To Those Who Fear A Runaway Article V State Amendments Convention.

Vanity (A good one)

[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.

[Jacquerie]

<>politicians of all sorts tend to pick the easiest solution that does not kill their chances of reelection.<>

That is why the senate must be returned to the states. Make the personal interest of senators coincide with the interest of their states.

For one, I guarantee that state appointed senators would never consent to leftist appointments to the federal bench. To be a leftist requires hostility to federalism/10th Amendment.

[EternalVigilance]

Oh, so I calmly discuss the malicious lie that the proposal empowers the judiciary?

If you're going to so "calmly" call me malicious and a liar, at least have the courtesy to ping me. That's considered the decent thing to do on FR. One would think after a dozen years here you would know that.

My assertion is neither malicious, nor a lie. And you haven't made any case that it is either. All you've done is personally attack. Which means you don't really have any decent argument.

[EternalVigilance]

As long as we keep empowering that sort of politician, the kind who are more interested in reelection than in the keeping of their oath, and the survival of the republic, we’ll keep seeing the same results.

Our Constitution and political system cannot survive bad character in those we choose to represent us. It’s as simple as that.

And this plan does nothing at all to address that.

On its best day it’s a distraction. On its worst, it’s dangerous.

[Art in Idaho]

Bingo! Good points Jacqerie!

"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!

[lewislynn]

Vanity (A good one)

A little full of ourselves, aren't we.

Congress must call a convention upon applications from two thirds of the states, and determine the mode of ratification. That is all.

So what?

Really? You want a convention because you don't like the "EC"...That's the best you can come up with? What does the "EC" have to do with the importance of constitutional amendments? ...

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?

Are you sure we haven't? It's hard to believe anyone would try to make that connection/comparison to sell this...You "vanity" isn't helping your cause.

This is really getting to be a ridiculous cluster^&*k now.

[LibertyBorn]

The minute the Electoral College can propose entirely new candidates on their own, and even create new offices, and new rules for these new offices, and ignore the existing rules for Candidates and office, THEN, and ONLY THEN might there be any sort of valid comparison between the Electoral College and and Delegates at an Article V convention!

Those Delegates are NOT bound by any laws whatsoever, nor is there any sort of lawful punishment for electorates that don't adhere to any preconceived limits, when those limits don't exist anyway because they would prohibit the very latitude needed by the Delegates to openly engage discussion and negotiation!

Furthermore, the Convention has already been shanghaied, taken over and subverted by the deliberate intent of Congress, the federal government, and interests actually controlling the government! Any Convention is already hijacked and guaranteed to be a "runaway"! It's a done deal.

In a report from the Congressional Research Service on March 7, 2014, then revised on April 11, 2014, CRS itself indicates things that entirely contradict the unsupported claims being made about the safety of the Convention.

The CRS report, "Article V Convention" indicates the following:

1) Recognizes the sole and exclusive authority for the "amendment process" (not just "calling" the convention), residing with Congress:

“First,Article V delegates important and exclusive authority over the amendment process to Congress…” (page 4)

2) Congress alone, (not the States) can determine not only the NUMBER of delegates, but their selection process, and even how many votes each state is counted as having!

"Second, while the Constitution is silent on the mechanics of an Article V convention, Congress has traditionally laid claim to broad responsibilities in connection with a convention, including (1) receiving, judging, and recording state applications; (2) establishing procedures to summon a convention; (3) setting the amount of time allotted to its deliberations; (4) determining the number and selection process for its delegates; (5) setting internal convention procedures, including formulae for allocation of votes among the states; and (6) arranging for the formal transmission of any proposed amendments to the states." (Page 4)

NOTABLY , this "formulae for allocating votes" can and will massively sway the outcome of any amendment process, and is a GROSS corruption of the principle of the States themselves being Sovereign, thereby the sole Source of ANY authority for the Convention itself, and therefrom "one state, one vote", that vote not based at all on population, but rather State Sovereignty! By this, Congress can, and WILL, turn the outcome of the Convention into populist Marxist outcome, and not based on State sovereignty!

Thus, the Convention is unquestionably corrupted even before it is begun! Be alarmed, be very alarmed!

And the CRS report repeatedly returns to this idea that State votes at a Convention are to be based on population, rather than one vote per state, with CRS engaging presumptive arguments as if this were already established by election policy!

The FACT of the matter is there's at least one new Constitution already made up, one named the "Constitution for the New States of America". But don't worry, those "New States" will not even resemble the current States,as they will be entirely eradicated to avoid any confusion where the sovereignty now actually resides -- with the Washington ruling elites.

However please do not pretend as if a "Runaway Convention" has not happened before; in fact were batting 1000 on runaway conventions!

Rabid Convention proponents like to overlook the fact that a Convention of the States has already occurred before, in 1787, and that 1787 convention in Philadelphia was ENTIRELY RUNAWAY!. The Delegates were charged with writing ONLY amendments to the Articles of Confederation, and the the terms of ratification set to 100% State agreement. However those Delegates at the Convention in Philadelphia wrote an entirely new Constitution and even came up with their own terms of ratification, that being 3/4ths of the States, all in defiance of the existing law of the land.

Please DO go on about how a "runaway" corrupt convention is so unlikely!

And folks, please, it's not as if an Article V Convention is any sort of RATIONAL RESPONSE! People have to be off their damn rockers if they believe that "Writing more Constitution" is even a valid answer to government deliberately ignoring the existing Constitution! In fact, every single one of the proposed amendments entirely avoid recognizing the limited Enumerated Powers detailed in Article 1, Section 8, thereby not possibly doing anything at all to restore any sort of legitimacy!

In fact amending the Constitution at this time only serves to implicitly give valid government outside Constitution's limited terms. Even every one of the esteemed Mark Levin's amendments do nothing but validate the status quo, while offering only ineffective "treatments" to for only the symptoms, while leaving the real cause entirely unaffected.

It's time these Article V proponents wake up: We are not governed by the Constitution any longer, and those actually dictating the terms of the country are not the public facades in elected into office. Voting harder and writing more Constitution are not anywhere close to valid responses to what is going on all around us each and every day.

And in case some still imagine this issue is up for debate, even now there are those who recognize that some will refuse to have their actions tempered with reason and fact, and therefore they are arming themselves to stop a Convention at any cost. What these proponents have actually done is establish themselves as a threat to whatever Liberty we have left, and might regain in the future. These Convention proponents are actually the same mentality that got us to this condition in the first place -- each one nothing but a budding Machiavellian Social Engineer. If the were to have their Convention, what will be accomplished is the removal all legitimacy to any further demands that our Liberty be restored. It should be no surprise whatsoever that there are those willing to give their lives to prohibit that from happening.

"When faced with no possibility whatsoever of winning anything of value, and great likelihood of losing everything of precious value, the only rational decision is to walk away."

[Carry_Okie]

And the way things are in Washington is perfectly OK by you?

If the government ignores the Constitution we have now, why would you ever offer the same political class the opportunity to rewrite the rules to meet their preferences?

[central_va]

Weighted against an already ran away FedGov™ and a possible runaway article V convention well I will pick the latter every time. I think all the carping status quo cowards should STHU.

[central_va]

If the government ignores the Constitution we have now, why would you ever offer the same political class the opportunity to rewrite the rules to meet their preferences?

Because state governments are not so tainted. Even if they were it is better to have the power closer the people.

[central_va]

We would end up with a totally socialist government.

We already have a socialist/fascist government. You must be young perhaps 12? Are you a child that was born yesterday?

[Publius]

The Congressional Research Service is merely parroting the view in this document:

Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee

The ABA Report is the view of the ruling class of 40 years ago. The ABA is only a lobbying organization, and it would be foolish to take their view as incontrovertible, which is what the CRS has done.

Secondly, James Madison disagrees with your view that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was a runaway convention. Read Federalist #40 for details.

[okie01]

why would you ever offer the same political class the opportunity to rewrite the rules to meet their preferences?

Because the federal political class is not involved in a Convention of the States.

Shutting Washington totally out of the picture improves the convention environment substantially.

[central_va]

I don’t support it.

Great let's skip the BS and start killing each other. Screw peaceful means.

[usconservative]

You do realize that with the exception of TWO COUNTIES in Illinois, Illinois is a very red state.

[Shery]

The left got to a couple “staunch conservatives” and pretending to play to their cautious side, made it seem quite likely that it could go off the wheels easily, so these couple who were turned against it are hurting the process by their vocalization of outright lies, planted by the LEFT! This is the most sickening thing. But worse is that these “staunch conservatives” could be wooed by the left into turning against the ONLY thing we, the people, have left to use. It makes me mad!

[Nuc 1.1]

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other." -- John Adams

Hi EV missed you. Well that sums up our present problem perfectly. I believe Article V is our last chance to reign in the monster peacefully. Bringing power and authority closer to home can't harm. I would also forbid judical review. Among other changes that would remove legal authority from the federal government to become tyrants and restore private property rights. We are certainly in a very dangerous position.

[OldMissileer]

Bump for later.

[Carry_Okie]

Because state governments are not so tainted.

Oh yeah, Illinois, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington, Rhode Island, Maryland, Delaware, New York, Missouri, Vermont, Connecticut... You need a three quarter's threshold for a change, while existing UN treaties remain in place, and you think "the States can change it" when you need at least one of those States to agree.

What a load.

[Carry_Okie]

Shutting Washington totally out of the picture improves the convention environment substantially.

I guess post 78 applies to you too.

[EternalVigilance]

Howdy.

Doesn’t matter what you would do. What matters is who is picking the delegates, which in this case would be a bunch of people who have already shown they have little regard for the most important obligations of their oath. Garbage in, garbage out. Personnel IS policy, and all that.