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 2.
Another easy-to-say, hard-to-accomplish bumper-sticker slogan.
That's what this entire movement is about, Temlakos... putting some TEETH into the Constitution so as to FORCE the federal government to obey it. I mean, the bumper-stickers are catchy, but look around out there... how's that working out for you?
But because they summarize and quote the well known mainstream analysis of the topic doesn't mean they agree with it. I would be seriously suspect of their motives as it is also well known that many left wing collectivist Soros influenced groups are supportive of the Article V con-con.
Your arguments re-enforce those of the Soros led Common Cause organization.
Please explain why you would do that?
----
This is right off the Common Cause website, linked here.
As Ayn Rand said, you should "check your premises"
https://www.google.com/search?q="check+your+premises"
------
PDF Fact Sheet: Common Cause Opposes a Constitutional Convention
http://www.commoncause.org/issues/mor...
==This is from the Common Cause PDF linked above ===
Common Cause Opposes a Constitutional Convention
The call for a federal constitutional convention is
a dangerous threat to our democracy. Common Cause opposes a call for a constitutional convention, regardless of the amendment being proposed, for the following reasons:
THREAT OF A RUNAWAY CONVENTION:
There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent a
constitutional convention from being expanded in scope to issues not raised in convention calls
passed by the state legislatures, and therefore could lead to a runaway convention.
INFLUENCE OF SPECIAL INTERESTS:
An Article V convention would open up the Constitution to revisions at a time of extreme gerrymandering and in an environment of unlimited political spending. It could allow special interests and the wealthiest to re-write the rules governing our system of government.
NO RULES:
There are no rules governing constitutional conventions. A constitutional convention
would be an unpredictable Pandora’s Box; the last one, in 1787, resulted in a brand new
Constitution. There’s a significant danger that opponents of certain civil liberties or other
members of the organized Right could change the scope of the convention and undermine basic
rights long protected by the Constitution.
UNCERTAIN RATIFICATION PROCESS:
A convention could re-define the ratification process (which currently requires 38 states to approve of any new amendments) to make it easier to pass new amendments, including those considered at the convention. This happened in 1787, when the convention changed the threshold necessary for ratification.
THREAT OF LEGAL DISPUTES:
No judicial, legislative, or executive body would have clear authority to settle disputes about a convention, opening the process up to chaos and drawn out legal disputes that threaten the functioning of our democracy and economy.
APPLICATION PROCESS UNCERTAINTY:
There is no clear process on how Congress or any other governmental body would count and add up Article V applications, or if Congress and the states could restrain the convention’s mandate based on those applications.
POSSIBILITY OF UNEQUAL REPRESENTATION:
There are no rules for how states would choose delegates to a convention, how states and citizens will be represented within a constitutional convention, and who would ultimately vote on matters raised in a convention.
It is a good read to do the whole thing.
---
Executive Summary
Some conservative organizations regularly lobby against using the Constitution's procedure for a “convention for proposing amendments.” Those organizations may think they are defending the Constitution, but in fact they are unwittingly repeating misinformation deliberately injected into public discourse by their political opponents. This paper shows how liberal establishment figures fabricated and spread this misinformation. This paper also reveals the reasons they did so: to disable a vital constitutional check on the power of the federal government.
INTRODUCTION
Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, any constitutional amendment must be ratified by three fourths of the states (now 38 of 50) to be effective. Before an amendment can be ratified, however, it must be proposed either (1) by Congress or (2) by an interstate task force the Constitution calls a “convention for proposing amendments.” This gathering is convened when the people convince two thirds of the state legislatures (34 of 50) to pass resolutions demanding it. The convention itself is a meeting of the representatives of state legislatures—an assembly of the kind traditionally called a “convention of states.”
The Framers adopted the convention procedure to ensure that Congress did not have a monopoly on the amendment process. The Framers saw the procedure as a way the people, acting through their state legislatures, could respond if the federal government became dysfunctional or abusive.
There is widespread public support for amendments to cure some of the real problems now plaguing the country. However, since repeal of Prohibition, Congress repeatedly has refused to propose any constitutional amendments limiting its own power and prerogatives. When reformers sought to check lavish congressional pay raises, for example, they could get nothing through Congress. Instead, they had to secure ratification of an amendment (the 27th) that had been formally proposed in 1789!
Such unresponsiveness would seem to be exactly the occasion for which the Founders authorized the convention for proposing amendments. Yet a handful of conservative groups—including but not limited to, the John Birch Society and Eagle Forum—have uncompromisingly opposed any use of the convention procedure to bypass Congress. They assiduously lobby state legislatures to reject any and all proposals for a convention, no matter how worthwhile or necessary they may be. This uncompromising opposition has become a mainstay of those groups' political identity and, perhaps, a useful fund raising device.
Although these groups bill themselves as conservative, their reflexive opposition to the convention process regularly allies them with the liberal establishment and with special interest lobbyists who seek only to protect the status quo. Since the 1980s, this strange coalition has blocked all constitutional efforts to address federal dysfunction. As a result that dysfunction has become steadily worse. For example, their long-held opposition to a balanced budget convention is a principal reason America now labors under a $18 trillion national debt.
The link given is to a 12 page researched document detailing where the objections to Article V conventions originate from.
I can post the entire 12 pages here, but I think that is rather abusive and a link is better.
And I suppose the 12 pages can be broken up into12 or more comments.
I can give you another link to the same docuemt from a different site.
I hope you are not against research, as this is that and what I thought this site and philosophy was about.
"The "convention" activism does not acknowledge or address that the descent is caused by philosophy."
"Convention activism"? Really? What is that? I think you should do a lot more research.
There is no separation of philosophy and action in the minds of those volunteers and supporters of Convention of States Project. A very large number of them (or all for all I know...) came to their decisions to support COS because of philosophy and understanding that socialism does not work.
It sound like you are separating philosophy from action. The Founders and Framers knew philosophy and in fact studied it a lot. But without the actions they took, there would be no separation from England, not USA, and no Constitution.
One can study Engineering ( I did ) but UNTIL one begins building roads, bridges, power plants, etc, that study is worthless. Thinking alone does not make you a Producer, and in fact leads to being a Taker.
Likewise, without the Constitution (diametrically in opposition of socialism, without the Bill of Rights, etc, there would be no USA. And without that protected incubator of thought, study of philosophy in opposition to socialism, islam, and other tyrannies would not exist. Pretty much, the rest of the world is in that state, and the USA is declining in that direction.
It is the PURPOSE and INTENT of the COSProject to stop that trend, reverse it, and build on it.
To think philosophy is not part of that indicates you do not know the movement and the people in it. They are in fact building on the knowledge base of anyone who wants to learn and believe that learning is one of the KEY goals necessary. But knowledge without action is like a computer with recorded ideas, and turned off. It has no effect. That is not a description of COSProject.
Amending the Constitution is 1/7 of its articles. To say that it should not be done ls in disagreement with the Framers who wrote it. I should add that this was the one Article that ALL of the Framers approved and insisted that there be a way for the states to propose. And specifically that Congress would never propose amendments that restricted the Federal government (IE, Congress).
Amendments should be provided to correct defects, thus preventing “chance and violence”
http://indianaliberty.weebly.com/blog...
Ironically, you give your opinion the states (which created the Constitution....) cannot be trusted to amend it.
Huh?
And yet, provide NO Constitutional solution that works, but apparently just want everyone to sit and talk among themselves.
That will not and never has reversed the slide.
But aside from such procedural open-endedness, the activists for the campaign show no idea of what it takes philosophically to formulate proper amendments and get the public and state representatives to agree on the purpose of a constitution and government, let alone improvements. They are running around claiming that the scheme itself is the solution to all our problems, much like the mindless Trump idolatry that began in the primaries. It all resembles the mentality of the campaign in Atlas Shrugged promoting Mr Thompson's speech as about to tell us what to do and save us. But there is no John Galt to hijack the radio frequencies and state the proper ideas based on what matters to solve the problem, and the hysterical conservative activists certainly aren't about to fill the gap.
From RimCountry:
"What is being discussed here and in the video is a LIMITED Article V Convention to Propose Amendments to the Constitution, NOT a general Constitutional Convention, which would at the very least be extra-legal, since there is no place in the Constitution that even contemplates such an assembly."
There are some major problems with this statement. There are no provisions under Article V for a LIMITED Article V Convention to Propose Amendments to the Constitution.
Unfortunately for RimCountry and supporters of an Article V Convention, Article V in its provisions provides only for a general Constitution Convention. If there is no place in the Constitution that even contemplates a general Constitutional Convention - words that RimCountry even uses - a con-con, what is the point of Article V? It says nothing about a LIMITED Convention!
And a general Constitutional Convention being extra-legal? Ummm...things that are outside of the Constitution are called extra-Constitutional. That is a higher bar than extra legal.
Very contradictory statements.
Amendments should be provided to correct defects, thus preventing “chance and violence”>http://indianaliberty.weebly.com/blog...
This is right off the Common Cause website, linked here.
They are using the same arguments you are using.
They have defeated you, misled, whatever.
As Ayn Rand said, you should "check your premises"
https://www.google.com/search?q="check+your+premises"
PDF Fact Sheet: Common Cause Opposes a Constitutional Convention>http://www.commoncause.org/issues/mor...
==This is from Common Cause============
Common Cause Opposes a Constitutional Convention
The call for a federal constitutional convention is
a dangerous threat to our democracy. Common Cause opposes a call for a constitutional convention, regardless of the amendment being proposed, for the following reasons:
THREAT OF A RUNAWAY CONVENTION:
There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent a
constitutional convention from being expanded in scope to issues not raised in convention calls
passed by the state legislatures, and therefore could lead to a runaway convention.
INFLUENCE OF SPECIAL INTERESTS:
An Article V convention would open up the Constitution to revisions at a time of extreme gerrymandering and in an environment of unlimited political spending. It could allow special interests and the wealthiest to re-write the rules governing our system of government.
NO RULES:
There are no rules governing constitutional conventions. A constitutional convention
would be an unpredictable Pandora’s Box; the last one, in 1787, resulted in a brand new
Constitution. There’s a significant danger that opponents of certain civil liberties or other
members of the organized Right could change the scope of the convention and undermine basic
rights long protected by the Constitution.
UNCERTAIN RATIFICATION PROCESS:
A convention could re-define the ratification process (which currently requires 38 states to approve of any new amendments) to make it easier to pass new amendments, including those considered at the convention. This happened in 1787, when the convention changed the threshold necessary for ratification.
THREAT OF LEGAL DISPUTES:
No judicial, legislative, or executive body would have clear authority to settle disputes about a convention, opening the process up to chaos and drawn out legal disputes that threaten the functioning of our democracy and economy.
APPLICATION PROCESS UNCERTAINTY:
There is no clear process on how Congress or any other governmental body would count and add up Article V applications, or if Congress and the states could restrain the convention’s mandate based on those applications.
POSSIBILITY OF UNEQUAL REPRESENTATION:
There are no rules for how states would choose
delegates to a convention, how states and citizens will be represented within a constitutional
convention, and who would ultimately vote on
matters raised in a convention.
The way you apparently know what Soros thinks.... how could that really be? Either it is conjecture, or you are in his inner circle....
I'm going with conjecture, which means you have no proof.
Instead, Soros has come out with his minions of 220 (at least) groups specifically against the Convention of States Project in no uncertain terms.
The interesting thing???
His groups use EXACTLY the same talking points you are using, and even more that some other supposedly "conservative" groups use. Read them here right from Common Cause itself.
---
PDF Fact Sheet: Common Cause Opposes a Constitutional Convention>http://www.commoncause.org/issues/mor...
And campaigning election after election to fix it? Really? How is that going for you? [no so very well or we would not be having this discussion....]
And you said: "Don't amend it. Obey it."
That is not an admonition for us is it? It IS for the FEDS.
The Feds ARE obeying the Constitution, the 3000 page version created by all the court judgements, laws passed, agencies, and more.
---
The government follows a 3000-PAGE Constitution>http://www.conventionofstates.com/the...
Soros has tried ( his minions and all ) to get Republicans out of office, and yet the state legislatures keep increasing their control of the statehouses, now at about 75%. They failed to get HRC into office, and failed to get that next Supreme Court appointment.
Contrary to your wild claims, this is still a Republic, and one man, especially Soros, does not control the electorate.
And in fact, his worse nightmare is a Convention of States, because it will be run by and under the pressure of thousands of grassroots supporters who pay no attention to his money.
It is God who oversees the affairs of men, and not Soros.
---
Followed the $$$! Found them/Soros AGAINST ArticleV http://blog.heartland.org/2016/02/sor...
And disinformation from the left has greatly aided in their victory over you. Read about it here
http://wiki.conventionofstates.com/do...
They couldn't even get the minority of state votes so far to support a convention for their agenda, only very limited specific amendments like a single balanced budget amendment, yet their cheer leading would have believe they have great momentum.
A bigger practical danger than "runaway" leftist amendments is more runaway compromises further undermining the rights of the individual and limits on government, with conservatives not caring or even realizing it.
At the root of their problem is that they are anti-intellectuals with no idea of the intellectual cause of the problem; they think that it's only a power struggle between the Federal government and "states", oblivious to what is going on in both the Federal and the state governments, to say nothing of counties, cities and towns, and the reasons for it.
There is no practical intellectual base for political reform through amending the Constitution -- which already is only partially followed, and that by momentum, not conviction. The "states" cannot be relied on to improve the Constitution, or enforce it, or do anything but go along with the same collectivism already entrenched and progressively increasing in both the Federal and state governments. More conservative anti-intellectual promotionalism is not an answer to that.
The reason the Article V con-con is dangerous is simple. There are just no provisions for controlling what goes on in the convention after it convenes. There has been only one Constitutional Convention in the country's history - the original one in 1787. It was convened with the mandate to fix the Articles of Confederation. They threw all that out and drafted an entirely new Constitution. Fortunately the caliber of statesmen back then was very high - something we don't have today,
There is nothing to prevent a convention these days from totally overhauling the Constitution and you can bet many of the delegates are going to be left wing nutjobs (just picture who California would send). And it is well known that leftists are preparing to hijack the convention with a lot of agendas in mind. They want Citizens United overthrown, 2nd amendment eviscerated, collectivism enshrined in the Constitution, etc, etc, etc.
We hashed this topic over extensively a few years back. Is there a way to search back through Gulch history to find that extensive coverage? If I recall, it was in 2013.
----
Our Political Plan to Call a Convention of States>http://wiki.conventionofstates.com/do...
1. Sign the Convention of States Petition http://bit.ly/COSpetition and join the fight
2. Volunteer to help get er done! http://www.conventionofstates.com/vol...
Load more comments...