Skip to comments.An Article V Convention
Posted on 03/24/2010 5:23:49 PM PDT by SalAOR
Article V of the United States Constitution discusses the concept of amending the Constitution. Most people are familiar with the traditional way of amending the Constitution 2/3 of each house of Congress proposes amendments, which then have to be ratified by the state legislatures or by conventions in 3/4 of the states. But there is another way to amend the Constitution, and it has gotten increased attention in recent days:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.
The states can draft a call for a Constitutional convention of the states to propose amendments to the Constitution, which then have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. Whether or not this is a good idea is debatable.
(Excerpt) Read more at axisofright.com ...
Not a good idea. The Dems will rewrite the Constitution.
If state governments don’t like Congress piling on mandates that they spend more than they can afford on MedicAid, they can call for a Constitutional Convention and then appoint delegates to it who will propose amendments both prohibiting such mandates, and requiring repayment of some.
Then help your side win elections. It’s called democracy.
Elections can be too slow. In eight months, a lot of damage can be done. Even then, it is unlikely there will be enough Republican wins in the Senate to override Presidential vetoes. That means it will be 2013, and a lot more damage done before we have enough in the Senate and the WH to begin correcting the mistakes this Congress and Zero are making.
An Article V convention was DESIGNED specifically for situations like this — a tyranny of Congress over the wishes of the American people. It can be called at ANY time and is part of our system of checks and balances.
The only problem with Article V is that it did not anticipate the arrogance of Congress in refusing to call one. It should have allowed the States themselves to announce a convention without Congress’ say-so. There are ALREADY more than enough “applications” from the States to Congress to call a convention, even if you are talking about multiple calls on the same subject — apportionment, limiting taxation, and balanced budget all have more than enough State applications filed.
“It can be called at ANY time and is part of our system of checks and balances.”
What’s to keep the result from being worse than what we have now?
This is an incredibly risky strategy.
Says to me that - 2/3's of the states can, despite Congressional objections, call a convention. Congress is bound to do it by Article V.
Now of course the rub is: Congress already disregards the Constitution.
It can only PROPOSE Amendments, which then need to be ratified by 3/4ths of the States — not population, but States. It is an expression of States rights, rather than mobocracy where Blue States have the edge. If called for a specific purpose, the odds of it going rogue are slim.
“This is an incredibly risky strategy.”
Yes, but that’s what gun rights folks said about Heller. They were sure it would turn out badly. There are certainly risks, but if we work hard to get more states into the ‘red’ zone, then call a convention for the specific purpose of addressing the commerce clause & limiting federal power, we might be much better off in the long run.
2/3’s of the states can call for one, but 3/4’s of the states still have to ratify any amendments. It’s wouldn’t be any kind of cake walk. As designed.
That’s what I mean. The first part “Congress shall, ... on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds ...” gave Congress too much power by still putting them in charge of calling the convention. The applications have obviously been ignored by Congress, demonstrating that Article V should have explicitly said the States could call the convention themselves without any action by Congress.
Still, I’d like to see those 39 Governors call a press conference and simply announce their legislatures are demanding an Article V convention to consider an Amendment barring Congress from making any law that imposes a mandate on individuals to purchase any particular good or service. Then just go ahead and ignore the Dims in Congress while you have the convention, pass the Amendment, get it ratified by those 39 States, and since 39 is more than 3/4ths, the Amendment would be a done deal IMMEDIATELY and the HC bill would be dead in the water.
Actually the “shall” part of that does make it mandatory. They are bound to do so if 2/3’s states call for it. They can try to ignore it, but then they’ve got 2/3’s of the states against them. Losing support of (pissing off) 2/3’s of the states would not be wise. Imagine all the money that flows through the states on its way to DeeCee. What if they stopped that flow at the border? And that’s just one simple example. Things get uglier from there.
I guess you are unaware that there are already MORE than enough calls for a convention ? Congress has been ignoring the fact for decades. Even if you take Article V to mean that the applications have to be for the same subject, there are THREE subjects that have more than the required 34 applications pending:
Yet ... no convention has been called.
The Dem in the federal are all ready doing that anyway by bypass the Constitution
...Conversely the State's have a strong vested interested in taking back power from the federal and vesting it back in the individual States
Think about Massachusetts.. they have their own health care with the power to tax and rule inside their state on ever thing that goes with it
Is federal mandated health care in any way in Massachusetts (power) interested?
From the state's perceptive it a pure loss of power and tax revenue to the fed with no real up side to the state....
Think about it, Massachusetts has no upside in letting the fed take this over unless the think there going to get more money then there state put in...
But if that the case one States gain would be another States loss and the the losing State would fight to check the winner...
And a Fed win on power and tax money is all the State's loss...
So all the State's would fight to check the Fed power ...
Massachusetts on all places has a vested interested in leading a states right cause to get back 100% control of Health Care inside thier state(and the money and power that goes with it) ..
All Constitution changed are approved via the States and the States have no interested in giving power to the fed
The States self interested will always be in their own State's power . The founder intended this
Self interested of the States will make in their interest to check federal power grabs
The risk isn’t worth the reward. I prefer to keep the Constitution of our founders. We should use the normal process to amend it.
Article V requires that 3/4 of the state legislatures pass resolutions calling for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. The legislatures can pass resolutions appointing delegates to the convention. Admittedly the latter will be like trying to herd cats but again, that is called democracy.
I repeat, you can always try revolution if democracy is too slow for you. Think of it as evolution in action.
As a practical matter again, Congress won't just sit there after more than a few state legislatures pass resolutions calling for a Constitutional Convention. Congress will try to either head things off by passing laws to placate the states, or start sending its own proposed Constitutional amendments to the states.
Because a Convention Congress doesn't control might propose amendments Congress wouldn't like at all, such as term limits, a line item veto, limits on Congressional pay, a complete end to unfunded mandates on the states, etc.
Every thread mentioning a constitutional convention sets off a storm of protest. But is the protest realistic.
Consider, that the constitution provides for the mechanism under Article V. VERY significantly, the 2/3 requirement of state legislatures to call a convention and 3/4 requirement of state legislatures to ratify any changes is an enormous advantage to conservatives.
The whole basis of the socialist takeover is the “democratization” of the “republic.” Look at a typical “red state - blue state” map. Now imagine what one accurately drawn since last week’s putsch would look like!
It takes 34 states to call a convention and 38 states to ratify the results. There is no way the socialists can muster the firepower (there I go again - typical conservative fostering violence-LOL) to win.
The entire basis for the socialist end run around the constitution started with FDR’s threat to pack the Supreme Court, with the resulting willful misconstruction of the “interstate commerce clause.” When they got away with that they added the “general welfare” penumbra of obfuscation.
Two spurious arguments, if refuted and their effects corrected would restore almost all the liberties eroded by 75 years of progressivism.
The use of one-half of one sentence, originally intended to prevent New York from levying an import tax on goods from New Jersey as an excuse to effectively nullify most of the rest of the constitution is absurd. As progressives interpret it, the “interstate commerce clause” overrides any and all limits to federal power whatsoever.
Similarly, arguing that pretending that “we the congress” believing it to be in the “public interest” can do absolutely anything, regardless of the will of “them the people,” is absurd.
Under the present effective dictatorship of the elite, our constitution is effectively dead. If we are afraid to risk the convention process, then we could accomplish the same thing with an amendment specifically prohibiting irrational expansion of the definition of “interstate commerce” and rationally defining the term “general welfare” The amendment should also specifically prohibit using either as a “nexus” to legitimize legislation with obviously unconstitutional effect.
The difference between what Congress did the last time (when the states applied for the 17th Amendment and now) is the public record is known as to the number of applications by the states—all 50 states, over 700 applications. See www.foavc.org to read the applications.
Article V does not say Congress shall call a convention unless it proposes its own amendments or placates the states somehow. Even if it did propose amendments, it is still required to call the convention. It is peremptory.
A ping to our Article V Convention experts.
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.