Skip to comments.Congress Defies Article V of the U.S. Constitution by Ignoring 748 (or more) Article V Applications
Posted on 03/05/2010 10:17:22 AM PST by seeker7_dj
When it comes to amending the U.S. Constitution, Congress has shown respectful behavior to one type of action by states: state decisions on ratification of amendments proposed by Congress. But when it comes to states invoking Article Vs option for a convention of state delegates to propose amendments, Congress has, for the entire history of the nation, blatantly and illegally ignored those state applications.
As part of FOAVCs project to make available all such Article V Convention applications for public scrutiny, it has made an important observation. Congress has failed miserably (most likely by design) at its duty to track and keep a count of all Article V Convention applications (so that they will know when two thirds of the states have met the prerequisite number for a peremptory Article V Convention). Similar to ratification actions, Congress has categorized these as "memorials" from the states. Congress has referred these "memorials" to the House and Senate judiciary committees where they die, and are filed away in a multitude of volumes of printed Congressional Records (which we have painstakingly collected below), making it very difficult to keep an accurate count.
Also, please see the following Congressional Record which clearly demonstrates that the requisite number of states (i.e. two thirds or more) have already requested an Article V Convention, and Congress on has ignored their peremptory duty to call an Article V Convention:
(Excerpt) Read more at foavc.org ...
Here are some other sites in which to reference:
An Article V Application: The States' Tenth Amendment Rights In Action: http://www.nolanchart.com/article7171.html
An Article V Convention: Exposing The Really Bad Alternative Ideas: http://www.nolanchart.com/article7261.html
Yes, but they are fixing college football, so why are you complaining? /s
We don’t need a new constitutional convention. That would be extremely dangerous.
There are no men of our time who would act with the prudence, care, and foresight of our founding fathers.
A free republic would not remain.
do you really want a constitutional convention? can you imagine what the libs would do???
you can’t open up part of the constitution, you have to open it up, especially the second ammendment.
by the time you get done, your plan would have backfired tremendously. you won’t have a state sending delegates who are conservative, btu rather libs, and when they’re through, the constitution will look like Orwell’s animal farm.
You’re misunderstanding. This is NOT a Constitutional Convention.
We dont need a new constitutional convention. That would be extremely dangerous.
Exactly... whomever would be calling for a Constitutional Convention at this time is basically asking to completely undo the Constitution and remake it in the Democrat's image of what they think it should be...
You can imagine where that will go.
If it is not a constitutional convention, what is it? There are only two methods of altering the consitution, one originating in the congress and one originating in the states. The one originating in the states is a constitutional convention.
“There are no men of our time who would act with the prudence, care, and foresight of our founding fathers.”
Agreed. Or at least none with any visibility.
"Youre misunderstanding. This is NOT a Constitutional Convention. "
a convention to propose ammendments to the constitution would be called, what then, if not a constitutional convention?
Congress declares a president-elect Constitutionally validated as natural born without checking his birth certificate or his declared foreign father, and people are worried about Article V? LOL.
You are exactly right
That part of the Constitution , Article V, is totally crazy.
Just like the Second Amendment. Imagine all of those miltia types that shave their heads carrying weapons.
And the worst of all is the 1st Amendment. It could lead to crazy talk in public places like some of the crazies that post here. It might even lead to some racist gun loving red necks forming tea parties.
Lots of bad things in that Constitution. Ignore them all.
I believe: The Conservative point of view would lose out in any Constitutional Convention. In part that’s due to their distaste for Government as often reflected on this forum. In part it’s due to lack of organization and cohesion.
The 1992 law that regulates an Article V Convention sets a single-subject standard and lays down rules for the calling and conducting of such a convention.
Before you post such total and utter nonsense on Free Republic, please educate yourself by reading A Convention for Proposing Amendments...as Part of This Constitution, an essay vetted by a constitutional lawyer to make sure I got all the facts straight.
The last convention called “just to propose amendments” started out by the delegates tossing out the old constitution in its entirety and starting all over from scratch. They too, claimed they only wanted to make a few amendments.
if the state ‘delegates’ are appointed by the legislatures of the states, they would have to pass some sort of popularity contest, giving the edge to the media-backed left.
so any convention would be stacked with exactly the sort of vermin we wouldn’t want defining our rights.
No, the States are not calling for a Constitutional Convention. Read Article V for clarification and comprehension. What do you think it’s called when Congress calls for an Amendment? It’s no different when the States call for it and it’s their right. The founders intended to give the people recourse and Article V gives that power to the people. Read the other sites I posted instead of giving the knee-jerk response.
What if we had the numbers to strip down the constitution and go back to the original? After 2010, I think it really could be done. With suitable modifications guaranteeing universal suffrage, there would still be opportunities to limit the federal government’s scope with airtight language (no “general welfare” clause, a much more limited “interstate commerce” clause) and perhaps add permanent limits on federal taxation and spending.
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
I don’t know what you’re not understanding. The states or their legislaturs cannot propose amendments. Two thirds of the states can call a convention, which can propose amendments.
I am quite familiar with this. Many states over the past several years have revoked their con-con applications.
Far too dangerous. With the exception of the 17th amendment, the structure of the American government has not changed at all. And we should keep it that way.
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; 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; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Possibly the U.S. Congress believes it is their right to ask not simply whether or not the required number of submissions by the states, in general, have been received, but, whether or not the required number of submissions of the states have been received, containing the same expressed purpose, in terms of needed amendments, in mind?
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.