Posted on 02/22/2017 10:54:09 PM PST by Perseverando
The State Senate of Tennessee has laid the legislative groundwork for something that hasn't been done in the United States of America since the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia. With a vote of 27-3, the Tennessee Senate has voted to call a "convention of the states" in order to draft and pass an amendment to the Constitution that would require balanced budgets to be passed every year.
For those who are little fuzzy on their high school U.S. history knowledge, the Tennessean explains that the U.S. Constitution can be amended in two ways. The first would require a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers of Congress, an unlikely outcome in today's hyper-partisan political arena. The second, on the other hand, requires that two-thirds of the states (34 in total) pass a resolution calling for a Constitutional Convention.
There are two ways to propose amendments to the Constitution. The first and more traditional method is through a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Then the amendment is sent to the state legislatures, where it needs ratification by three-fourths or 38 states in order to become law. Nearly all 27 amendments have followed this path.
But the Constitution also provides a second, more populist path to amending the document. If two-thirds or 34 states pass a resolution calling for a Constitutional Convention, delegates from all 50 states will meet to draft an amendment. This is what the Tennessee lawmakers are calling for in their resolution.
Of course, calls for a convention to pass a balanced budget amendment started in the 1970s and have failed each time. That said, with Republicans now controlling 32 state legislatures, this latest effort initiated by Tennessee seems to have the best chance of succeeding so far.
And while there have been close calls for Constitutional Conventions before, each time Congress has acted preemptively to stave off the need for a convention. In 1911, for example, 28 states of the required 32 passed a resolution calling for direct election of Senators before Congress intervened and drafted the Seventeenth Amendment instead.
But the Constitution also provides a second, more populist path to amending the document …First I ever heard that states rights is populism. Also the first time I ever heard that the Constitution wrote crisis into itself; the only times we have had constitutional crises, the Supreme Court caused them IIRC.
Obama and the Democrats bankrupted us to support their phony economy. And the Republicans did nothing to stop them.
But the Constitution also provides a second, more populist path to amending the document. If two-thirds or 34 states pass a resolution calling for a Constitutional Convention …The Constitution does not provide for calling for a convention on itself. Mr. Durden is twisting the language here.
Well, it’s the Republicans’ phony economy too.
They’ve essentially been the same party ever since the time Dean Acheson published “A Democrat Looks at His Party” and Arthur Larson published the identically-titled “A Republican Looks at His Party” a year afterwards—both books promoting the idea of centralized power in DC doing things “that have to be done to meet the needs of the people”.
There’s a group that has been pushing for a convention for years. The downside as I understand it is lots of things in our constitution could be changed such as limiting our 2nd Amendment rights for instance. It sounds good because we could change something for the better like requiring a balanced budget every year which I like but other things we don’t want changed could also happen.
It’s very likely both sides would get something they want but neither side would walk away completely happy. If we could for sure get everything we want like spelling out the 2A so no state could limit it or prevent legal concealed carry for example; I’d be all for it but not at the expense of losing any 1A rights for example.
Congress will always tend to overspend. Overspending buys support which leads to votes. An amendment requiring a balanced budget is an amendment that requires tax increases.
I care more about putting a ceiling on what the government can spend than a balanced budget. A balanced budget doesn’t reduce the size of government it only increases taxes.
And if we’re going to have a States convention, even more importantly I want to see two amendment passed. One severely limiting the bureaucracies and regulations, and another doing away with the courts having the last say on interpreting the laws and constitution.
Also we must make it harder to pass new laws. We have more than enough laws, make it so every new law must have 60% of senate and house votes. Old laws can be eliminated with 50% vote.
There’s the very real fear that a Constitutional Convention will be letting the genie out of the bottle resulting in a lot more than we bargained for. Honestly, I don’t even particularly trust Congressional Republicans right now, let alone Democrats. Very few seem untainted by interests that are less than friendly to American citizens.
You misunderstand the article V convention.
Following the Constitution cannot be a “constitutional crisis”.
Maybe you can explain your understanding of it, then?
I also have (huge) concerns about this. Big time.
I also think we could give away the farm, and liberals are far, far more dangerous than conservatives, at stuff like this.
But maybe you can explain your understandings, and maybe we can understand.
I don’t think so, but please feel free.
No, it's a certainty the Conservative side could get something (lots of states) and the leftist side would not (only a handful of states) gets nothing. Imagine the end effect of the electoral college over the popular vote for the presidential election, and amplify that effect such that a state like Oklahoma has the same voting rights as California. Now, mind you, this is JUST for the creation of the amendment. Then, it must be ratified by 3/4.
This way, there is no possibility of damage to the 2a. There are two outcomes - limiting the federal government if the Amendments Convention succeeds, or no amendments if it does not.
I cannot explain it for lack of time, watch for the article V ping list, start reading and educating yourself, I did. Very much reading is required.
Language is important. It would help to first call it by what it is. It is an Amendments Convention. It just alters what entities proposes amendments. Either the congress, which is part of the problem, or the States with each having one vote.
Well I’ll just say, I am not going to do a passle of research, but will say that I share the concerns of the other poster.
Big time.
We really, really, really need to not do this. Our founders created a very good system.
Leave it, the way it is. We will not like what happens, if we open up things now, to changes.
It is a meeting of the States to propose amendments.
They will be ratified by a super majority of the State legislatures, each State gets one vote.
The Congress and Supreme Court have no say in the matter.
Republicans control most of the state Legislatures so it is a way to negate the socialist city stranglehold on the direction of the country.
ok
It is the ONLY way we will EVER see term limits, term limits is a HUGE thing with the balanced budget!!!!
I live in Tennessee. This is the first I’ve heard about
this subject.
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.