Convention of States Hits an Even Dozen!
Posted by RimCountry 7 years, 11 months ago to Government
The last time we talked – I believe it was in 2014 – there were 4 states that had signed on to the Convention of States bandwagon. Last week, despite the one-off state-count in the FNC video, Missouri became the 12th. So, given that 34 states are needed to compel Congress to call the convention, we’re one-third of the way there.
Mark Levin has said that the push for an Article V convention has been flying under the radar up until now. The movement has been gradually but steadily gaining momentum, and the story is now starting to gain traction with the mainstream press, to include FNC. Levin says that this is just the bare tip of the iceberg... that once we hit 20 states, the Convention of States Project will become a VERY hot topic, and we’ll be seeing a lot more reports and analysis, and it will very likely come hard and fast from both ends of the political spectrum.
Critics say, among other things, that at this rate, we won’t see a convention until 2023, if at all. Proponents respond, “What’s the rush?” After all, it did take ten years to get from Revolution to Ratification.
All opinions, comments and questions welcome.
Mark Levin has said that the push for an Article V convention has been flying under the radar up until now. The movement has been gradually but steadily gaining momentum, and the story is now starting to gain traction with the mainstream press, to include FNC. Levin says that this is just the bare tip of the iceberg... that once we hit 20 states, the Convention of States Project will become a VERY hot topic, and we’ll be seeing a lot more reports and analysis, and it will very likely come hard and fast from both ends of the political spectrum.
Critics say, among other things, that at this rate, we won’t see a convention until 2023, if at all. Proponents respond, “What’s the rush?” After all, it did take ten years to get from Revolution to Ratification.
All opinions, comments and questions welcome.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
You choose not to heed it.
I leave you with this:
"No person stays in this valley by faking reality in any manner whatever."
George Mason argued for Article V to be included in the Constitution to ensure that the states would have a method of amending the Constitution to remedy errors discovered in the normal conduct of government, without interference from Congress, IN THE EVENT THAT THE ERROR INVOLVED CONGRESS ITSELF. Has there ever been a time in history that better fit that description?
And you're right... raw numbers are not corroboration, but as I stated, they certainly IMPLY validity, and will stand as such until and unless you can show otherwise. The alternative that you're asking everyone to accept is that despite all those legislators, all those advocates, and every signer of our Constitution, YOU are the only one who is right.
No... I'm sorry... you're going to have to come up with a better boogeyman.
Campaigning in election after election to educate people on how a Constitutional government will better serve them than whatever "goodies" they think they're going to get from the present system, is the slow-but-sure fix.
Don't amend it. Obey it.
To put things in their proper perspective, I'll remind you that it took ten years to get from Revolution to Ratification. When it comes to saving the Republic, those of us who have marched dutifully to the polls every election cycle and pulled the Right lever have learned the hard way... there ARE no quick fixes. Now we've decided to look to what the Framers of the Constitution provided as a remedy -- Article V.
Over a thousand lawmakers, and over two million citizens, can always be wrong.
Ask yourself why, except maybe for President Trump, every Republican President, Senator or Representative has always acted more than a little strangely after taking office.
I've shown you over a thousand lawmakers and over 2 million fellow citizens... if you show me just one ounce of evidence that George Soros has any influence whatsoever over our organization or its end goal, I just might reconsider.
By the way, for your edification and for clarification, the organization that I support and to which I am referring here is the Convention of States Project, and none other. More information is available online.
Don't take that chance. And don't try for quick fixes, either.
Unless I have Soros all wrong, this makes me favor it even more.
I understand "fear," Temlakos, but in order for you to be taken seriously, your trepidation should be based at least somewhat in fact.
Quite to the contrary, they prefer to look to state law for delegate selection, and they also overwhelmingly support a sunshine clause in the convention rules to be drafted prior to calling the assembly to order.
None of your unsubstantiated, imaginary nightmare scenario is possible. Not. Even. Remotely.
May a Convention Of States bring on term limits.
It's the only way to get rid of some parasitical professional politicians who only care about number one.
They can do anything they want because--according to the Declaration of Independence ("whenever any government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government...")--the powers of any delegates to a convention of this kind are plenipotentiary.
While this may not change your mind, solely in the interest of providing the drive-by reader with the actual historical record, I offer the following:
In the months between the Annapolis Convention (Sept, 1786) and Philadelphia (May, 1787), there were seven states that independently passed similarly broad resolutions commissioning their delegates to Philadelphia to take such steps necessary to render the construct of the federal government "adequate to the exigencies of the union." Those states were VA, NJ, PA, NC, NH, DE & GA. This was completely independent of Congress, since it was, after all, a Convention of States being contemplated.
New York, seeing the writing on the wall, turned to Congress instead and submitted a resolution requesting that they, Congress, call the convention and limit it strictly to revising the Articles of Confederation. That resolution failed.
Massachusetts, following New York's lead, actually came up with an alternative construct which finally did pass, allowing Congress to have it both ways. It was a wizardry of wording that should make some of today's more mealy-mouthed legislators drool. They offered a substitute resolution whereby Congress would declare that it would indeed be beneficial if the convention were called "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation,' but then went on to request that the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention report back "such alterations and provisions therein… [to] render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union."
Not really what anyone would call a "limited" mandate, now, is it? And nowhere do you find the words, "convention for proposing amendments." Just sayin'.
Now, once Congress had limped into the fray with that unhelpful injunction, three more states - CT, MD & SC - adopted their own broadly worded calls for a convention (again, independent of Congress), bringing the number of delegations to 10 of the 12 in attendance (all but NY & MA) with broad authority to ignore the non-mandate from a notoriously paralyzed Congress. After all, it was an ineffectual Congress that was one of the primary reasons for the Annapolis Resolution to begin with.
It can be further argued that, under the existing Articles of Confederation, Congress had no authority to call for a convention of states, so even if its "suggestion" were only half as ambiguous as it was, it would still have lacked the prerogative to limit it.
You'll note that RI wasn't mentioned, as they were perennial nay-sayers and refused to even send a delegation, having vetoed, under the current unworkable AoC "unanimity" requirement, every previous attempt by the other states to amend the Articles of Confederation.
So, again, to suggest that the delegates to Philadelphia just all of a sudden went rogue and "ran away" with the convention simply defies American History, despite the partisan oratory and hyperbole of the politicians of the day. Virtually all of them knew at the opening gavel the gravity of the responsibilities they were facing, and it was a whole lot more than nibbling around the edges of the tattered, inadequate and inefficient system of self-governance that they all agreed needed some serious repair.
Except Rhode Island.
The second issue is your contention that the convention will "run away," while providing no evidence or even a hint of a rationale for such a statement. My only response to you would be to ask, "How?"
It's obvious that you understand the need for remedy, but the only part of your proposal that I could possibly agree with begins with "While they're at it..." You should know that "they" are way ahead of you, as each of these items are widely considered prime targets once the assembly is convened.
As I said, you're analysis and your intentions are spot on... it's your methods that I take issue with. Article V is the remedy left to us by the Framers... all we need is the courage to use it.
Why mandate a balanced budget when it's far quicker to have a Court abolish all the alphabet-soup agencies?
Where does the Constitution grant to Congress the power to delegate any of its authority to an executive agency? Does the power "to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court" include the power to constitute executive agencies having quasi-judicial powers? And combining said powers with quasi-legislative powers?
Now if you're worried about getting the matter before a proper judge, then the remedy is simple--difficult, but simple. You run candidates for the House and especially the Senate until you have two-thirds of both Houses on board with returning to the Constitution. They then (1) expel the remaining third of the members, (2) remove the judges from the bench on impeachment for and conviction of infidelity to the Constitution, in violation of their oaths of office, and (3) set about abolishing those agencies. While they're at it, they should repeal Amendments XVI and XVII and Article 1 Section 8 Clause 9 ("The Congress shall have the power...to establish post offices and post roads").
No product or institution can survive a second exposure to the process that created it.
This convention will run away, and you'll have Mister Thompson. And all the rest of his cronies.
Load more comments...