my experience that if you own one you own many. It would be interesting to see stats on how many guns a person owns vs. those who don’t any.

[Nuc 1.1]

Depending upon what amendment(s) is proposed and ratified, the states could be given the legal ability to overrule federal law and federal court dictates for example. Personally I believe the first COS should be a prototype and send the repeal of the 17th amendment to the states for ratification. After that one CoS per year until we get the d@mn federal government under control.