« BACK | PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Article V Opinions ~ Open Thread

By: RoguePolitics (Diary) | October 12th, 2011 at 12:59 PM |

RESIZE: AAA

I am working on something and looking for some opinions related to Article V of the US Constitution and the idea of an Article V Convention.

We see Herman Cain’s 999 plan for example which might require an Amendment or if SCOTUS were to uphold ObamaCare an Amendment might be needed to fix that problem. Many support a Balanced Budget Amendment or Term Limits as well.

In spite of these needs, congress seems incapable of doing anything “BIG.” Only the states are in a position to pressure congress with the threat of an Article V Convention, or if that fails they could hold an actual Article V Convention. You may disagree with that premise altogether.

For those not familiar with it:

Article V

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.

Some questions;

1. What is your general opinion of an Article V Convention?

2. Does the “shall call” language of Article V mean congress has no choice if the requisite states make application?

a. If “shall call” leaves congress no option but to call a convention, and if congress reneges on that obligation, can the states assemble in an Article V Convention anyway? If the product of such a convention were ratified by 3/4ths of the states, would it be legal?

3. What are your thoughts on a “runaway convention” often cited as the overwhelming reason to avoid an Article V Convention?

4. There have been hundreds of applications by the states. Far exceeding the numbers required to call such a convention. Two reasons for not calling the convention in spite of this are:

a. The requests have been on a variety of topics and are therefore not “germane.” Do you believe it is necessary for applications to be “germane?” Whichever position you take, how do you support it from a constitutional perspective?

b. The requests have been spread over a number of years and are not contemporaneous. Again, how is your position supported?

5. Did the founding fathers make a mistake adding the state based Article V Convention option?

a. Can we reasonably ignore the provisions of the Constitution where we think the founders made a mistake?

If you respond please add your own opinions in an independent comment before commenting on somebody else’s opinion.

You may be adamantly opposed to the very idea of an Article V Convention. I would particularly like to hear from you.

Thanks for helping.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES | LOGIN TO COMMENT | REGISTER TODAY

westcoastpatriette

but, due to my interest in Constitutional matters, I will briefly try to answer some of them.

With respect to questions 1 & 2, my answers are yes, an Article V Convention is absolutely a good thing. And, yes, the “shall call” language of Article V leaves Congress no option but to call a convention. Furthermore, if congress failed to call the Convention when the requisite states had requested one, the states have the right to convene themselves and whatever amendments were ratified by 3/4ths of the states would be legal.

With respect to concerns about a “runaway convention,” the process itself is so arduous that I am not concerned about the ability to go overboard with amendments.

With respect to question 4, as far as I am concerned, the only people in a position to determine whether or not the topics being considered are germane are the states proposing the amendments. In other words, no topics are out of bounds. I do think requests for conventions spread out over a number of years would not count as the requisite number needed to call a convention. My reading of Article V is that the request must be at any given time, two-thirds of the states must simultaneously make the request for the convention.

To answer question 5, the founding fathers did not make a mistake adding the state based Article V Convention option. As it stands now, we are seeing the results of an out of control federal government and I always remind people that the states created the federal government as “an agent of the states” not the other way around. I do not, however, think that we can “reasonably ignore the provisions of the Constitution where we think the founders made a mistake” as that would undermine the foundation of our constitutional governance. The proper thing to do is to amend it as provided in Article V.

Hope this was helpful, RoguePolitics.

http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

Do you have a twitter account? Mind if I follow?

westcoastpatriette

but I’m curious as to why you are gathering the info. Care to share?

http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

nt

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

I think I’m right on that?

The convention language is so vague as to timing of requests and who attends etc.

Yes, there would be a fear of a runaway convention if you ever were able to get one convened that the Supreme Court deemed valid, which I think would be very problematic. But the main guard against a runaway convention would be that all proposals would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. That criteria protects conservatives since I can’t imagine 3/4 of the states agreeing to any liberal amendments. Moreover, we have runaway conventions now called courts that routinely impose liberal re-interpretations of the Constitution proper.

more later
still thinking

JSobieski

Moreover, who is invited, allowed to vote, etc. would all need to be determined.

By using the House and Senate, we essentially bypass all those “ground rules” stuff. Give the OWS folks, I don’t want the chaos of a Convention. It would be utter chaos without having some authority with some authenticity to kick people out.

http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

The questions you raise would be answered by doing what was done at the original Federal Convention.
Each state sent a delegation.
Each state had one “vote” concerning passage.
Most, if not, all delegations were selected by state assemblies or legislatures.

It seems a valid assumption since Article V doesn’t address the question.

I don’t think anybody could be kicked out.

Using the House and Senate might be easier but it seems certain they won’t act. If they did act would they dis-empower themselves as a state based initiative might?

At this point the Article V question is academic but it may not always be so.

JSobieski

Have you followed the recent Senate votes? Most of the fights are about procedures and rules even though they have lengthy rules written down on paper.

The Federal Rules of Evidence and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are over a hundred pages in length, and lawyers fight about that stuff all the time.

The fact that the Convention path is essentially a make it up as you go is precisely why it has never happened. Its an almost totally blank slate, with the stakes being the highest ever. Every special interest large and small will be playing games.

Here is one example of a problem: Who picks the delegate? The governor? The legislature? Both? Any state with divided government would end up in lengthy litigation first at the state level and then at the federal level.

The process (and procedural challenges) would be endless.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

courts that rightly refuse to rule on what is a political question. But yes, it took 5000 years for the Miracle at Philadelphia, but what Rogue and I and I think you have in common is a fear that socialism is at the tipping point here in the USA and we want to try and prevent a breakdown that leads to violence as more and more liberty and prosperity slips away.

We need to bold action, hence our call for dispensing with the filibuster and other 60 vote rules requirements, such is the urgency of the situation.

But yes, this would need to be a coordinated and disciplined “application” tat would have to win a war against courts to get it done.
JSobieski

and doing so in a setting where there are literally no rules except for the state confirmation side.

Or we can have 51 Senators can vote to change Senate rules and let all the ruffians be on defense rather than offense.

The way to preserve capitalism doesn’t require a Constitutional amendment. We can do it with control of the Senate, House, and WH. Statutes can do the job. Statutes are the best tools that we have.

There is very little we can learn from the OWS people, but watching them struggle to “make decisions” without any procedural guardrails does teach us something.
westcoastpatriette

ready to strike them down to further their socialist agenda?

It seems to me the entire system has been perverted where the courts have assumed too much power over Congress and the States.
JSobieski

Judges didn’t pass the income tax, politicians did.
Judges didn’t pass Obamacare, politicians did.

Judges do a lot of harm, but they are not the primary destroyers of capitalism.
westcoastpatriette

when they prevent legislation that is constitutional from being enacted or allow legislation that is unconstitutional to be enacted. So, to deny that they play a part in the corruption is a faulty conclusion.
JSobieski

Judges stopped those policies?

What Federal judge has ever struck down a tax cut at the federal level? What Federal judge has ever struck down a budget cut at the federal level?
Bill S

It’s federalism. Depending on the ruling, capitalism could certainly suffer as a byproduct.
http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

If there is one consistent principle in judicial decisions as far as I can tell, it is to increase the power of DC (any or all branches) at the expense of everybody else but particularly the expense of the states.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

commenter.
David123

The problem is the “Amendments” that have been made by judicial fiat, contrary to the written word of the Constitution.

Plessy v Ferguson contradicted the 14th Amendment

Row v Wade contradicted the 10th Amendment

Kelo contradicted the 5th Amendment

Lawrence v Texas contradicted the 10th Amendment and the Suppreme Court’s earlier Bowers v. Hardwick
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

took advantage of. The 14th was NOT well written. But yes, the main problem has been that judges succumbed to the temptation to eschew judicial restraint and the judicial supremacy movement that Jefferson and Jackson feared.

See Bork’s

The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law
http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

Our choices are to accept it or alter the system in a way to block the overreach.

Voting a few new people into Washington, even if they did some spring cleaning doesn’t really fix anything because it doesn’t erect serious barriers.

Sure they can be overcome, but amendments represent higher barriers than legislative acts.

The constitution doesn’t have an adequate check for the problems we have today. Or we wouldn’t be here.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

‘ski, I can tell your not a leader…Rogue, you should consider it a badge of honor
that ‘ski can tell your not a lawyer. Come on ‘ski.

Yes, it would be a miracle on par with the one at Philly that mostly non-lawyers pulled off to create the City on a Hill we call the USA, but these are desperate times. And yes, it would require great coordination and courage to ignore courts attempting to rule on political questions to get the new revolution we need done.

But you and I want to chuck the filibuster as well, partly due to the urgency of the situation.

more later to those that I can tell are lawyers and regular human beings…smile
JSobieski

D-Day involved leadership. A decision to paratroop directly into Berlin would have been a bad idea.

The fillibuster rule is clear and we both know the Courts will not intervene.

A Convention in contrast has absolutely no parameters. It would be unclear as to what the rules of the road would be. The equivalent to arguing a case in which the parties have to determine the rules of civil procedure, the rules of evidence, etc. before the actual merits are discussed.

I don’t subscribe to a pick a path and we can somehow jam it through approach.

P.S. the comment about lawyers was not an insult, it was simply pointing out that lawyers make a living poking holes in procedural rules that are supposed “settled”.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

Argue substance not identity. The conservative cause doesn’t need to continue to perpetuate the lie that only lawyers are qualified to make and interpret law etc.

Read How to win friends and influence people….smile…you need to…smile
JSobieski

I was pointing out that despite how clear normal thinking Americans think something may be, lawyers will find room to argue.
‘
I wasn’t saying it was good that these things were true, merely that reality is what reality is.

Meanwhile, you accuse me of advocating in favor of DOING NOTHING.

100% of the time, that means you are accusing me of advocating for DOING NOTHING.

Why is it when I disagree with you on the merits, you feel compelled to make personal comments about me?

It happens every time. Be it this, Iraq, etc. I know that if I disagree with you, you will get personal. Well this is the third time. I’m out.

God speed to you. Cood luck with your convention. I am going to go back to doing nothing.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

my bad
westcoastpatriette

That you think a Convention is a bad idea, wouldn’t work and it is better to allow the normal political process to take its course.

So, just wanted to throw that out. Maybe it is your background as an attorney that locks you into a certain way of thinking inside the box.
http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

Assumptions might be a poor word to use.
Precedent might be better.

Where my “assumption” comes from is the weight precedent is traditionally afforded in the legal/judicial system,. I think it would fall to the opposition to make the case for anything other than same rules as last time.

So as I pointed out that means
legislature appoints delegates
each state gets one vote
etc.

Could the courts screw that one up? Yep.
But they are all ready doing it piecemeal.

Thanks for sticking in. Hope you keep it up.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

Hell, it seems ego would produce more reccos if for no other reason, it would get more people to read your brilliance…

I refer to, just so there is no mistake, the three stooges of

‘ski, acat and aesthete

You don’t recco enough. Not nice.

aesthete

I just can’t get the darned button to work half the time!
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

to be related to the browser (IE). Few problems with Google Chrome, but I know these problems are different for others.
westcoastpatriette

.

JSobieski

Rather, it is that the process becomes weighed down such that nothing actually happens. A Convention would be a great way to dissipate a lot of political energy in a way that doesn’t produce anything.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

We can walk and chew gum and the more politicians are doing this, the less energy expended in passing bad laws.

Peanut galleries arguing for all the reasons for doing nothing not appreciated.

Rogue actually DOES things. Cold water won’t work here.

JSobieski

Lets compare how we address arguments we disagree with.

Me: I think you are wrong

You: You are arguing for doing nothing

What you say is objectively false.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

choice! You would never get 12 to agree with you.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

I would like to see any convention TRY to limit itself to proposed Amendments on certain subjects and that many should be to reverse Sup Ct opinions that went awry! And possibly to change the tenure of Judges and Justices, limit their jurisdiction and possibly provide for the overturning of decisions by majority votes in both houses of Congress.

More later

I do think the worry about runaway is overblown given that most states are conservative, eg more than 38 states have state constitutional amendments defining marriage as one man and one woman. That could be made the Law of the Land for all states via a convention and only a convention because the presence of so many LibDems as senators in Red States prevents such const amendments from getting out of Congress.

http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

Or term limits?

westcoastpatriette

With respect to reversing faulty Supreme Court decisions, I can think of a whole slew of decisions where the court “had its way” so to speak and ventured way beyond the Constitution’s original intent. (Commerce Clause, anyone?) These need to be clarified through the amendment process.

Also, I find very troubling that the states have no formal process to decide constitutionality of federal laws outside of appealing to the Supreme Court–which has a built in conflict of interest seeing how they are a branch of the feds. Know what I mean? In other words, I would like to see provision for States to determine for themselves if Congress has overstepped their bounds with legislation that violates the Tenth Amendment. This was discussed in the federalist papers and at that time, it was assumed that if Congress assumed power not delegated, the law would be null and void. Today, such thinking is blasphemy and the Supreme Court functions almost as an oligarchy and the final arbiter of all things federal. It was never intended to be this way.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

I could live with that too, depending on the form. Bork has great suggestions on reigning in the court. And yes!!! The Congress and courts need to be made to comply with the 10th and stay out of certain areas. I would say though as per the commerce clause, that most of what we complain of that Congress does in the economic sphere is constitutional, but just wrong. We do need to have ONE nation economically so as to prevent restraints of trade. i think it is a scandal that the Congress hasn’t broken up state health ins monopolies for example….More detail later.

And yes Rogue, wee might could get 2/3 of the states to apply for a convention on things they already agree on. But I’m rethinking this and also think that maybe the best way to get “an application” would be for an open-ended convention.

aesthete

1) Poor. It would be a mess dominated by the Barney Franks and Rick Santorums of the world.

2) If 3/4s of the state legislatures are united on something, it’s a pretty good chance that it will lead to something on the federal level. In that respect, I don’t think that it’s relevant whether it’s mandatory for Congress to do something; they probably will either way.

3) Extremely likely. Conservatives and libertarians are terrible at playing the game, and there’s a strong likelihood that they’ll find a way to either marginalize themselves or get locked out.

4) I believe that applications would need to be germane, contemporaneous, and that there would need to be some level of coordination between the states for it to be considered a discrete request for a convention.

5) No more than the Bill of Rights was a mistake. The option makes more sense when states are sovereign entities with general police power and near-total independence when it comes to setting policy for residents. It makes less sense as states become more dependent on the federal government and are more restricted in what policies they can pursue.

http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

on 3 would the product of a runaway convention get ratified by 38 states or would it be a dead letter?

aesthete

and that if something ended up getting ratified ATM, it would probably be a set of moderate leftist policies rather than conservative ones.

If we were better about our A-game, a constitutional convention could be risky, but work out to our favor.

As is, we don’t have a field of good communicators. Besides Paul Ryan and Mitch Daniels to a lesser extent, our team of people who can convey conservative truths in a meaningful way without being tuned out by independents is limited at present. We don’t have a good communicator of the Milt Friedman mold for economic issues, or a communicator like Reagan to articulate why defense or social conservatism should concern us all. We also don’t have the legal talent (at present) or the force of will to iron out a set of procedures that would work to our favor. I can be sold on a Constitutional convention, but at the moment, I’m just not convinced. Don’t give up on account of what I say, though — just be aware of these obstacles, so that you can find a way to overcome them!

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

The manifestation of the nation as center-right is especially self evident at the state level and especially when each state has an equal vote for ratification of ONE. Utah cancels out NY, etc.

I think a constitutional convention effort would be a good way to highlight better conservative communicators at the state level. There are more Herman Cains out there.

And this blog is about seeking ways to DO it, not endless pouring of cold water on the idea and doing nothing in this regard.

If you would use your awesome mind on seeking answers and BEING a competent conservative voice, rather than a contrarian naysayer….

So much potential wasted?

smile

Come down out of the peanut gallery and take a risk to DO things. Feels right.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

a mess since Eve bit the apple. We are in a HUGE mess now.

I would also relate this to the 9-9-9 criticisms.

The current tax code is a mess.
State sales tax codes are messes.
Many tax codes start out un-messy. People will always make them messy over time.
The best we can do is clear the palate periodically.

This is my outline for refuting streiff’s current FP blog against 9-9-9.
more later by tomorrow in column form…I like to put pressure on myself.

JSobieski

Will lobbying regarding a Convention be less than the lobbying involved to change income tax rates? Or will be it be exponentially greater?

An Article V Convention would involve a fatal combination of the following:

A wide variety of differen interest groups trying to push their particular view point

AND

No procedural rules to speak of for navigating through those interests.

In terms of the delegates themselves, how many lawsuits do you think would be filed in the selection of state delegates? State court decisions appealed to State Supreme Courts appealed to Federal Courts—all over the place.

I think we do need to think creatively, and I like this diary for that reason. A world in which this was a viable option is a world in which the option wouldn’t be needed.

I think the Convention route was added solely as an escape measure from federal tyranny. The Convention alleviates any role of DC. The only time that route will ever be used is if the country division between state v. federal ceases to be a division between right v. left.

My 10 cents, but again, I do like the out of the box thinking.

Back when I did litigation, I came to the conclusion that litigation in court was better than binding arbitration because we spent thousands of extra dollars in arbitration arguing about what the procedural and evidentiary rules were.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

The original convention was after a war. Our s would need to deal with courts either via litigation or in ignoring them.. Many of us “rogues” fear that the Left will start a war as we win more elections and/or that they will get violent when more Americans demand the right to make a living under liberal rule. We must think outside the box.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

What has been fatal is what led to ObamaDems and 70 years of letting judges hold constitutional conventions where 5 lawyers ratified virtual amendments.

try again with the cold water

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

in red states. That is what prevents making needed change including restoring the constitution’s mandates and principles usurped by courts or Dem super-majorities. This is why I was so excited that Reid opened the door to waive 60-vote rule change requirements. The best chance to save the nation is to end the filibuster and 60-vote rules when we get power in 2013. Otherwise the socialism worm, esp ObamaCare just bores in and we’ll never restore America to the shining city on a hill.

Knowing that the states would send the delegates and that 3/4 of states, not repubs in DC would have to ratify, relieves my fear of bad amendments.

We need to ACT. All is risk. Doing nothing has proven the riskiest.

aesthete

but aren’t many state legislatures similarly dominated by Dems? IMO (and that’s all it is — an opinion), the legislature of a given state is more likely than not to be more liberal than its host population: the legislature in AZ is more liberal than AZ residents on average, the GA legislature is more liberal than the GA residents on average, and so on. Given that, I am apprehensive about jumping into a constitutional convention straightaway: we might come out with some good stuff, but my guess is that the statism of the right and left would combine to produce some pretty noxious amendments. I could see amendments guaranteeing pensions as a “right”, or an anti-workplace discrimination amendment, easily being ratified — the Equal Rights Amendment very nearly was.

I’m not saying that it would be impossible to get good things at the convention. I’m saying that we need to get better at playing the game for that to happen, and we need to have a strategy to a) set up procedure from the start and to b) game this to our advantage by having a brigade of lawyers, litigants, etc and a good legal and political strategy to ensure that this does not become a giveaway to moderate leftists. I agree that anything too radical will likely not pass, but even some of the more “moderate” stuff coming from the left scares me! I have not seen good game from the GOP almost ever: is there anyone on point besides Paul Ryan and Mitch Daniels when it comes to entitlements? Democrats can afford to be aimless and vague; government inertia favors them and they usually crash and burn when they’re straightforward about their intentions, anyways (see Mondale). Until the GOP can assemble an army of GREAT legal talent, and a media team to do their efforts justice, I think that a convention would be prone to the same sort of rent-seeking which has dominated government (even “conservative” government) for all these years.

http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

Assume such was commandeered by the left, what would they do that they aren’t doing already?

We kind of have a government that ignores every restriction placed on it as it is.
So it seems we are desperately in need of a new (or old ie. 17th goes bye bye) check on the unadulterated exercise of undelegated power.

We’ve been hammering away for what? at least 100 years, trying to tame it via the ballot box. We have had several wave elections, a few runs with total R control and still it gets worse.

aesthete

You’re right: most of the things that I think would be feasible from a leftist perspective would mostly be codifications of existing practice.

However, I think that there would be the problem of ceding an inch and giving a mile.

To use one example, many liberal countries with constitutionally-required pension systems have judiciaries which have demanded a minimum quality and minimum funding for these pension systems: whereas today in America we could feasibly move away from SS and towards private accounts or vouchers of some sort, in many European countries such programs have been judged by their courts to be un-Constitutional. This is the potential problem, IMO.

Again, I’m not against an Article 5 convention as a matter of principle, but I do want to know that we’d be able to handle the media and procedure that would need to be handled, and IMO we don’t have that talent at the moment (but maybe we could if we worked to assemble it; I dunno).

lastgopinillinois

Q #5) No I do not believe it was a mistake to allow for amendments per Article 5 as specifically written. I think it is engenious.

Q#2) I also believe that it was NOT meant to be optional upon 2/3 of states voting for a convention.

The perfect example would be if 2/3 of States wanted the Federal government to be forced to balance its budget. Article 5 makes it possible to have an Amendment to the Constitution and a convention for this would be mandatory if 2/3 of states voted in favor.
It would be specifically for a balanced budget amendment, so it shouldnt be a runaway convention.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

acts on what the people demand.
http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

could they meet even if congress ignored the application?

lastgopinillinois

that even though Article V doesnt seem to specifically indicate it; I believe that the intent is to allow an Amendment for a specific item (or group of inter-related items) that 2/3 of the States have agreed they want. Therefore, the arguement of runaway conventions would be rediculous.

Its exactly like somebody adding spending for an unrelated item into a military spending bill. It shouldnt happen. In the time of out founding fathers, such a trickk would have been unthinkable, heracy, at least highly dishonest, thus they wouldn’t have thought to specifically state that the Amendment would have to be for a specific item, although thats what they intended, I believe.

To them, I believe, if a second or third unrelated item was being discussed, each individually would need to go for their own 2/3 vote for a different convention on that specific item.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

that said amendments be part of the application. But they could.

billwalker

Rouge Politics as has already been said, you’ve asked a lot of questions. Fortunately there are answers but you’d better be prepared for a LOT of reading. You can find answers to all of them at www.foavc.org.

Besides the FAQ pages you can also read the answers at http://www.foa5c.org/mod/resource/view.php?id=30

(Articles by Bill Walker).

To give you some brief answers which will be necessarily short for this post, you will still need to read the hundreds of pages of material.

What is your general opinion of an Article V Convention?

The convention is as valid a part of the Constitution as any other. The states have applied; therefore a convention is required. Either you believe the Constitution must be obeyed or you don’t. The key to truly knowing your position is what you believe as to calling a convention.

2. Does the

http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

Will try to dig in a little on your site. I think I must create a user account. Correct?

dajeeps

1) I am undecided on the idea of a convention of the states because it might be difficult to control and would be open to other agendas, like FDR’s bill of rights, that we wouldn’t want and could end up being a waste of time.

There are other avenues for states to deal with objectionable congressional action, however, like nullification, especially concerning the matter of ObamaCare; it is just a matter of how far they want to go with a showdown to force congress to rethink what it wanted to do. Congress can also deal with the Supreme Court without having to amend the constitution to overturn it. There is no such thing as judicial supremacy where the court is transformed into a 9-man constitutional convention. That is an oligarchy and a violation of the balance of powers where the judicial branch is the weakest of the three branches.

2) I do not believe amendments coming out of a convention need the blessing of congress if ratified by 3/4 of the States. The original constitution did not, and I assume it follows with that same procedure just by the language of the Article.

3) See number 1

4) a & b This is new information for me, but it might have something to do with my opinion in #1. If there were focused requests, a convention might be called. The repeal of the 18th amendment is one case where the states voted for a convention to repeal, congress saw the writing on the wall and did it for them so there was no need for a convention. As far as some of the other examples given, like dealing with ObamaCare and a BBA, it is likely congress would want to be in the driver seat as far as the language.

5) Absolutely not. The framers intended to create a federation, not a monolithic central power that could just go running roughshod over the states on a whim. It is a check on all three branches of the Federal government for them to be able to amend the constitution independently.

Since you asked for opinions and included examples, like the BBA, I’d like to chime in on that subject. First, I am not so sure the states would want a BBA because they are addicted to the Federal handouts, and so it would likely be an uphill battle to get each of the legislatures to vote for a convention for that purpose, or to ratify such an amendment should it be passed by congress.

Additionally, I do not believe a BBA is in our best interests, not because I like all the spending, but because I do not believe it has as much millage in fixing that which makes the government harmful to society and our economy in general as we’ve been lead to believe. The government is far more expensive than just what it consumes of GDP directly every year. It also drives additional costs that show up in overhead with its various assortment of regulatory actions, and thus drives up the cost of the goods and services we buy. It also does this when it creates market distortions with its central economic planning apparatus, that we all end up paying for, sometimes unexpectedly like in the housing/financial crisis. None of those side effects of it flexing power it was never intended to have shows up in the budget, and with that power being unchecked by a BBA, anything in excess of whatever caps a BBA would impose, the cost of the object of government appetite to control would just be shifted to some other place where it can effect control – off budget – and we will all end up paying for it anyway. The basic problem is that government spends too much on budget, and off, because it has power to do so that it was never intended to have. A BBA will do very little to remedy that.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

especially when conservatives tie their hands with obeiscience to rules that Dems routinely break. Comparisons of chaotic conventions to imagines circumstances will always work to do nothing.

Let;s instead compare the disaster of the present with a convention of 30+ states, most of which are RED.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

have brought the US to the brink. We need to take risks to save the country.
http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

the 18th may be the model.

JSobieski

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/ljs2011020302/

I acknowledge that R’s have not had 2/3 of the Senate since Reconstruction. So going the DC route involves getting some D votes.

However, R’s have never controlled both houses (1 state is unicameral) of 3/4 of the state legislature either.

Even in 2010, 16 states are controlled by the Ds. Rs control 25. We can add Nebraska to make it 26. 8 are split, so even adding those we get to 34. 4 short.

2010 is best R’s have done in state houses since pre FDR.

There is no magic bullet here for a Constitutional amendment. My suggestion is to focus on winning elections, and using statutory power to fix things.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

its not an insult.

decimals might help

.67 is less than .75!!!!

smile

JSobieski

So here I go and dig up actual data on how many state legislatures we actually control. Your response is to make some kind of snark that I made a mathematical error or am somehow ignorant in math?

Nice. Again. Objectively untrue. But back to the merits.

You are saying it is easier to get 3/4 of the states than 2/3 of the Senate. Where is the logic in this? I actually dug up some numbers to see if you were right. Serves me right for engaging with you on a topic that we disagree on.

I could have made some snarky comment about YOUR math ability. Instead, I stuck to the facts.

I guess I will leave the snark to you. I will stick with the facts.

I did recommend this diary originally, as I have many of your diaries. I chose to undue it, since I am advocating doing nothing, I thought it only appropriate.

We have had 3 substantive arguments during our mutual time here at RS. Each of those substantive arguments ended in you making personal comments about me.

Thanks for repeating a lesson I seem unwilling to learn.

http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

Here in WV we have been controlled by D’s all my life. Yet they actually are fairly conservative compared to national D’s. I think WV might well go for a BBA or a few other similar things. Term limits maybe.

I think local D’s are to the right of National D’s most everywhere just because they are more likely to know and be known by voters.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

You need only 2/3 to call for and get a convention. You need 3/4 to ratify.

Maybe we could one day get 2/3 of the Senate in GOP hands, but even then, would it be 2/3 conservative enough? Of course, we work on all fronts.

What I wish you would do is come up with answers for a proposal to take to 2/3 or more of the states because what we need, as you, me and others have alluded to above is unanimity in “an application” on the call for a convention (open-ended or closed proposal to limited and enumerated proposed amendments). I think state legislatures could successfully ignore court actions that attempt to require certain procedures on picking delegates. But it might be good to follow the example of the Miracle at Philadelphia convention that produced Article V.

more later

PS My goal is lambasting you (knowing that you can take it brother) is to get past the questions, all of which are good, and get on to proposing answers.

And that would have to include a strategy re court challenges all along the way.

cool?

BTW, this is not my diary that you un-recommended. But if you favor doing nothing, then no one appreciates a long-winded pretentious contrarian with a lawyer superiority complex!

That’s a joke

But seriously if you have already concluded that this effort is a pipe dream, move along please.

And you should read How to Win Friends and Influence people. Just not getting personal doesn’t make your contrarianess not be like a jerk at times, and I feel called by God at times to call you out for your cold water tossing, especially when you try and pull the lawyer as all-knowing card.

Some of the blogger social skills need some work, hence all the pajama jokes. I am not in that category having been a trial lawyer, QB of the football team, run campaigns, etc…don’t you just hate me! smile

I’m having fun.

Job done with you. Back to the issues. If you decide to be constructive in suggesting specific strategies to DO SOMETHING, then you are welcome and I will be glad to discuss. You are one of the smartest people at RS.

But if you favor doing nothing as per a call for a convention, then please feel free to do nothing on this diary rather than throw more cold water.

Now, its 920am EDT. My new law form won its first trial last week (Probation revocation defeated! Client back on the street!), so my head may be too big from the first trial I’ve conducted in a few years. Now I’m off to a related child support matter on behalf of the man! God bless.

rbdwiggins

the proper path would be to write the amendment prior to calling for the Article V Convention. Then call for a convention to address only that specific amendment. One that has already been carefully constructed through comprehensive consultation and negotiation with each of the individual state legislatures.

Apportionment of delegates should be negotiated in advance, and appointment of delegates should be made by the individual state legislatures because they are accountable to their constituents.

In order to control the process and ensure successful passage of the amendment, don’t make the formal call for the convention until you’re positive that the threshold of support for ratification of the specific amendment has been reached.
http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

In fact I think the most likely outcome of a growing call for an Article V Convention is for congress to attempt to kill the momentum by churning out an amendment close to what is being asked for.

All the more reason to push for a Convention since only the realistic fear of an Article V would so move the congress.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

more later

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Article V Opinions ~ Open Thread

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL