Posted on 11/03/2018 3:05:27 PM PDT by Jacquerie
Are you familiar with Publius Huldah?
Not really.
You will never convince me so stop trying.
“Suspect anyone who approaches that jewel.”
Patrick Henry
Do you, like Patrick Henry, oppose the Constitution?
Of course not. That was his quote about liberty.
maybe because we have bothered to educate ourselves on the actual mechanics of an article V convention? just a guess, here.
You’re exactly right. Keep in mind the current “delegates” to the convention would be the same RINOs that are obstructing what good Trump was trying to do and doubling down on big government and big spending. A BBA doesn’t mean they will decrease spending, it just means we solidify the right to raise the debt limit until it’s “balanced” on credit.
agreed,
federal accountability to the states should be the path..
states should have balanced budgets, any thing left could be “given” to the federal government for approved projects, and remove the right of the federal gangstamint to tax and raise money at all..
Reign in their scope of power to the original framework of the constitution..A convention of states could be effective, but honestly if something like that passed, looking at what is happening now, there would be blood in the streets..no easy choices, save America for the people that made it great
But can enact those structural changes only if 34 states ratify them. How likely is that?
Why is it that so many erstwhile conservatives don’t realize things have been going “the other way” to tyranny for decades?
My first thought is that only the mind of a slave concedes defeat before fighting.
Why would states commission delegates to propose harm to their states?
Being willfully blind to the realities of the situation usually doesn't get you far.
-PJ
Regardless of all the arguments in favor of repealing the 17th Amendment I think that's a non-starter. Senators have been popularly elected for over 100 years. Who is going to go to the electorate and tell them they won't be doing that anymore?
That would be the state legislatures, the governor, individual assemblymen, etc.
It would require a lot of change management, for sure. There would need to be a lot of political advertising on the matter.
A credible legislative ad might be around the message that the legislatures work day in and day out on the nitty gritty details of local bills affecting the voter, and it would be in the best interests of the voter to let the legislatures select the most knowledgeable and influential people to represent the interests of those bills in Congress.
The ad would say that the states need to align what Congress does with what the states do. Currently, the states are forced to accommodate what Congress does.
The opposition ad would be that the voter knows best, that this is an assault on democracy, yada yada yada.
-PJ
It took you three months to respond?
A COS can also decide to do ANYTHING else it wants - all with zero oversight or limits by ANY agency, legislative edict, or even courts - up to an including throwing out the US Constitution and substituting a brand new document in its place (much like happened with the First such calling of a Convention that transitioned the US from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution.
It is quite literally impossible to put any sort of restraint or limits to a COS -
As much as I would absolutely LOVE having term limits for Congress (and a few other protections) enshrined in the Constitution - the danger is a very real problem that many seem to either be ignorant of - or just don’t care.
Under a COS - you can bet the farm that the 2nd Amendment will be one of the first things assaulted (assuming the COS delegates - led by the vast number of delegates of the most liberal states don’t just trash the whole Constitution to begin with).
In what fantasy world? There is ZERO Constitutional, Legal, legislative, executive, or other power with ANY authority to control ANYTHING about a COS. Once convened, the COS delegates are legally bound to NOTHING. And with the Liberal states having the lion's share of the delegates -
A convention could write its own rules. The Constitution provides no guidance whatsoever on the ground rules for a convention. This leaves wide open to political considerations and pressures such fundamental questions as how the delegates would be chosen, how many delegates each state would have, and whether a supermajority vote would be required to approve amendments. To illustrate the importance of these issues, consider that if every state had one vote in the convention and the convention could approve amendments with a simple majority vote, the 26 least populous states — which contain less than 18 percent of the nation’s people — could approve an amendment for ratification.
A convention could set its own agenda, possibly influenced by powerful interest groups. The only constitutional convention in U.S. history, in 1787, went far beyond its mandate. Charged with amending the Articles of Confederation to promote trade among the states, the convention instead wrote an entirely new governing document. A convention held today could set its own agenda, too. There is no guarantee that a convention could be limited to a particular set of issues, such as those related to balancing the federal budget. As a result, powerful, well-funded interest groups would surely seek to influence the process and press for changes to the agenda, seeing a constitutional convention as an opportunity to enact major policy changes. As former Chief Justice Burger wrote, a “Constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all for special interest groups.” Further, the broad language contained in many of the resolutions that states have passed recently might increase the likelihood of a convention enacting changes that are far more sweeping than many legislators supporting these resolutions envision.
A convention could choose a new ratification process. The 1787 convention ignored the ratification process under which it was established and created a new process, lowering the number of states needed to approve the new Constitution and removing Congress from the approval process. The states then ignored the pre-existing ratification procedures and adopted the Constitution under the new ratification procedures that the convention proposed. Given these facts, it would be unwise to assume that ratification of the convention’s proposals would necessarily require the approval of 38 states, as the Constitution currently specifies. For example, a convention might remove the states from the approval process entirely and propose a national referendum instead. Or it could follow the example of the 1787 convention and lower the required fraction of the states needed to approve its proposals from three-quarters to two-thirds.
No other body, including the courts, has clear authority over a convention.
The Constitution provides for no authority above that of a constitutional convention, so it is not clear that the courts — or any other institution — could intervene if a convention did not limit itself to the language of the state resolutions calling for a convention. Article V contains no restrictions on the scope of constitutional amendments (other than those denying states equal representation in the Senate), and the courts generally leave such “political questions” to the elected branches. Moreover, delegates to the 1787 convention ignored their state legislatures’ instructions. Thus, the courts likely would not intervene in a dispute between a state and a delegate and, if they did, they likely would not back state efforts to constrain delegates given that delegates to the 1787 convention ignored their state legislatures’ instructions.
Delegates to a COS are limited by their commissions.
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.