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

Skip to comments.

A Constitutional Convention Should Enact Judicial Term Limits
thefederalist.com ^ | 4/29/15 | Jason C. Gay

Posted on 04/29/2015 4:19:38 PM PDT by cotton1706

Just last month, North Dakota became the twenty-seventh state to call for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Since the states cannot directly amend the Constitution, this call comes in the form of a resolution calling for a convention that will propose such an amendment—the as-of-yet unused second method for passing amendments outlined in Article V of the Constitution. Whatever motivations may underlie such actions, the 1787 Constitutional Convention teaches us that the end results of such a meeting may not match its initial calls.

In 1787 there was no Constitution, and the meeting at the State House in Philadelphia was intended to change the failing Articles of Confederation, not create a new form of government. Given that the Constitution was written both with the foresight of a need for amending and a convention being one of the two approved methods for doing so, it is hard to imagine so drastic a result from a modern convention. There is, however, no reason to assume that a convention will cover only one topic or that delegates would ignore topics their state had not considered.

Radio talk show host Mark Levin has long been outlining a framework for several changes he would like to see result from a convention, but his proposal clearly places no limitation on the potential meeting. We need only consider the possibility of a state that had not called for the convention proposing something the other states had not considered to understand the possibility of additional topics—only 34 states are needed, leaving up to 16 states to possibly send delegates with no clear mandate.

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: conventionofstates
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last
To: cotton1706

I am fearful of the damage a constitutional convention could do to the united state but if we were to have one I would call for having the attorney general made either a elected position like the vice president or have it appointed by the senate. the current situation shows how broken it is having the president in control of the position


21 posted on 04/29/2015 5:52:52 PM PDT by PCPOET7 (BUT MAK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Know et al
It's not a true constitutional convention, but a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution. Read below.

***

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.

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:

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:

Implicitly forbidden:

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

22 posted on 04/29/2015 6:05:24 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

That is what the CoS does, propose amendments. Know you know that.


23 posted on 04/29/2015 6:14:23 PM PDT by Nuc 1.1 (Nuc 1 Liberals aren't Patriots. Remember 1789!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Publius
Understood Publius but I would still be a bit leery of any tinkering with a Constitution by our current “representatives”. We have been betrayed so many times.

Thanks for the information though. I will keep it handy.

24 posted on 04/29/2015 6:16:05 PM PDT by Know et al (Keep on Freepin'!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Know et al
"Our current representatives" in Congress could propose 64 amendments tomorrow if they so chose.

A Convention of the States would have the legislatures of the states appoint delegates to the convention. "Our current representatives" in Congress would have nothing to say except to set the time and place under the terms of Article V.

Or are you saying that you don't trust your state legislators, or the legislators of any other state?

25 posted on 04/29/2015 6:22:11 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Publius
Or are you saying that you don't trust your state legislators, or the legislators of any other state?

I believe the state legislatures are more conservative than their federal counterparts but not as conservative as is needed.

I would worry about any attempt to alter the Constitution in the current political climate.

As others have expressed on this forum; abide by the Constitution as written. It hasn't failed. Our current government has failed it and us.

26 posted on 04/29/2015 6:38:29 PM PDT by Know et al (Keep on Freepin'!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Publius
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.


Implicit prohibitions are against the founding principles of the nation and a violation of the people's sovereignty. Laws, rules, regulations, and treaties must be explicit, an authentic representation of will of the people and published. The people willfully voided the US Constitution with the election of an ineligible President Obama. The Electors of the Electoral College could have prevented an ineligible President by voting faithlessly, but chose not to. President Obama is the leader of the nation until the people choose a new leader. The US Congress, the Federal courts, all US federal officers and the various State Legislatures have acquiesced to the will of the people in violation of Article VI of the US Constitution.


27 posted on 04/29/2015 7:00:44 PM PDT by SvenMagnussen (1983 ... the year Obama became a naturalized U.S. citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706
For those who think the Article V process is too risky, I ask, "What other options do you see?"

To summarize from a previous post by GraceG:

1. Elect More Republicans - Failed due to RINO/Uni-party confluence.

2. Article V Convention of States to propose Amendments - Needed to try to take power from the federal government back to the states and reel in the federal leviathan.

3. State Nullification - Last ditch effort to try to take power back from the federal monster, though by this point it may be too late.

4. State Secession - Could either end up peaceably like the breakup of the Czechoslovakia in 1993 or a brutal:

5. Civil War II like the first one.... The longer we wait on #2, the more likely #3, then #4 and finally #5. .

So, do we do nothing and just wait for # 5?

Quick review: We need 34 states to pass an application, then Congress shall, by law, call a Convention of States as soon as it receives applications from 2/3 of the State Legislatures. That's 34 states. We now have 30 working on it. Amendments are proposed and voted on at the convention. Each Amendment must be ratified by ¾ of the states in order to become part of the US Constitution. That’s 38 states.

“There are far more political and legal constraints on a runaway convention than on a runaway Congress.” - Robert Natelson

Most FReepers are aware of these links, but I post anyway for review and for people new to Article V. It is our responsibility to make Article V the most understood aspect of the US Constitution.

****Please see this summary video from Alabama first: Convention of States - Alabama Way to go Alabama! A great introduction!

Rep. Bill Taylor introduces a Convention of States

Convention of States Live! with Mike Farris

The Case for an Article V Convention. Great explanation of an Article V convention to the Massachusetts State Legislature.

**** Convention of States Lots of information here.

Call a Convention A call for a Convention of States

Article V Project to Restore Liberty Another good source.

Convention of States model Resolution

A Summary of Mark Levin’s Proposed Amendments by Jacquerie

Chapter 1 of Mark Levin’s Book, The Liberty Amendments

Mark Levin, Constitution Article V, and the Liberty Amendments

Mark Levin: “The Liberty Amendments” - Complete Sean Hannity Special + other Links

List of Mark Levin You Tube Videos

Mark Levin Article V, Liberty Amendments youtube video hub

Three hour video of C-Span interview with Mark Levin

*** Mark Levin’s ALEC Speech, Dec 4, 2014

Gaining Steam? Nearly 100 Lawmakers Descend on Mount Vernon to Talk Convention of States The beginning.

Mark Levin’s “Liberty Amendments” Sean Hannity Special

We can fight the uniparty! States, the Natural Second Party by Jacquerie

Convention to Propose Amendments to the United States Constitution

The Other Way to Amend the Constitution: The Article V Constitutional Convention Amendment Process

Amendment Booklet.pdf

Friends of Article V Convention Links

Congress’ Present Duty to Call a Convention:

Congress’ Present Duty to Call a Convention. (Part I)

Congress’ Present Duty to Call a convention. (Part II)

Congress’ Present Duty to Call a Convention. (Part III)

Congress’ Present Duty to Call a Convention. (Part IV)

Congress’ Present Duty to Call a Convention. (Part V)

Congress’ Failure to Call an Amendments Convention. (Part VI)

Ulysses at the Mast: Democracy, Federalism, and the Sirens' Song of the Seventeenth Amendment by Jay Bybee. Repeal the 17th ! Shorter Abstract here: Ulysses at the Mast, one page Abstract

****For those of you that still have doubts about the Article V process, please review: Responses To Convention Of States Opposition My initial concerns were resolved after reading these articles. My attitude now is Go For It!

Sarah Palin: Debunking the myths of a Convention of States

A Single-Subject Convention Addresses the “runaway convention” fear.

John Birch Society Denies Its History and Betrays Its Mission The original Birchers were for an Article V Convention.

Update: Convention of States by the numbers The current State count

Convention of States Gaining Momentum

Article V Latest News

Article V Handbook - for State Legislators An important resource.

**** State Legislators Article V Caucus State Legislators, Join up at this site!

Most State Legislatures are in session now. Send this list of links to your State Representatives and Senators here: Contact your State Legislators.

Sample Letter to state Representatives regarding the Convention of States Project and also, Talking Points.

Excellent Article V Letter to a State Assemblyman by Jacquerie

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke.

Let’s all work together to get this going!

28 posted on 04/29/2015 7:06:59 PM PDT by Art in Idaho (Conservatism is the only Hope for Western Civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

IMO a decent argument can be made for a Federal judicial term limit of a single 10-12 year term.


29 posted on 04/29/2015 7:26:20 PM PDT by Thud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Know et al
If you follow the contents of this entry and read the linked essays, you'll see the difficulty of following the Constitution "as it is written" because current legal doctrine has determined that the Constitution has evolved even though its words have never changed.
30 posted on 04/29/2015 7:33:13 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GenXteacher
California's experience with such a requirement is that state appellate and supreme court judges still go loony tunes. I only recall one instance where one of them went down in a "keep 'em or heave 'em" retention election, about 40 years ago when Rose Bird and a former law professor of mine (Joe Grodin) were defeated in a Supreme Court retention election over their attempt to abolish the death penalty.

IMO the only effective way to deal with Federal judges usurping legislative powers, while preserving their independence from the President, is to make them fully elective. That would be easy to implement but would create its own problems. There are no easy answers. Here's the simplest way of doing it:

All Federal judicial offices shall be elective on such terms and conditions as Congress may allow. The President may fill vacancies by appointment."

31 posted on 04/29/2015 7:34:52 PM PDT by Thud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

It is NOT a ConCon. It IS a Convention of the States for proposing Amendments to the Constitution. Read Marl Levin’s book “The Liberty Amendments” for further clarification.


32 posted on 04/29/2015 8:32:34 PM PDT by Postman (Flies on 0re0 know doodoo when they see it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

I read your home page. How could you have posted this????


33 posted on 04/29/2015 8:34:04 PM PDT by Postman (Flies on 0re0 know doodoo when they see it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
Repeal of the 17th is at the top of my wish list. I continue to work and pray for a miracle that the light bulb comes on for enough Americans to make this happen. All of Mark Levin's suggested amendments are needed, but this one might be enough to help us drag the constitution out of the dirt.
34 posted on 04/29/2015 9:04:24 PM PDT by GILTN1stborn ( #rememberbenghazi #extortion17 #impeachobama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Postman

It will be whatever the state legislatures want it to be. If 3/4 of the state legislatures adopt any given amendment passed by a convention, it’s valid. Ditto if they adopt all of a convention’s proposed amendments, or if 3/4 of the state legislatures adopt a brand new Constitution. That happened in 1787.


35 posted on 04/29/2015 9:23:20 PM PDT by Thud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Know et al
The news almost every day illustrates that no constitution is self-enforcing. It takes institutions with distinct interests to protect. Before the 17th Amendment, we had that institution.

Just Enforce the Constitution We Have

36 posted on 04/30/2015 1:27:20 AM PDT by Jacquerie (To shun Article V is to embrace tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706
In 1787 there was no Constitution, and the meeting at the State House in Philadelphia was intended to change the failing Articles of Confederation, not create a new form of government.

I believe 10 of the 12 states that sent delegates to the convention DID authorize their delegates to create an entirely new document. I'm not sure that there were mandates to do so, however.

37 posted on 04/30/2015 5:02:21 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Celebrate Holy Week by flogging a banker. It's what Jesus would have done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

The author is an idiot.


38 posted on 04/30/2015 7:44:27 AM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thud

Fully elective is suitable. The judicial branch needs to be held accountable for its legislation.


39 posted on 04/30/2015 6:58:49 PM PDT by GenXteacher (You have chosen dishonor to avoid war; you shall have war also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Publius
Do you know who made that graphic? I did! In fact I just created a new one with a web page to go with it:


40 posted on 05/01/2015 3:58:56 PM PDT by Nateman (If liberals are not screaming you are doing it wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 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