Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Article V OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
Our Founding Fathers

Posted on 03/20/2010 1:48:32 PM PDT by Bobby_Taxpayer

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: change
TIME FOR CHANGE. Although it will open Pandora's Box.
1 posted on 03/20/2010 1:48:32 PM PDT by Bobby_Taxpayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Bobby_Taxpayer

There are already 38 states prepared to challenge Obamacare. The Constitution requires only 33 for a convention


2 posted on 03/20/2010 1:51:39 PM PDT by Bobby_Taxpayer (Don't tread on us...or you'll pay the price in the next election.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bobby_Taxpayer
"A Convention for Proposing Amendments...as Part of This Constitution"

This is a good primer on how the process would work, as legislated by Congress in 1992.

3 posted on 03/20/2010 1:53:45 PM PDT by Publius (The prudent man sees the evil and hides himself; the simple pass on and are punished.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bobby_Taxpayer

A lot of people oppose opening up a convention because they’re afraid they’ll go undoing the original Constitution. It’s certainly a risk — but my view is we’ve already lost our original constitution. States still have to ratify the damn thing, it’s not like if they propose to eliminate the first amendment it’s a done deal.

The amendment we should offer and pass is a simple one... “The tenth amendment really means what it says.”

That would take care of everything.


4 posted on 03/20/2010 1:54:55 PM PDT by daniel885
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bobby_Taxpayer

I can just see the list of delegates to any present day convestion. Unfortunately, we have reached that glorious phase in our history where we can no longer stand our political vices and could not tolerate the necessary remedies.


5 posted on 03/20/2010 1:58:36 PM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: daniel885
The states determine the scope of an Article V Convention by the language of their petitions to Congress. If the states request "a general convention open to all subjects", then such a convention would be called. If the states request "a convention to address the repeal of the 16th Amendment", then such a convention would be called.

An Article V Convention is the agent of the states, and the principle of agency forbids the agent to go outside the scope of the agency agreement, which is the petition for the convention.

Click on the post above for how it would work.

6 posted on 03/20/2010 2:02:37 PM PDT by Publius (The prudent man sees the evil and hides himself; the simple pass on and are punished.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AEMILIUS PAULUS
I can just see the list of delegates to any present day convestion.

You could be one of those delegates from your state. Click on the link above to the essay to see why.

7 posted on 03/20/2010 2:03:58 PM PDT by Publius (The prudent man sees the evil and hides himself; the simple pass on and are punished.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Publius

I agree, I think it would be a good idea and the fears (while understandable) aren’t really anything to worry about. But we have to convince a lot of fellow conservatives.


8 posted on 03/20/2010 2:04:51 PM PDT by daniel885
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: daniel885
Congress finally got around to regulating the amendatory process in the 1992 law. This was because of the surprise 38th ratification of the 27th Amendment, and Congress didn't want to get blindsided again. When Congress sued the Archivist to get the 27th out of the Constitution, the federal court decided against Congress but told them they could regulate the process provided such regulation did not contravene the clear language of Article V.

If the state defines the language of the petition carefully, there is no threat of a runaway convention. Judge Napolitano has classified this as a "calculated risk".

9 posted on 03/20/2010 2:10:03 PM PDT by Publius (The prudent man sees the evil and hides himself; the simple pass on and are punished.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Publius

the 1992 law is unconstitutional. you’d have to amend the constitution to allow for any regulation of the Article V Convention.

for those afraid of a convention, you seem to forget that simply holding elections for delegates will open discussion that media/politicians do not want opened. that in and of itself will stop our slide into oblivion.

the convention cannot open the constitution, only discussion about which way to go from here.

there is an inevitable conclusion to what we’re experiencing. we either dust off the constitution and put it to work, or prepare for the worst.


10 posted on 03/21/2010 10:52:09 AM PDT by john de herrera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Bobby_Taxpayer

34 states.


11 posted on 03/22/2010 6:33:29 AM PDT by Macbeth (FOAVC, Walker v Members of Congress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Publius

Publius fails to mention that the 1992 law also allowed that Congress determined if the applications were “fresh”. It could determine what amendment would be considered and refuse to send it to ratification if it did not approve the proposed amendment and MOST IMPORTANTLY OF ALL, IT ALLOWED FOR CONGRESS TO EDIT OR CHANGE THE AMENDMENT IF IT SO DESIRED. Finally, all of this was based on two thirds votes in both houses of Congress that if not achieved meant the proposed amendment was not allowed to become part of the Constitution.


12 posted on 03/22/2010 6:39:18 AM PDT by Macbeth (FOAVC, Walker v Members of Congress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Publius

Please provide the citation for this suit you are discussing. To my knowledge it does not exist. Most certainly it would have been referred to in the two federal lawsuits of Walker v Members of Congress and Walker v United States and neither was mentioned by the government.


13 posted on 03/22/2010 6:41:47 AM PDT by Macbeth (FOAVC, Walker v Members of Congress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson