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.
Yes. The little Demi-gods will never limit their access to the gov’t trough.
Amazing that two old stupid white guys could do such things.
I'm not sure what you are referring to. Article V includes this text:
"...Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article;"
However, the 1st and 4th clauses of Sec. 9, Article 1 deal with the importation of slaves, not a CoS. Therefore, I stand by my original reply.
Okay....you guys can plug all sorts of meaning and explanation and extrapolation of what can or can’t happen into those 143 words, but I have a great deal of trouble in accepting the volumes and volumes of assurances, hypothesizing and even supposing that I’ve seen come out of “the movement.” And when someone does question, he/she is told to “educate yourself” [by those same volumes and volumes above].
Good luck to you guys. More power to you, but I am not going to be on board that train lock, stock and barrel.
“If two-thirds or 34 states pass a resolution calling for a Constitutional Convention,”
Article V is not a “Constitutional Convention.” It is a Convention of the States. I expect better from Zero Hedge. They are usually more reliable.
“We really, really, really need to not do this.”
So you are satisfied living in a a post-Constitutional America?
“Our founders created a very good system.”
Let me nit-pick first. The “founders” didn’t create the system. The Framers did.
Second, Article V in the very system the Framers created is what is at discussion. They created this as the final way for the States and the People to force Constitutional discipline.
“Leave it, the way it is.”
How is it? The courts make things up almost every day that changes the living document. This has been happening for a century! In fact, just the other day, the 5th circuit court GUTTED the 2nd Amendment.
“We will not like what happens, if we open up things now, to changes.”
The progressives of both parties change it at their own whims now. That is reality and your position allows for that to continue.
I suggest that you read “The Liberty Amendments” to better understand the 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.