Congress Nears 34 Article V Convention Count

nolanchart.com ^ | 8/22/16 | Bill Walker

[cotton1706]

It’s real simple. For months the House Judiciary Committee has been gathering what amounts to an official list of applying states for an Article V Convention call. As of August 20, 2016, the committee’s official list shows 29 applying states. As we explain elsewhere so-called rescissions do not count as no provision in the Constitution allows states to rescind applications. Further, federal law prohibits removal of federal records by federal officials. Therefore the committee has already collected sufficient applications to cause a convention call. Indeed the full public record of state applications shows the states have submitted sufficient applications to cause TEN convention calls. Based on the total number of applications in the public record and fact the committee posts approximately 12 new applications about once a month, the magic “34” applications, or two thirds of the state legislatures needed to cause Congress to call a convention should be reached in two to four weeks regardless whether so-called “recessions” are counted or not.

For example, the public record shows that in 1979 seven states (Colorado, Maryland, New Mexico, North Carolina, Indiana, Washington and Iowa) submitted applications for an Article V Convention.

I would like to thank ArticleV.org for providing us this map of the current applications collected by the committee. The map will be updated on the FOAVC website (http://www.foavc.org) as the House committee posts new applications.

[Reddy]

I still don’t get this.

The current administration and globalists don’t respect or uphold the current constitution, so we are gong to add more to the constitution, then they will obey the law?

[Trump Girl Kit Cat]

I think the purpose of Article V is to amend the Constution for term limits, these asshats WILL NEVER vote term limits for themselves it will be up to the states to make this happen!!!

[Reddy]

We already have term limits. It’s called voting.

The problem lies with the electorate. :(

[Nero Germanicus]

In 1868 the states of New Jersey, Ohio and Oregon rescinded their ratifications of the 14th Amendment. New Jersey re-ratified it in 2003; Ohio also re-ratified it in 2003 and Oregon re-ratified it in 1973.

[Ray76]

This is extremely ill advised.

[flamberge]

We already have term limits. It’s called voting.

No, we do not have term limits. How quaint that we still believe politicians need actual voters to be re-elected. What they need most is money.

The political system rewards looters and their cronies. The longer they stay in office, the stronger they get. While that might be described as "a problem with the electorate", it is a systemic problem that cannot be fixed by scolding people to behave better.

And if the voters do not like it, they can always be replaced by new immigrants who will vote the right way.

People always respond to whatever incentives a system provides.

[nathanbedford]

The bogeyman of a runaway convention of the states has been advanced, often by the same individuals, in thread after thread. The idea that leftists could take over such a convention is arithmetically and practically improbable to the point of near impossibility. Yet in thread after thread we hear the same fatuous refrain.

Here here is an analysis first posted in 2015:

There are 99 houses in 50 state legislatures. Any leftist amendment would require only 13 of these legislative bodies from 99 to defeat ratification. In other words, three quarters of the state legislatures must ratify or 38 states. If 13 legislatures fail to ratify the amendment is defeated. Since ratification by legislatures requires both houses to consent, only 13/99 are required. That is very close to 13%.

After the last election Republicans control 69 houses of the 99 state legislative houses. Republicans control 31 of the 50 state legislatures. To stop any unwise or imprudent amendment would require only 13 of these 69 Statehouses (from different states) or about 19%, fewer than one in five.

The problem will not be to stop left-wing amendments but to pass prudent conservative amendments which restore the Constitution by invoking the Constitution.

If the Congress of the United States elects to have the ratification procedures conducted by conventions rather than legislatures, the method of selecting the delegates to those conventions would be chosen by the legislatures. If only 13 legislative bodies out of 99 object to the method chosen by the other body because it is considered to favor a leftist amendment, there is no ratification forthcoming from that state.

By either procedure the odds of a liberal amendment getting past so many conservative legislative bodies in so many states is both arithmetically and practically remote.

Finally, this is only the last line of defense, there are innumerable steps along the way which make a "runaway convention" virtually impossible and render the need for the states to fail to ratify very likely superfluous.

[nathanbedford]

So far it seems to me that opposition to Article V boils down to about four objections:

1. It won't work -so don't bother trying.

2. It won't work, even if it does work, because "they" will undo it, ignore it, or somehow overrule it, so don't bother trying.

3. It will work, but don't try it because it will work only for the other side.

4. No opinion on whether it will work or will not work, but the Constitution we have is just fine so the solution offered by the Constitution itself in Article V should be ignored in favor of redoubling our efforts and doing more of the same every election cycle because this time we will get different results.

Which category are you in?

[Jacquerie]

Hmmm, I checked out the House Judiciary website and searched the terms, Article V and Convention. No hits.

Still, imagine the effect on our national discourse this campaign season if Drudge set a siren above the headline “House Judiciary Committee Recommends Article V Call to Convention.”

[MarchonDC09122009]

Sir,
I choose objections 3, 2 and 1 as reasons for not altering our US Constitution, (or state constitutions for that matter).

I maintain that we Americans have never been as collectively unqualified to constructively improve upon the US Constitution due to following deficiencies in our:

Morality
Mental health
IQ
Civics - US and world government knowledge
US and world history knowledge
World affairs

Please let me know if you or anyone else would like me to provide credible studies citations for each of the assertions I make.

Do you agree with the following statements from our founding fathers?

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” - Thomas Jefferson

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” - John Adams

“Republican governments could be supported only by pure Religion or Austere Morals. Public virtue cannot exist in a Nation without private Virtue, and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics.” - John Adams

Ask yourself very honestly.
Do you trust our US and state legislators, the American people, news media, academia, thousands of lobbying groups, to act in an informed, intelligent, selfless moral manner during the Article V Constitutional revision process?

What absolute safeguards are there to ensure the revision process will nor become hijacked and corrupted?

I Strongly maintain the US Constitution is not the problem for any of our current problems.
Our collective ignorance, immorality, and cowardice is the root of all of our problems.

The solution is to ceaselessly raise our voices, organize, ridicule, protest enmass and most importantly, Defeat all politicians who are enemies of a free republic.
Politicians and bureaucrats only see the light when they feel the heat.

Having immoral ignorant people change the Constitution is as ill-advised as trying to become health and strong through experimental genetic therapy.
The cure is very likely worse than the disease.

Best FReegards to you and your family.

RE: “So far it seems to me that opposition to Article V boils down to about four objections:

1. It won’t work -so don’t bother trying.

2. It won’t work, even if it does work, because “they” will undo it, ignore it, or somehow overrule it, so don’t bother trying.

3. It will work, but don’t try it because it will work only for the other side.

4. No opinion on whether it will work or will not work, but the Constitution we have is just fine so the solution offered by the Constitution itself in Article V should be ignored in favor of redoubling our efforts and doing more of the same every election cycle because this time we will get different results.

Which category are you in?”

[nathanbedford]

To augment your important factual contribution, I would add that it is not at all surprising that the powers in Washington have agreed whenever possible that an application for an Article V convention of the states does not qualify. That is because the Article V provisions are explicitly designed to remove power from the government in Washington and restore it to the states and to the people. Naturally the speaker of the House of Representatives, a careerist in Washington, wants to retain his own power and the power of the establishment which he represents.

One reads in reply after reply that conservatives, especially those concerned to preserve their rights to bear arms, are fearful that the Constitution will be amended by the very people who were today distorting it but they ought to understand that it will be a whole different group of people, those selected by state legislatures, who undertake to amend the Constitution. Presumably, their interests will be inimical to the interests of the Washington establishment. Human nature is to seek power so they will seek power for themselves in the states.

That observation does not imply that we are naïve, we understand the frailty of human nature, we understand the venality of politicians, we expect state politicians to be corrupt in their own way. The point is that their self-interest, at least for the moment, aligns with the best interests of the nation as conservatives should see those interests.

[nathanbedford]

difference between article V and con-con???

The difference is roughly the same as between Article V convention of the states and a con-dom

[Georgia Girl 2]

The Constitution of the United states needs to be restored and adhered to not amended.

A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is not going to cure the spend and tax problem in Washington, DC. Everytime the Congress can’t balance the budget they will simply raise taxes.

We face two huge root problems. The size of government and an activist judiciary. Neither can be solved by an Article V convention.

How many of the current government agencies and sub agencies are listed in the Constitution? Where in the Constitution does it call for the extensive Federal judiciary we currently endure? Where in the Constitution does it say the federal judiciary has jurisdiction over a sovereign state?

The answer to our problems lies in the Constitution as it stands. The remedy for government overreach is the 10th Amendment. The remedy for an outsized bureaucracy is for the Congress and the President to do their duty and cut the size of government to a manageable level.

Where in the Constitution do you see the EPA, DEA, ATF, Dept of Educ etc etc? The answer is nowhere. The states should be ignoring all of their non constitutional regulations.

The Constitution specifically states that only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over a sovereign state. States should be completely ignoring decisions by dist federal judges that attempt to strike down voter ID laws and immigration laws and environmental dictates such as closing power plants and the like.

State legislatures are of course going to be happy to try to amend the Constitution to order them to do what they should already be doing and are empowered to do by the existing document. The same goes for Congress.

There is a remedy in the Constitution for every govt ailment. The is as always very little will to use the remedy.

[nathanbedford]

We face two huge root problems. The size of government and an activist judiciary. Neither can be solved by an Article V convention.

Actually, both problems can be solved by Article V unless you think that repeating the same failed efforts over and over will somehow get you a different result. Another poster put it even better than I can, do you think you can scold people into conformity with the original Constitution?

As to activist judiciary, there are proposed amendments afoot which would submit court decisions to review by the states with a two thirds or three quarter process. If two thirds or three quarters of the states so vote, the Supreme Court decision is reversed. Voilà! You just put the fear of God in the judiciary and if their excesses are too great you have solved the problem of an activist judiciary.

How many of the current government agencies and sub agencies are listed in the Constitution? Where in the Constitution does it call for the extensive Federal judiciary we currently endure? Where in the Constitution does it say the federal judiciary has jurisdiction over a sovereign state?

You do realize that you are arguing against yourself here, you appear to be saying that because the original Constitution has been ignored and violated we should not attempt to change it. Again, there are proposed amendments afoot which would cure the very problem of which you complain: an amendment which provides that unless Congress by a majority or a supermajority approves significant regulations done by federal agencies (read the EPA or the education bureaucracy), the regulation is repealed. Voilà! Your objection to an unaccountable, uncontrollable bureaucracy is cured.

The answer to our problems lies in the Constitution as it stands. The remedy for government overreach is the 10th Amendment. The remedy for an outsized bureaucracy is for the Congress and the President to do their duty and cut the size of government to a manageable level.

The response to that argument is that we have had hundreds of years of experience and the 10th amendment is dead letter. Your proposal has not worked and will not work. As to the outsized bureaucracy, that quite laudable goal of yours has been addressed above. If you want to restore the 10th amendment you need Article V.

The Constitution specifically states that only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over a sovereign state.

No it doesn't.

State legislatures are of course going to be happy to try to amend the Constitution to order them to do what they should already be doing and are empowered to do by the existing document. The same goes for Congress.

I quite agree that the state legislatures will be inclined to enhance their own power at the cost of the federal government-that is simply human nature. But history has shown that Congress itself is quite hostile to Article V because it was severely diminish their authority. The attitude of Congress ought to tell you something.

[Nero Germanicus]

It takes approval by 38 state legslatures or state-level conventions (3/4ths of the states) to actually amend the Constitution via Constitutional convention. Under current political realities the Democrats control both Houses of 11 states’ legislatures, the Republicans control 30 states and 8 states have partisan control that is split between the two parties. Nebraska has a unicameral, non-partisan legislature that leans conservative.

[Georgia Girl 2]

If you cannot get congress and govt agencies to follow the Constitution and current amendments you will not be able to compel them to follow new amendments. The major flaw in the Article Fiver’s argument is believing that changing the document will change behavior. It will not. Case in point, the 17th amendment.

The states need to take back their power and they have a constitutional remedy for it. The 10th Amendment. Use it.

[nathanbedford]

If you cannot get congress and govt agencies to follow the Constitution and current amendments you will not be able to compel them to follow new amendments.

In support of this dubious proposition which is contradicted by the examples I gave you in my previous reply, you apparently cite the 17th amendment. The problem for you is that the 17th amendment has been followed to the letter.

The 13th amendment has been followed, the 17th amendment has been followed and many other amendments have been followed and have changed the course of American history. The amendments which I have reviewed in my previous reply are the kinds of process amendments which force "Congress and government agencies" to alter their behavior.

For the last time, resort to the 10th amendment is futile it is a dead letter. Forget it.

[Georgia Girl 2]

The example of the 17th amendment is that changing the document does not change behavior. Just so you understand that the reason for changing from state legislator’s appointing senators to popular election of senators was due to real and/or perecieved corruption. Now there is a movement for repealing the 17th amendment and going back to the state legislature appointment for the same reason.

Look enjoy your Article V dream. The chances of it happening are slim and the chances of two thirds of the states ratifying any amendments even slimmer.

[nathanbedford]

Look enjoy your Article V dream. The chances of it happening are slim and the chances of two thirds of the states ratifying any amendments even slimmer.

Actually, the chances of it happening are even slimmer then you know, it requires three quarters, not two thirds, of the states to ratify.

Unless you adhere to the counsel of despair, preferring to wring your hands while cursing the darkness, unless you must persist in repeating solutions that fail time after time, you might join with those who would prefer to fail if they must by trying rather than by defaulting.