Nebraska Becomes 17th State To Call For Article V Convention Of States

The Federalist ^ | January 28th 2022 | SHAWN FLEETWOOD

[Jacquerie]

The Nebraska legislature passed a resolution on Friday calling for an Article V convention of states, making it the 17th state to do so.

After considering it for the past year, the unicameral body approved the measure in a 32-11 vote, with six senators abstaining or absent. According to the resolution, the Nebraska legislature seeks to call a convention “limited to proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.”

The application also comes with a five-year sunset clause, which notes that the legislature will rescind the measure by Feb. 1, 2027 if efforts to call a convention before then fail.

Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, state legislatures are permitted to call a convention to propose amendments to the nation’s founding document without the approval of Congress. Two-thirds of states (34) are required for a convention to be called, with three-fourths of states (38) necessary for any amendment proposed to be ratified.

[Jacquerie]

Woohoo!

[Jacquerie]

Article V ping!

[reed13k]

1/2 way there. 34 needed - 17 completed.

[Jacquerie]

32-11

Kinda’ overwhelming.

[metmom]

YES!!!!!

Term limits!

PLEASE!!!!!!

[Jacquerie]

Yes.

But the states have sent hundreds of applications.

Congress has not and will not willingly call a COS.

[Jonty30]

If this list is accurate, it is now 18 states because it doesn’t list South Dakota.

https://conventionofstates.com/states-that-have-passed-the-convention-of-states-article-v-application

[Publius]

17: AL, AK, AR, AZ, FL, GA, IN, LA, MO, MS, ND, NE, OK, TN, TX, UT, WI.

For a Convention of the States dedicated to Georgia’s application language, which would re-balance citizens’ rights versus federal power and state power, the count is 17 down, 17 to go.

For a Convention of the States dedicated to a balanced budget amendment only, the count is 30 down, 4 to go.

[Jonty30]

Can’t states call for it themselves if Congress chooses to not act?

[Publius]

This is the usual boilerplate that I post to these threads to explain the Article V process. I've had this info vetted by a retired professor of constitutional law.

***

THE ARTICLE V AMENDATORY PROCESS

The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps:

1. Proposal;
2. Direction;
3. Ratification.

Proposal:

There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.

• The Congressional method requires the House and Senate to pass an amendment by a two thirds majority of each house.
• The amendments convention method requires the legislatures of two thirds of the states to pass resolutions directing Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments. These resolutions are called applications. Once the two thirds threshold is reached, Congress is required to set a time and place for the convention.

Article V gives Congress and an amendments convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, except that a convention is limited to proposing amendments specified in the application and there is no such limit on Congress.

Direction:

Once Congress, or an amendments convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:

• State legislature method, or the
• State ratifying convention method.

The state ratifying convention method has only been used once: to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition. A similar procedure was used to ratify the Constitution itself.

Ratification:

Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three fourths of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.

Forbidden Subjects:

Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and two implicitly forbidden subjects.

Explicitly forbidden:

1. No amendment may be added to the Constitution concerning the slave trade or direct taxes until 1808. We’re well past that deadline.
2. No amendment may be added to the Constitution to change the principle of equal representation in the Senate unless every state deprived of that right approves. If California wants five senators, every state must have five senators. To permit violation of this principle, every state would have to ratify the amendment, not just three fourths.

Implicitly forbidden:

1. The Constitution of 1787 may not be abrogated and replaced with a new document. Article V only authorizes “a convention for proposing amendments to this Constitution;” so the Constitution of 1787 is locked in place.
2. A convention for proposing amendments is limited to the topics authorized by state applications.

Reference work:

Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers

[Jonty30]

I would welcome a balanced budget amendment.

Preferably one that forces a timely reduction of the deficit and paydown of the debt.

[livius]

Sounds great, but I don’t think they can limit it that way. Once a constitutional convention has “opened up” the Constitution, it’s possible for other interests to get in and propose all sorts of amendments.

Everybody needs to be very careful with this.

[Reily]

What would do the most good is repeal of the 17th amendment!
It’s also the least likely because it would demagogued to death by those mesmerized by the word democracy.

[Publius]

At this very moment, the Constitution is "open." Congress may propose amendments on any subject. At least a Convention of the States is restricted by the application language, and delegates to a convention would be under instruction of the state legislatures than appointed them.

[Jacquerie]

Article V doesn’t provide for the states calling a COS themselves.

In the event Congress doesn’t call a COS as it is constitutionally required, I’ve argued that the states should appeal to Scotus.

If Scotus gaffs off their responsibility, I say the states have the power and duty to do so.

[Kartographer]

Could end up by becoming a ‘divorce’ trial

[Jacquerie]

Agree.

Democracy is poison . . . yet most are mesmerized as if it was perfume.

The 16th and 17th were the progressives’ first great victories. They enabled all the rot that followed.

[Reily]

It’s not a constitutional convention, it’s an Article V convention. It’s permitted in the Constitution as a way for the states to introduce amendments and bypass a noncooperating Senate. The amendments can either be accepted (2/3’rd) or rejected (not 2/3’rd) by the states. It’s not at all like the original convention because it’s done within the framework of the current Constitution. It’s just a different means of getting amendments proposed. My only worry is how do you keep the media from turning it into a circus.

[Cen-Tejas]

.........this is really good news. We’re gaining on em!

[reed13k]

nice...well it’s a start