Posted on 05/02/2015 1:35:55 PM PDT by Jacquerie
A couple of prominent conservatives have expressed concern over the possibility of a ‘runaway’ Article V state amendments convention. Such is their anxiety that runaway tyranny from Rome-on-the-Potomac pales in comparison to the possible horrors of the states getting together to relieve their people from oppression. Are these concerns fact based or irrational or somewhere in between?
An important, and likewise extra-congressional vestige of the federal system of 1787, and quite similar to an Article V state amendments convention in its constitutional foundation remains in force today. It is the familiar Electoral College (EC). Like the state amendments convention, the EC is also a specific grant of constitutional authority distinct from congress, courts and presidents. Both the EC and Article V convention are temporary, and neither can be made subservient to any branch of the government. This renders the EC and state amendments convention separate from, and superior to the three branches of government. The state amendments convention process is created by Article V; it is not a component of any of the three branches of government created by the first three articles. The limits to congressional involvement and duties are in Article V. Congress must call a convention upon applications from two thirds of the states, and determine the mode of ratification. That is all.
The EC is also loathed by liberals. Witness the National Popular Vote movement. The EC and state amendments convention processes represent end runs around liberals’ wholly owned government in Washington DC and media. The EC and an Article V convention are federal and therefore anti-democratic, which is why libs despise the EC and are working toward complete nationalization of presidential voting. Libs love democracy. Recall the 17th Amendment which turned ambassadors from the states into three-term, democratic and demagogic congressmen.
The EC and state amendments convention processes are federal remnants of a more perfect union that placed liberty preserving institutions ahead of fuzzy pablum populism, and democracy.
If you oppose a state amendments convention, do you also fear the Electoral College?
The EC is extra-congressional and completely controlled by the states. If the states are so wild and politically insane, why haven’t we had ‘runaway’ sessions of the EC? For whomever the states cast their votes is entirely up to the individual states. They can split their votes between Uniparty candidates or cast votes for Joe Blow down the street. States can modify their statutes such that their legislatures may determine for whom to vote with zero input from their citizens. The EC confab is a one-day event. Isn’t that dangerous? There is no subsequent meeting that requires approval of three fourths of attendees to implement the results. Why haven’t we experienced a runaway Electoral College?
Why hasn’t congress set down the rules the states and EC must follow? Answer: Congress has no more authority to participate in the deliberations of the EC than it does to participate in, or set the rules for an Article V state amendments convention.
No state EC delegation ever ‘ran away’ because the simple fact is that the duties of electors are defined by state statute. Replace the term ‘elector’ with ‘delegate,’ and you have a situation identical to that of an Article V amendments convention.
Delegates will serve their states. They will have no attachment to any statutory authority under the US.
Article V now, while we can.
Where did I say throw ideals in the trash? Those are your words not mine.
To achieve progress towards ideals requires execution of a plan involving time, energy, action.
You ‘talk’ about ideals.
Article V is the ‘doing’, the constitutionally authorized means of achieving progress towards ideals.
Talking versus doing is what distinguishes opponents from proponents who advocate using Article V as the vehicle to strengthen the role of the Constitution’s design to secure and protect liberty.
To the extent they don't follow their oaths is because the US Congress has been corrupted. Corruption flows downhill. It doesn't begin with the people. We elect conservatives and half of them go rino or worse not because they are bad people, but we send them to corrupt institutions and wonder why they go bad.
The first corruption occurred in 1913, when senators were turned into three-term congressmen. From there it flowed to the executive, and then the courts.
Next month, Scotus may impose fag marriage on an unwilling nation.
Thank the 17A and decades of Article V opponents.
Whew, you had me worried. For a moment I thought you actually educated yourself and checked out the Indiana statute.
The analogy is not quite apt, IMHO. The Electoral College actually has the power to elect a President. A Convention of the States has no power to implement anything.
What many fail to realize is for many reasons normal political forms no longer matter. We are way past the time for formal(i.e. Constitutional means). Look who the electorate voted into office TWICE! Look who has a good chance to be elected in 2016.
"The Negro Community Organizer from Chicago" is flooding our country with people who only want what wealth remains and power to control every aspect of productive peoples lives. He is now considering forbidding the states from inquiring into prospective voters citizenship.
Given the reality of today's society one would be an imbecile to trust "delegates" with our constitution. Our constitution was developed by and for the European and it breaks down in the face of the Third World onslaught.
Delegates will do the will of their legislatures.
By 'authorizing legislation,' I hope you don't mean any limitation from Congress, for Congress has zero control over an amendments convention.
Please detach yourself from our tyrants in DC when considering an Article V federal convention. Any state that applies for an amendment convention will not appoint a sitting US congressman or senator.
Article V is the ‘doing’, the constitutionally authorized means of achieving progress towards ideals.
Nobody here that I have seen has questioned that such means are authorized.
What is at issue is the prudence of it, under the current set of circumstances.
Talking versus doing is what distinguishes opponents from proponents who advocate using Article V as the vehicle to strengthen the role of the Constitution’s design to secure and protect liberty.
The only thing worse than doing nothing is doing the wrong thing.
Your assertion that folks like me are doing nothing is simply false.
I’ll chime in on that.
> “1) Libs have learned that they don’t have to obey the rules. Witness Ebola and Congress doing whatever the hell they please: no budget, rampant over-the-top EO’s, trying to conduct treaty negotiations and bypass Senate ratificaiton, etc.”
You’re asking a question that is a sub-question to the question “What if Congress or the President choose to simply ignore the States?”.
The answer is not complicated. The important thing is that the states pay attention to what they have ratified and included in the Constitution. It matters not what the federal government does.
For example, 38 states have already taken action to uphold traditional marriage. If these 38 states ratify an amendment to uphold traditional marriage, it matters not what the federal government says or does.
Mark Levin addresses this issue beginning at 14:45 and much more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdZuV8JnvvA
That’s right, which makes the EC potentially more dangerous than a convention. Read further in my post.
No, I was referring to the state legislation, which once passed by the required number of states, creates the convention.
I wasn't referring to compliance with any new amendments, but rather compliance with the rules of how the convention itself is to be conducted.
> “The only thing worse than doing nothing is doing the wrong thing.”
What is wrong with states ratifying an amendment that requires the federal government to balance its budget?
What is wrong with states ratifying an amendment that defines marriage to be between on man and one woman?
What is wrong with states ratifying an amendment to term limit their US Senators?
> “our assertion that folks like me are doing nothing is simply false.”
With regards to issues your comments point to ‘talk’ as your only contribution.
With respect to Article V your ‘action’ is to mislead and create ‘fear’.
Alexander Hamilton discusses those Rights at length in Federalist #84, at a time before they were yet included in the Constitution as the Bill of Rights. To the dismay of those who now read Federalist #84 today, Hamilton argues at length why those rights should NOT be included in the Constitution. Many interpret Hamilton’s statements as cause to condemn him as a statist having no regard for those Rights, but in doing so they ignore Hamilton’s own words, as well as a great portion of this country’s more contemporary history.
Hamilton not only indicates why a Bill of Rights should be unnecessary, but beyond that, why the inclusion of such would even be “dangerous”:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.
They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.
To paraphrase what Hamilton indicated in #84, the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution would serve as a “colorable pretext”, or an excuse, for government to claim as powers those Rights actually stipulated in the Bill of Rights, and indeed Hamilton has been vindicated because this is precisely what our own history has shown.
Even we ourselves have been trained to reference that Bill of Rights as if it were actually the vital grant of those rights, when in truth it only recognizes rights that exist even outside it, even as indicated in the 9th Amendment itself. Our own reference to the “Second Amendment”, rather than directly referencing our unalienable right to keep and bear arms in our own defense, without caveat or infringement, shows the degree of our own brainwashing in treating the 2nd Amendment as if it were the actual provision of that right.
To understand how deep this corruption (ignorance) goes, on February 5, 2014, a U.S. Marine Major was asked on-air, “What about in furtherance of disarming [Americans, by the Military]…?” The Major replies “… in a Representative Democracy, if the House and Senate voted to outlaw arms, and changed the second amendment, and voted a law to outlaw arms, that is a law we’d have to abide by… that’s the way it works.”
This is scary stuff, particularly coming from our military! The right to keep and bear arms is NOT a grant from the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, but rather only a right recognized therein. Furthermore, no “law” is able to change the 2nd Amendment, nor is even any amendment to the Constitution able to change that fundamental right, which again is not a provision from the Constitution itself. The Constitution does not “allow for” the Right to keep and bear arms, but rather recognizes the existence of that unalienable right, and phrases it in the Second Amendment in context of the terms for the federal government. Furthermore, we are also deliberately NOT a “Representative Democracy”, but rather a Constitutional Republic. The people’s “representatives” have no authority to remove unalienable rights, no matter how large the majority may be that elected them.
IN FACT, the entire history of this country shows consistently how our rights have been taken from us, using the inclusion of a Bill of Rights as the pretext, or excuse, to do so. An entirely supported argument can be made as to "How the Bill of Rights Enslaved Us". This is a radical idea to many, but it is an accurate description of our history.
This is yet another reason why Amending the Constitution is such a extremely bad idea. Most certainly, if one does not have a real understanding of how our form of government has been so severely corrupted, they should not be allowed anywhere near amending the Constitution! Repeating our past history, precisely how we got to this condition now, is not any sort of valid remedy to this condition now.
Hostage, how is it you imagine that those in the State government are some sort of distinct angelic species immune to the corruptions and beliefs of the Federal government? Such a belief is nowhere supported by any actual fact, and entirely refuted by enormous volumes of history.
Those State governments are actually complicit in the federal corruption.
“Note how” you claim the the States are our salvation, but then resist recognizing that those States have the only sovereign authority to refuse the federal government’s exercise of usurped and illegitimate power.
I don’t believe that any amount of elections can fix our problems currently, as those problems are now a systemic corruption, entrenched in bureaucratized process and practice. In fact those elections only serve to validate the corruptions as a part of the legitimate political process. We ourselves are a part of that entrenchment.
“Oaths” of office can no more rationally fix these problems, than can amending the document to which those persons swear their oaths.
Article V no more says "Convention of the States" than it indicates "Constitutional Convention" (Con Con). Strictly speaking, NEITHER are used in Article V of the Constitution! What Article V of the U.S. Constitution actually indicates is, " shall call a convention for proposing amendments." However even that "proposing amendments" is not a valid reference for what can occur and what those founders themselves did in 1787, as they did not just "propose amendments."
In a speech on Article V given on September 16th, 2010 law professor Robert G Natelson indicated (page 10):
"Accordingly, I’m going to put our concepts on “reset” — or perhaps give you an instant replay — so we can look at the process the way the founders saw it. However, one thing I hope you will never hear from my lips, at least today, in discussing this particular type of convention, is the words — and I hope this is the last time I’ll say them —“constitutional convention” because a convention for proposing amendments is not, properly speaking, a constitutional convention. I often have made the mistake of calling it that, but it is a serious mistake because it causes people to misunderstand what the convention is all about. The Constitution gives the convention a specific name— a convention for proposing amendments — and I think we should call it that or perhaps an Article V convention, an amendments convention, or a convention of the states. "
Calling it "Convention of the States" is nothing but deliberate propaganda, even by Natelson's own recognition. What does this propaganda serve? It serves to draw attention away from THE FACT that the delegates by such a Convention (by whatever name) have the unlimited authority to create an entirely new Constitution, just as those "founders" Natelson references did in 1787. However some less-than-honest proponents of a "Convention of the States" don't want people to realize the threat and hazard.
While the phrase "Constitutional Convention" does not necessarily involve the entirety of the Constitution being overturned, Natelson is actually concerned that use of the term may cause people to be aware of the hazard posed by such a convention, particularly given the fact that the one previous time such a convention occurred, it did indeed resulted in the entire overthrow of the existing constitution.
The FACT of historical precedent is that the already set by those founder's themselves, and Congress, as shown by CRS's own report, fully intends to use that precedent, in order to make the Convention be swayed by pupulation numbers, and therefore the results be based on pupular SOCIALISM, taking more of our rights, and government's limitations.
Natelson's indication of the people's "misunderstanding" would actually be the people's correct understanding of the ACTUAL THREAT ... and people should wonder why Natelson feels so compelled to be deliberately misrepresentative.
For instance if the CA legislature wants a concentration camp amendment for conservatives, at least twenty-five other state legislatures will have to empower their delegates to vote in favor.
Our assets are their collateral.
Look, you’ve been caught stepping in it. Time to fess up and stop stepping in it further. You can still retain credibility but it’s not anyone’s fault but your own that you stepped in what you stepped in. Your opening this to carbon trading is an evasive maneuver. It has nothing to do with Article V.
The globalist agenda has everything to do with what will happen in an Article V convention once your "sovereign States" chumps, many of which are insolvent themselves, are forced to confront the need for three-fourths of them to ratify the output. That is why I posted the list of Slave Party States that I did.
You stepped in it.
I don't want secret negotiations over a "package" of amendments, "take it or leave it." I want Amendments proposed and ratified one-by-one, each on its own merits. If we can't get agreement over a simple item like treaty ratification by 2/3 of the full Senate (never mind repealing the 17th), the rest of it is a very dangerous pipe dream.
It is possible that a few crazies can unleash themselves at the convention, especially the John Birchers. But the rules call for escorting them outside and banning their further participation.
It is also possible that Soros can have his agents work an amendment proposal to announcement but it will need 34 states to deem it as an amendment and 38 states to approve/ratify it as part of the Constitution.
The idea that things will become ‘runaway’ is absurd.
The people on these rules committees are not newbies to good order and government processes. Many fine lawyers, professors of law, and historians are involved in this and are not going to waste their time on John Birchers or agents of Soros.
Mark Levin at time 28:10:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdZuV8JnvvA
I have often found that NOT to be true.
If you do the wrong thing, you will quickly find out and can fix it. If you do nothing, nothing changes.
So what is the risk of a convention being / doing the wrong thing?
First, if the delegates sense that the convention is being disrupted by unserious agitators, they can simply adjourn and disband.
If they survive the existential attack, they can prevent amendment proposals from passing out of the convention.
If a rogue amendment passes, there are still 13 states that can stop it.
Doing nothing prevents all of these other fail-safes from ever being given a chance, and enshrines the current dysfunction as the status quo.
-PJ
I've said nothing that is any way misleading, and the headline on this thread was an invitation to those who have fears about this plan. I've expressed quite succinctly what my fears of this are. And nothing that has been said here has changed my mind. "You're stupid" doesn't count as an argument.
Bottom line? My focus is on finding candidates that understand the most basic and important obligations of their oath, and who will consistently keep them, and then doing whatever I can to help them get elected.
I have no interest in having the Constitution changed by the very people who have proven that they will not keep their oath.
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.