Skip to comments.How Tennessee Could Be About To Start A Constitutional Crisis (Article V)
Posted on 02/22/2017 10:54:09 PM PST by Perseverando
The State Senate of Tennessee has laid the legislative groundwork for something that hasn't been done in the United States of America since the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia. With a vote of 27-3, the Tennessee Senate has voted to call a "convention of the states" in order to draft and pass an amendment to the Constitution that would require balanced budgets to be passed every year.
For those who are little fuzzy on their high school U.S. history knowledge, the Tennessean explains that the U.S. Constitution can be amended in two ways. The first would require a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers of Congress, an unlikely outcome in today's hyper-partisan political arena. The second, on the other hand, requires that two-thirds of the states (34 in total) pass a resolution calling for a Constitutional Convention.
There are two ways to propose amendments to the Constitution. The first and more traditional method is through a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Then the amendment is sent to the state legislatures, where it needs ratification by three-fourths or 38 states in order to become law. Nearly all 27 amendments have followed this path.
But the Constitution also provides a second, more populist path to amending the document. If two-thirds or 34 states pass a resolution calling for a Constitutional Convention, delegates from all 50 states will meet to draft an amendment. This is what the Tennessee lawmakers are calling for in their resolution.
Of course, calls for a convention to pass a balanced budget amendment started in the 1970s and have failed each time. That said, with Republicans now controlling 32 state legislatures, this latest effort initiated by Tennessee seems to have the best chance of succeeding so far.
And while there have been close calls for Constitutional Conventions before, each time Congress has acted preemptively to stave off the need for a convention. In 1911, for example, 28 states of the required 32 passed a resolution calling for direct election of Senators before Congress intervened and drafted the Seventeenth Amendment instead.
You might want to direct your linguistic fine point at the author of the article as well as the Tennessee state legislature, thanks.
Somehow, I’m sure this will result in my property taxes increasing.
Ive also found that Article V opponents typically equate an Article V state amendments convention with congress, an institution in which freedoms and rights are easily traded away today for money, media support, and reelection tomorrow.
This is an erroneous comparison, for congress is popularly derived and thoroughly corrupted from its designed purposes. An Article V convention will be new, fresh, uncorrupted and federal, just like the only other remaining federal institution from 1787, the familiar Electoral College (EC).
Like an Article V amendments convention, the EC is extra-congressional and completely controlled by the states. Not only congress, but the executive and judiciary have no more authority to regulate or participate in the deliberations or parliamentary rules of an Article V Convention than they do to control the EC. Both of these federal institutions derive their independence from discrete sources in the Constitution itself. Like the EC, and unlike congress, an Article V convention is temporary, and neither can be made subservient to any branch of the government. This renders the Article V convention distinct from, and superior to, the three existing branches.
I ask JBS, if the states are so wild and politically insane such that everyone should fear the outcome of a convention, why havent we had a runaway session of the EC? States do not have to cast their votes for the nominee of any political party. The EC confab is a one-day event outside the control of congress or scotus. Why hasnt the EC proved to be dangerous?
No state delegation to the EC ran away because the duties of presidential electors are defined by state statute. In identical fashion, the states will define the duties and limits of their delegates to an Article V convention. Here, for instance, is the Indiana statute that will govern the commissions of her delegates to an Article V convention. The JBS implication that state legislatures will send lunatic delegates with plenipotentiary authority to take away rights that are unalienable, is just silly.
Furthermore, there will be an additional, yet immeasurable factor at work. Within the parameters of detailed state commissions, delegates will be entrusted to use their judgement. These men and women know that history will examine and critique their work. Will the states actually send rogues and miscreants? It is possible, yet what is far more likely is that the delegates entrusted with crafting amendments to save the republic will rise to the occasion. Fame will be their quest. Like the delegates to the federal convention of 1787, they will seek the gratitude of history.
A balanced budget is a fine thing.
But what, exactly, does it mean. Who’s accountants will decide whether or not the budget is in balance? Dynamic scoring?
We the people will continue to be hosed until the size and scope of government are reduced.
> “The State Senate of Tennessee has laid the legislative groundwork for something that hasn’t been done in the United States of America since the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia. With a vote of 27-3, the Tennessee Senate has voted to call a “convention of the states” in order to draft and pass an amendment to the Constitution that would require balanced budgets to be passed every year.”
Some gross errors of understanding here.
1. The Convention of States is not a Constitutional Convention.
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was convened with an awareness that grew during the Convention that the Articles of Confederation needed a complete revamp. If one compares the AOC with the US Constitution, one can see a lot of the original provisions carried over. The Bill of Rights was added as 10 Amendments to memorialize rights as a condition of ratification.
2. The Convention of States OR Assembly of States is not a Convention or Assembly for a new constitution. It would take 3/4’s of states or 38 states to ratify an amendment to repeal the US Consitution, this is not going to happen.
3. The Convention of States is convened for the sole purpose of PROPOSING AMENDMENTS, no different than Congress can convene and propose amendments.
4. Whether States or Congress convene to propose an amendment, each has no authority to pass an amendment into the US Constitution directly. Making an amendment become formally and legally a part of the US Constitution will require 3/4’s of states or 38 states to ratify the amendment and send on the ratification resolutions of each state legislature or state conventions to the National Archives. Neither the President nor Governors have any role in the process.
Incidentally, this is why DC and PR should never be granted statehood. If PR were to be formally incorporated into the United States, it should become a group of counties of Florida.
Presently, conservatives control about 38 states and liberals control about 12.
The Convention/Assembly/Meeting of states is constitutional and must be memorialized, meaning recognized and recorded, by Congress.
The reason that amending the US Constitution allows for States in addition to Congress to make proposals, is because there are some things that Congress will fail to do on its own, whereas States will do things that Congress will not do.
Example: TERM LIMITS.
For those that are easily whipped up into a hysteria and fear that liberals will take over the Convention, ask yourself why have they not done this before? The answer is because they can’t!
When explained like that it does sound like a win win.
When explained like that it does sound like a win win.
Which amendments were proposed and implemented via a Convention of States?
In 1911 there were only 46 states. Two thirds was 31.
Yes, but was a COS actually convened? I have read sources that say the threat of a COS was what called the Congress to act on it and that it went the normal route. I’d like to get some kind of definitive yes or no answer about whether a COS has ever been convened and resulted in a new amendment or a change to an existing one.
Article V ping!
That is the downside. We’d be opening ourselves up to who knows what from the loons on the other side. Fortunately, we currently have the numbers.
The bad news is, we only have them on paper. We don’t have enough trustworthy Republicans.
It would be a worthwhile exercise if we can spook Congress into doing what we want.
How do you figure? The convention would have no power to change anything - only propose.
No, a CoS has never been called under the Constitution, but there were many conventions prior to the Constitutional Convention.
Yes, they did. And they created the convention system in Article V in the Constitution. Were they geniuses or fools?
where the hell were these guys 8 years ago??
What, you mean your State Legislature is not keeping you informed and asking what you want in the passing of whether to even have an ArtV Convention?
Just think, when the ArtV kicks off everyone will be in the dark. The likes of smoke and mirrors we have never seen before in our lives will come out of the socialists and RINO closets to be placed in front of the People.
One of the big pluses that COS proponents like to trumpet is that it is an extra-congressional means of enacting or changing amendments. Yet the only examples that can be put forth as historical fact are ones that include some sort of congressional action or confirmation. One or the other is the question. Which one was solely COS? To my knowledge there are none, and that is why this question is always evaded or dissembled in the answer.
Article V is rather plain. It is 143 words long and it gives detailed entry and exit criteria (plus some added stipulations about not being held before some certain date). It does not, at least on my reading, stipulate any of the ensuing actions between entry and exit. Essentially, I read this as a blank slate and I am not one bit convinced by COS proponents' assurances that 'nothing can go wrong.'
Our opposition is patently insane now. You see this every day in the papers - urging and threatening Electors, protests, and lawsuits liberal judges and courts. Couple that with shenanigans we saw with Colorado Republican Primary Caucus elections and elsewhere and I don't get that warm fuzzy feeling everything is going to be alright.
We must take the federal govt ability to raise taxes which they use against the people, state balanced budgets would help, what is left over we could allocate as we will to the federal gmint thereby avoiding the mess we are now in..defang the gangstamint..
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.