Posted on 09/21/2015 1:41:00 PM PDT by Hostage
(1) The general reasons beyond these rules are found in §3.14 of ROBERT G. NATELSON, STATE INITIATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS: A GUIDE FOR LAWYERS AND LEGISLATIVE DRAFTERS (2014) (popularly called the “Article V Compendium”—and hereinafter “COMPENDIUM”).
The specific rules derive from a variety of sources (including many prior conventions of states), but particularly from the rules adopted by the 1861 Washington Conference Convention, a general gathering of states that proposed a constitutional amendment. Those rules were, in turn, based on previous convention experience.
However, with one exception (election of certain committee members) the secrecy rules applying in earlier conventions have been dropped. Modern expectations are of openness.
(2) For an explanation of the selection of Mason’s Manual, see COMPENDIUM, §3.14.4. The 1850 Nashville convention designated Jefferson’s rules for the U.S. Senate as a default source, but that seems more dated and less familiar to most state lawmakers than Mason’s.
(3) This is derived from the practice of previous interstate conventions. The recommendation of the parliamentarian is an innovation based on a recommendation by an experienced legislator. COMPENDIUM §3.14.3. Some conventions have appointed assistant secretaries, but it would seem better to allow the secretary to appoint assistants without their being convention officers.
(4) This rule follows the parliamentary common law, see COMPENDIUM §3.14.1, but is placed here to answer questions frequently raised of how the convention is to control internal demonstrations or disorder.
(5) This is a clarification of precedent and of sometimes-confusing earlier convention rules.
(6) This follows unvarying former practice.
(7) The traditional order was for states to vote in a northeast-to-southwest order, but the current configuration of the country makes that difficult, and the alphabetical system is more familiar to modern Americans.
(8) This rule addresses the unfair and potentially unruly situation arising at the 1850 Nashville Convention, where Tennessee, although having only one vote, sent 100 commissioners, more than all other states combined. The Compendium recommends a maximum of five, which is justified by fact that this convention will include many more states than earlier conventions. The rules take account of the fact that some states may wish to appoint alternate commissioners.
(9) This is based, with the numbers adjusted for the larger number of states, on the rules of the 1861 Washington Convention. See COMPENDIUM §3.14.3.
(10) This is the order in Mason’s Manual, as modified for the fact that this is a convention not a legislative body. COMPENDIUM §3.14.5. The pledge of allegiance has been added in this version.
(11) The word “recess” to describe an adjournment from day-to-day is used in Mason’s Manual.
(12) This is based on the rules prevailing both at the 1787 Philadelphia Convention and the 1861 Washington Convention, although modified to take account of modern technology. COMPENDIUM § 3.14.5.
(13) COMPENDIUM §3.14.5.
(14) Id. The matter in brackets has been inserted for discussion.
(15) Added to reflect modern conditions. COMPENDIUM §3.14.5.
(16) Based on the Washington Convention rules, COMPENDIUM §3.14.5, but updated for modern conditions.
(17) This rule provides that a substantive motion is out of order unless germane to the subjects in the applications and call, whichever is narrower. Normally the subject matter of the applications and the call would be the same. In some cases, however, some of the 34 applications that trigger a convention on a particular subject might mention extraneous subjects. This language makes clear that the convention is to consider only subjects on which at least 34 applications agree, and which are therefore stated in the call.
(18) Based on the Washington Convention rules. Id.
(19) Based on the Washington Convention rules. Id.
(20) Based on a rule of the Washington Convention. Id. The language has been updated.
(21) This is loosely based on the 1774 New York City convention usually known as the First Continental Congress, but represents a compromise between the need for speed and a rule that mandated delay at the request of any delegation. Id.
(22) Based on a rule of the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, with language updated.
(23) COMPENDIUM §3.14.5.
(24) A proposed rule of the Washington Convention would have dispensed with the right of appeal, but the delegates rejected that provision. Compendium §3.14.5.
(25) The word “recess” to describe an adjournment from day-to-day is used in Mason’s Manual.
(26) Based on a rule of the Washington Convention. See COMPENDIUM §3.14.5.
(27) This optional rule is based on rules of the Washington and 1787 Philadelphia Conventions. Id. The rule reflects the high prestige of the presiding officers of those conventions, General George Washington and former President John Tyler. Other conventions have not adopted this rule, and whether any particular convention adopts it may depend on the identity of its own presiding officer.
(28) Based on a rule of the Washington Convention, with updated language. COMPENDIUM §3.14.5.
(29) The requirement for standing committees on fiscal restraints, federal jurisdiction, and term limits is based on the three-subject model application of Citzens for Self-Goverance’s “Convention of States” movement.
(30) Both plurality elections of committees and presidential appointment were used in prior conventions. Here, elections are reserved for the three most important committees. The convention is free to prescribe election at any time for other committees.
Earlier convention rules refer to “ballot.” The word “secret” is added because modern Americans may not be aware that the term “ballot” traditionally implies secrecy. Although most of the secrecy rules applied in older conventions have been dropped here, secrecy may be necessary in this case to ensure an impartial choice and to minimize hard feelings among commissioners.
(31) Based on a rule of the Washington Convention and modern legislative practice. COMPENDIUM §3.14.5.
(32) This Rule was developed for a convention convened pursuant to the three-subject “Convention of States” application. It sets forth a procedure for proposals within those three subjects, and prevents presiding officers from refusing to permit debate or votes on credible proposals within those three areas.
(33) Inclusion of the term exclusive would prevent the convention from creating committees to “wire around” the three standing committees mentioned in this section. There are obvious advantages and disadvantages to both including and omitting the term “exclusive.”
Please ping the list! Thank you!
Done.
Article V ping!
Looks good. Just get an oath of secrecy from all commissioners as to the proceedings, and keep the press entirely OUT!
Thanks!
The Convention Rules will be written by John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid.
And.
The Supreme Cabal will validate that. “Article V gives wide latitude to Congress to determine the calling of a convention.” That will be the Cabal money quote.
You want a convention to change the status quo but the status quo holds all the cards in calling a convention. As a result, if there ever is an Article V convention called, it’ll only be because the fix is in.
Additional concerns about an Article V Convention:
1. Congress calls the Convention, not the states. So, even if 34 states call for an Article V Convention, Congress is under no compulsion to accede.
2. Rereading Article V, it APPEARS that amendments are approved by the delegates, not brought back to the state legislatures. Probably a better mechanism.
I would add one rule. No delegate (commissioner) may be a state employee nor hold any elected or appointed office.
Interesting hallucination you seem to be having there. Do you hear voices too?
Ridicule instead of rational rebuttal. Hmmm.
You guys are hanging your hat that a straight up interpretation of the Constitution will occur. If we had a straight up interpretation of the Constitution, we wouldn’t be where we are in he first place.
The current government is an essential coup of Constitutional order. And, yet. You believe that I’m delusional by stating that the leaders of the current government will let not you use the Constitution to take their power back??!?
There are ways to take our government back and they do involve the states revolting against the current order. Article V is a fantasy.
Yep. You sure think you’re smarter than everyone else don’t you?
Yeah, all those state legislators and constitutional attorneys, professors of constitutional law, personas like Mark Levin, all those folks should just shut it down and pack it in because some nobody calling itself ‘ziravan’ is ranting on an internet forum that it’s all a fantasy.
Yeah sure.
We are in the miserable place we are precisely because we didn’t correct the mistakes of the past hundred years as they occurred.
Maybe it is too late. Maybe not. There is no loss in meeting peacefully in an attempt to restore free government.
Since we don't have a straight up interpretation of the Constitution, because our governing institutions have been corrupted from their designed purposes, is why an Article V convention is essential to the restoration of freedom.
Now I’m a know it all because you can appeal to authority???
Wow.
I actually do believe there will be a ConCon in my lifetime. I think it will be used just like it was in Matt Bracken’s book, to undermine the Constitution
The establishment knows we revere the Constitution. When all else fails, they will try to use that against us.
By using the term ‘Con-Con’ you reveal yourself.
Mark Levin right here time 28:10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdZuV8JnvvA
No sir.
I just used the word ConCon because I know it annoys you.
Liberal is to progressive
As ConCon is to Art V...
And it’s you my friend that’s stuck on the wording because of the need for a rebooted fresh start on the concept.
Excellent!
Yes it is. Note the use of the word "shall":
From Article V: "...on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention..."
Why would they bother? They undermine it every day!
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.