Posted on 01/11/2016 11:34:38 AM PST by jazusamo
In recent years, a small but growing number of people have advocated a convention of states to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The reaction to the proposal has been hostile, out of all proportion to either the originality or the danger of such a convention.
The political left has been especially vehement in its denunciations of what they call "messing with the Constitution." A recent proposal by Governor Greg Abbott of Texas to hold a Constitutional convention of states has been denounced by the Texas branch of the American Civil Liberties Union and nationally by an editorial in the liberal "USA Today."
The irony in all this is that no one has messed with the Constitution more or longer than the political left, over the past hundred years.
This began with Progressives like Woodrow Wilson, who openly declared the Constitution an impediment to the kinds of "reforms" the Progressive movement wanted, and urged judges to "interpret" the Constitution in such a way as to loosen its limits on federal power.
It has long been a complaint of the left that the process of amending the Constitution is too hard, so they have depended on federal judges -- especially Supreme Court Justices -- to amend the Constitution, de facto and piecemeal, in a leftward direction.
This judicial amendment process has been going on now for generations, so that today government officials at the local, state or national level can often seize private property in disregard of the 5th Amendment's protections.
For nearly 40 years, the Supreme Court has been evading the 14th Amendment's provision of "equal protection" of the law for all, in order to let government-imposed group preferences and quotas continue, under the name of "affirmative action."
(Excerpt) Read more at creators.com ...
The Senate has no input in a COS event..
Representation is voluntary but it take 2/3 s of the States to have a Convention.
yes.....it would be a hoot...
There is a vast difference between a Constitutional Convention and a Convention of the States.
yes, someone does not know their history.
Anything the convention passes has to pass 3/4 of the states. How do they “run away”?
Excellent reply Publius - thanks!
Happy to help.
Correct, one would think the STATES would have a very keen interest in overturning the 17th.
Perhaps....I rarely hear much about it though.
In any case, bypassing the congress and essentially giving them the job of "mailman" is a very appealing idea.
Nice Summary: 2 + 2 = V
“a Constitutional convention of states has been denounced by the Texas branch of the American Civil Liberties Union”
denounced. why not finish reading?
The repreentatives to an Article V come out of the same pools of local political parties as those who end up in DC.
How anyone thinks that the A-V representatives would be of higher purpose is unbelievable. Most of those calling for the A-V claim that the problem is with the political party members in DC.
Once an A-V closes its doors, what kind of compromising and deal-making will take place? No one knows. Defenders claim that the states could reject their results. Why would states reject the result from the political representatives they sent?
Even so, the state legislatures would then vote on the resulting amendments.
Notice that ‘the people’ or ‘the citizens’ have no bearing on this. The only involvement they have is in the state legislators they elected. They have no say in the contents of proposed amendments or in the final state votes on the results.
The advocates seem to think a better set of politicians will represent them in an A-V than the ones they send to DC, when both sets come out of the same political party cesspools.
Threats are not absurd. Why are the employees of the VA afraid to talk? They have been threatened.
Either way, Congress must treat each proposed amendment separately, but I wonder about the public relations of it all?
The usual parliamentary procedure is to formulate one or more amendment proposals, vote to pass it (them) on to Congress for disposal, and then adjourn. Administratively, the act of transmitting the proposed amendment(s) to Congress is the last act before adjournment.
It has long been a complaint of the left that the process of amending the Constitution is too hard, so they have depended on federal judges -- especially Supreme Court Justices -- to amend the Constitution, de facto and piecemeal, in a leftward direction.Since the SCOTUS is the main issue, how will approving more amendments for them to ignore solve the problem?This judicial amendment process has been going on now for generations, so that today government officials at the local, state or national level can often seize private property in disregard of the 5th Amendment's protections.
For nearly 40 years, the Supreme Court has been evading the 14th Amendment's provision of "equal protection" of the law for all, in order to let government-imposed group preferences and quotas continue, under the name of "affirmative action."
No no no, don’t mess with the constitution! That would be terrible! Let’s just continue to simply ignore it like we’ve been doing for the past century.
Any amendment that came out of the convention would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states, same as any other amendment.
-PJ
Voting approval and transmission to Congress are two different administrative acts. While amendment proposals could be transmitted to Congress piecemeal, I don’t see that as the usual parliamentary procedure. It might invite a convention to stretch the boundaries of its call and mandate.
Bump for later study
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.