Who's Smarter than a 5th Grader - The Founders or the JBS?
Posted by RimCountry 9 years, 7 months ago to Politics
In another thread, (http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/14...), Flootus5 and I were discussing the pros and cons of an Article V Convention of States to Propose Amendments to the Constitution. We had arrived at a point in the colloquy where it hinged, as most such discussions do, on who is correct - the John Birch Society, who protest the States having a role in amending the Constitution, or the Founders, who clearly thought differently.
It was decided to move the discussion to its own thread, so here it is.
It was also decided to begin with the language of A5, so here that is, verbatim:
"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."
It was decided to move the discussion to its own thread, so here it is.
It was also decided to begin with the language of A5, so here that is, verbatim:
"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."
Their is simply no means or method to restrict what the Convention does nor who get's appointed or elected to the Convention. I trust absolutely no politician, nor entertainer (Levin), or a very limited list of the populace.
The only answer, even more so than obeying the words of the Constitution; is to somehow generate the spirit embodied in the writing of that Constitution, into the people of this country. Barring that, no words or writings to be endlessly interpreted, parsed, and argued about context by an endless array of lawyers is ever going to make the slightest difference.
Diplomats and delegates have been meeting in conventions, here and in England, since the 17th century. There are records of nearly 20 conventions that were held among delegates from the colonies prior to 1776, plus additional documents from 11 more that were conducted between Independence and the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
These were multi-colony and multi-state conventions, some dealing with single issues like the Indian wars, while others addressed multiple topics, such as inflation, the common defense and interstate trade compacts. Two of the more well-known multi-state conventions were the Washington Convention of 1861, where delegates from the states met to propose an amendment to Congress in an attempt to ward of the Civil War; and more recently the multi-state Colorado River Compact of 1922 that met to determine the water rights of seven states’ conflicting claims on the Colorado River watershed.
To suggest that these events were somehow randomly conducted in an atmosphere of chaos and disarray without the development of standard protocols and procedures is to deny history.
Frankly, this kind of misstatement should be categorized under the same heading as those that ignore the Supreme Court and feign ignorance, persisting in conflating a Convention of the States with a Constitutional Convention – “Science Fiction”
Once again, it’s the weekend… time to go!
Having said that, part of the discussion revolves around the question of whether there is a difference or not between a Constitutional Convention (a Con-Con) and what is being called an Article V Convention of the States. Mark Levin has contributed to the recent momentum of the movement with his book entitled "The Liberty Amendments". A major group currently pushing this concept is called The Convention of the States (COS).
Article V provides for three mechanisms to amend the Constitution. Congress can propose amendments to go to the State legislatures for ratification requiring three fourths in number, the States can apply to Congress if two thirds agree to call for a Convention for proposing amendments then requiring the three fourths of the State legislatures to ratify, or if conventions are held in three fourths of the States successfully proposing and ratifying the same amendments. The latter is clearly a logistical issue so the historic pushes for a Convention have been with the effort to gain enough States to apply to Congress to call a Convention.
Article V provides two primary methods for calling a National Convention for amending the Constitution. Either way it is a Constitutional Convention. Now COS is trying to change what has been historically referred to as a Constitutional Convention or the Con-Con with something called an Article V Convention of the States. But clearly there is no difference after the National Convention has convened.
So, resolving the discussion to what is truly at heart here, is whether it is a wise thing or a dangerous thing to call for a Con-Con. A major objection from those that say no to a Con-Con is that it would become a “runaway” Convention with all kinds of potential chicanery from the likes of George Soros funded leftists groups and others gaining a foothold and radically changing the fundamentals of our existing Constitution. The pro Con-Con folks maintain that the Convention can be limited ahead of time and presumably to Mark Levin’s proposed Liberty Amendments. But, as the John Birchers and others point out, there is nothing in Article V providing for this supposed ability for a limited Convention.
The one time there has been a Constitutional Convention was in 1787. That was without an Article V similar to the current one and there has not been a Con-Con held since. Probably for good reason. In 1787 it was originally intended to amend the Articles of Confederation, indeed turned into a “runaway” convention and produced a whole new Constitution – thankfully by people with intelligent heads on their shoulders. The point has been made by many, that given today’s generally deplorable state of political education and well known powerful influences such as George Soros and many others that a modern Constitutional Convention could turn into a most unwelcome opening of a Pandora’s Box.
It has also been pointed out by many that good people have come down on both sides of this issue. It is a split amongst conservative constitutionalists with the stakes potentially very high.
I cherish some hope that in the near future, a reawakened America can create the same situation again, go through the process anew, and do a better job of it, without any need to fight a war.
I do not have any such hope for the Article V convention process. All 50 states have already asked Congress to call a convention under Article V multiple times (see the list at foavc.org), but Congress won't do it and nobody can make them.
With regard to the number of failed COS attempts that you cite, and without taking serious issue with the source of your information, I'll acknowledge your point, while directing you to what some might consider to be a more credible source, http://www.article5library.org. I will note, however, that while literally hundreds of applications for a convention of states have, indeed, been submitted to Congress, very few have met the required threshold of 34 applications on the same subject, permitting Congress to disregard them in their role as aggregator, rendering the vast majority of applications inoperative, non-binding and unsuccessful.
Among notable exceptions in the 20th century, however, would be the states' successful effort to propose the 17th Amendment (for better or worse) in the early 1900s. Although the COS was never actually held, Congress deferred to the states once 29 applications (on the same subject) were aggregated - they saw the writing on the wall and proposed the amendment to the states themselves, ending the need for the states to continue the application drive.
Later in the 1940s, another states’ effort was mounted to propose the 22nd Amendment. Again, Congress moved to avoid the A5 COS and proposed the amendment themselves in 1947.
So at the very least, it’s unwise to write-off Article V as futile or ineffective… just the threat alone has seen remarkable achievements in getting the attention of, and the desired action from, an arrogant federal government.
For some today, since nothing else seems to work, that’s a good enough reason in and of itself to continue with the effort.
Now, it’s the weekend here in Arizona, and the weather is absolutely spectacular… I’m off to enjoy it. See you next week!
I think there is a very high potential for what you say. The amount of money and international influence is almost limitless. Generations of Americans have been dumb downed and many have no concept of the founding and the precepts of a constitutional republic. Laws and restrictions are now observed by the powerful only when they want too and the potential for the complete subversion of the US is great.
I am beginning my response to you with a promise to do my best to temper my frustration and remain respectful. It is noted, however, that of the material you examined, you devoted 18% of your research (based on your comments) to current articles that were actually on topic, and the remaining 82% to outdated, biased and misleading propaganda.
Regarding the articles from The American Thinker and the Indiana GOP, which not only outlined the various levels of safeguards in place to assure a disciplined process, but also provided extensive legal precedent for a limited Article V Convention of States, you wrote: “The flaw that I see in this presentation is that all the examples given including the 1787 Philly Convention are before Article V was actually written…”
That “flaw” isn’t a flaw at all… what they are doing is citing PRECEDENT for a limited convention, the very precedents upon which the Founders based Article V. They wanted to assure the people of this young nation that there would be a procedure in place THAT THEY WERE ALREADY FAMILIAR WITH to remedy any errors discovered later on in the normal course of governance.
The conventions mentioned in the articles did, indeed, occur prior to the writing of the Constitution, except, of course, for the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia, during which Article V itself was drafted, along with the rest of the Founding Document. How does that constitute a flaw? Why would the Founders have tried to offer up a cure that had never before been tried? It was the efficacy and trustworthiness of those previous limited conventions that the Framers were pointing to in the text of Article V. If you or anyone else is questioning the source of the states’ authority to call a limited convention, what the authors are saying is that it is determined by centuries of settled law, beginning with and established by those cited precedents.
You continue: “…the question still remains as to whether or not a State legislature can alter Article V of the U.S. Constitution.”
If that is indeed a question, it is yours and yours alone. No one in this discussion has even remotely suggested that a state legislature could or would want to alter A5. This appears to be another distraction raised by someone somewhere in an attempt to cloud the issue. Article V needs no revision, as it says it all quite clearly:
The States have the same power and authority as does Congress to call for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.
Period.
Next, you suggest that because Democrats (and others) with ideas different from yours and mine are attending various meetings in the run-up to an eventual Convention of States, they are “infiltrating” the process. I suppose that’s one way of describing democracy in action… but it’s not mine.
When a group of people large enough to represent an entire nation gather in the marketplace of ideas to openly discuss their thoughts and opinions, one should expect differing points of view. A large part of the COS will involve debate, and that debate will be conducted by political minds of all stripes… and yes, even Democrats will be allowed to participate… or “infiltrate,” to use the vernacular of the John Birch Society. Personally, I do not fear a free and open exchange of ideas. What I fear much more is any person (or group) who would forbid such activity in an ostensibly free country, and so should you.
You then proceed to list a veritable fruit salad of “alternative” viewpoints, exalting the fringe minority opinion and cherry-picking negativity. None of these websites (the majority of which have JBS roots, BTW) speak directly to the subject matter being discussed in this thread, which I will again define forthwith:
“A convention of the states limited to proposing amendments to the United States Constitution that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, that limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and that limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.”
I’m going to try this once again… we’ve gone over this ground before, apparently to no avail, because you simply ignore the specific points that are presented without responding to them directly or attempting to explicitly refute them, instead posting the thoughts and opinions of others, whether relevant or not. This truly is “Bury Them With Bullshit” behavior, and I frankly expected better of you.
We all know, and I have acknowledged, that there are other groups, some even funded by Soros, that are trying to mount Article V movements to propose various constitutional amendments. The movement that we are discussing here has nothing to do with any of them, nor do any of them have anything to do with the Citizens for Self-Governance Convention of States Project, which is the ONE AND ONLY group advancing the limited convention defined above.
If you want to discuss the left-leaning groups who are trying to EXPAND the size and scope of the federal government, then fine… we can discuss them, preferably at some other time. But you’ll have to do a little bit more than post links to their websites in an attempt to conflate their efforts with ours. We are not them.
So, I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask for a bit more intellectual honesty from you. If you don’t want to invest the time or energy required to actually carry on this discussion, then please just tell me. Either refute the points directly, or concede them.
Point 1: Article V gives the States the SAME POWER AND AUTHORITY as Congress to call for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. And as Congress has called “limited conventions” to amend the Constitution dozens of times, so may the states.
Point 2: The COS as proposed by the Citizens for Self-Governance is neither “risky” nor “dangerous” and presents no possibility whatsoever of a “runaway” convention.
To assist you in broadening your view and understanding of the CSG Project approach, I’ll provide only one link - theirs. If you choose not to follow it and read the material, that’s fine. I remain happy to answer any questions or concerns you might have as to its proposals, procedures and assurances.
http://www.conventionofstates.com/proble...
There has been but one Constitutional Convention, and that was called not under the authority of the Articles of Confederation, but under the powers that the sovereign states had reserved to themselves. The purpose of that convention was very broadly defined, in that the delegates were empowered to recommend any and all expedient changes to remedy a failing political system. The resultant document is today’s Constitution. Nowhere does it provide for the authority to call for another Constitutional Convention, nor does it allow the states to retain their sovereign capacity to do so unilaterally. It does, however, provide the authority for a convention of states to propose amendments to the Constitution. For the purposes of this discussion, that distinction must be acknowledged, and the term “Con-Con” set aside for use in debating Constitutional Conventions at some other time in some other discussion.
There has been but one Constitutional Convention, and that was called not under the authority of the Articles of Confederation, but under the powers that the sovereign states had reserved to themselves. The purpose of that convention was very broadly defined, in that the delegates were empowered to recommend any and all expedient changes to remedy a failing political system. The resultant document is today’s Constitution. Nowhere does it provide for the authority to call for another Constitutional Convention, nor does it allow the states to retain their sovereign capacity to do so unilaterally. It does, however, provide the authority for a convention of states to propose amendments to the Constitution. For the purposes of this discussion, that distinction must be acknowledged, and the term “Con-Con” set aside for use in debating Constitutional Conventions at some other time in some other discussion.
Repeating the part - “Nowhere does it provide for the authority to call for another Constitutional Convention, nor does it allow the states to retain their sovereign capacity to do so unilaterally. It does, however, provide the authority for a convention of states to propose amendments to the Constitution.”
Hmmm. Let’s revisit 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;
The words “Constitution” and “Convention” are in the same sentence that empowers Congress to do just that – call for a Convention. Either by the proposal of amendments arising in Congress or by application of two thirds of the State legislatures. What remains in this part of the debate is whether the States can unilaterally call for a Convention without Congress’s involvement. Here I think Rim Country is correct and my earlier analysis about a third mechanism for amending the Constitution is incorrect. Careful rereading of Article V points to the successful ratification of the amendments proposed in a Convention by either the legislature of a given State or a convention within that State. Hence the words “the one or the other mode of ratification” in Article V. My error.
However, this leads us back to one of the salient points of debate here. Is there really a difference between a Constitutional Convention and an Article V Convention of the States? With elimination of my incorrect analysis that States could unilaterally call for a Convention without involvement of Congress - this further reduces the possibility of any difference at all between the two.
The term Constitutional Convention (and its abbreviation Con-Con) has been used for decades codified as it is in Article V. So what is the purpose of trying to recently rename it to something else such as an Article V Convention of States? It turns out there is much mischief here and not limited to just the name of the Convention. Behind this movement are attempts to downplay the risk of a “runaway” Convention.
Now, earlier in this debate I was accused of quoting other people’s words and analyses with the implication that I had no original thoughts of my own. Disregarding the attempt at insult, I would counter with this: That position would preclude anyone from quoting the Federalist Papers in the course of debate on Constitutional issues.
Back to the question of a “runaway” Convention, I will therefore quote the John Birchers – folks that have spent many years in active analysis and participation. This is from a JBS article that rebuts a ten point fact list issued from the Goldwater Institute that purports to Rebut the Mythology of a Runaway Convention:
The first fact, verbatim, says: “Article V does not authorize a constitutional convention; it authorizes a convention for proposing specific amendments.” Right out of the chute, the “10 Facts” author adds a word to the Constitution that isn’t there. Article V does not contain the word “specific” as a modifier of the noun “amendments.” While this might seem like an inconsequential and picayune point, it is anything but, especially in light of the gravity of the matter at issue. The plain language of Article V limits neither the scope of the convention it anticipates nor the number or substantiveness of the amendments that may be proposed therein. In fact, if the purpose of the suggested convention is to propose amendments to the Constitution, doesn’t that make it per se a constitutional convention, regardless of how narrow an agenda those calling for the convention say they will follow? It seems so very dangerous to rely upon semantics as a balance to the risks that would attend such a convention, regardless of the nomenclature preferred by its advocates. Besides, adding and deleting words from the Constitution is a trick typically employed by enemies of our Republic, not by those sailing under the colors of the Constitution.
Another example addressing the Goldwater Institutes’ sixth “fact”:
The next fact listed by the Goldwater Institute contends that “one cannot take the Constitution seriously and contend that Article V was not meant to be used.” Serious opponents of an Article V constitutional convention do not argue that Article V was never meant to be used. There are, perhaps, in the universe of possibilities compelling reasons for the calling of an Article V convention. The purpose relied upon by the Goldwater Institute and its fellow Article V advocates is not one of those, however. This coterie of self-styled constitutionalists insists that an Article V convention is needed in order to curb the “endless growth of the federal government” and to “regain control over the federal government.” We, the opponents of a new constitutional convention, counter by asserting that it is irrational to hold a convention to propose amendments whose purpose is to clarify what is already part of the Constitution. Why, for instance, propose a balanced-budget amendment when most congressional spending is in violation of the Constitution? Why would Congress bother to follow new amendments when the American people don’t require them to follow the present ones? Note that most states have strict rules about balanced budgets or have passed balanced-budget amendments, yet almost none have balanced budgets. We don’t need amendments to save our Republic; we need renewed commitment to the Constitution — as written — and to the timeless principles of self-government and republicanism that undergird it.
For those interested in the rebuttal of all ten points, here is the link:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/con...
And because he said it as well as I could have, I will quote Tom DeWeese again:
It is with great pain that I acknowledge that some people I really respect have joined the Article V effort. But I can’t join them because, to me, something really smells about this Article V movement. Its arguments don’t pass scrutiny. Its tactics are underhanded. Its source of funding is not in the open. I think honest Tea Party members and dedicated freedom activists should ask a lot of questions before risking our precious Constitution to their lot.
Amen.
You may well argue that the term "Con-Con" has been used for decades, and I'll grant you that, but you and the JBS fear-mongers will just have to take that up with the Supreme Court who have been referring to an Article V convention as "a convention of states" since 1831.
Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal...
Now, can we please put aside this nonsense (along with any nonsensical argument spun from that false scare tactic) and discuss the REAL matter at hand?
No matter the contrary opinion of any number of misguided JBS "scholars," the assertion that Article V provides authority for a convention of states to propose amendments to the constitution is a matter of settled law, dating as far back as 1798 when the Court held in Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 378 (1798) that the Executive Branch (particularly, the president) has no role in a COS, pointing specifically to the procedures established in proposing the first 10 amendments to the young Constitution, our Bill of Rights!
So, to respond to your re-cut-n-paste of Tom DeWeese… Alrighty, then… why don’t take his advice, Flootus5… let go of the decades-old JBS disinformation and do as he says, ask me some questions… of your own.
So, all and good, semantics aside, I’ll pose some questions starting with the one that I have posed several times in my earlier posts.
Question 1.) Is there really a difference between a Constitutional Convention and an Article V Convention of the States?
Question 2.) If so, where is this defined? It would appear it would have to be defined in Article V as RimCountry stated with the comment in the last post:
“the assertion that Article V provides authority for a convention of states to propose amendments to the constitution is a matter of settled law”
It would appear that the terms Constitutional Convention and Convention of the States are actually quite interchangeable. So then:
The Convention of the States FAQ (frequently asked questions) site responds to the following:
What is a Convention of States?
COS response: It is not a constitutional convention. It cannot throw out the Constitution because it derives its authority from the Constitution.
Then why call it an Article V Convention – whatever the semantics of title – if it’s purpose is to amend the Constitution under Article V as RimCountry stated in the opening remarks to this thread?
Man, the COS Article V position is really confusing.
Earlier in this thread RimCountry stated:
“There has been but one Constitutional Convention, and that was called not under the authority of the Articles of Confederation, but under the powers that the sovereign states had reserved to themselves.
Well, not entirely correct.
The last paragraph from the report of the Continental Congress calling for the Philly Constitutional Convention begun in May 1787 states:
Resolved that in the opinion of Congress it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several states be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the states render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government & the preservation of the Union.
And this goes to the heart of the question of whether a Convention can turn into a “runaway” Convention. The first one certainly did. It hardly “amended” the existing Constitution as embodied in the Article of Confederation – it replaced it entirely.
With this in mind, we come to
Question 3.) Where do the purported limitations on the scope of a Convention come from? Again, there is nothing in Article V providing the States any binding authority to place limitations on the scope of a Convention.
The next question immediately and logically follows:
Question 4.) What would stop a Convention from immediately changing the rules or restrictions a State may have attempted to impose on a delegate? Again, our first Constitutional Convention changed the number of needed ratifying States from all of them to three fourths for the Constitution to be binding on all participating.
Now, I absolutely agree with RimCountry in his recent post about the gravity of the issue here. The words and the usage do mean something. This is a terribly important debate as it concerns the potential integrity of the Constitution. I am not a member of either JBS or COS, but have followed both with great interest. I just think that that the JBS and others on that side of the debate have thought this whole thing through more carefully and rationally. Don't worry about apologizing, it's easy to get wound up about it because it is so critical. And boy, have I seen some rancor out there on the websites.
Nor will I be arguing about the authority granted the states in Article V. Again, you’ve completely ignored a second SCOTUS citation establishing that authority. I don’t really care whether or not you followed the link, because I told you exactly what you would find at the other end of it. Ultimately, you’ve ignored both, causing me to wonder if you are reading my posts at all. A professor in a Human Behavioral Studies class once told me that, in inter-relational communication, there are essentially two ways to listen to another person – one way is to learn what that other person thinks, consider what you have just learned, accept or reject what you have learned based on what you know to be true, and then respond; the second way is to wait until the other person stops talking and then respond… having heard nothing, having learned nothing.
Bottom line, I will no longer be responding to any questions based on either of those two demonstrably false premises. I will, however, eagerly await any additional questions, once you’ve re-framed them within these new parameters.
PS: No rush… it’s the weekend. Seriously, take your time and think things through for yourself. Two of the main objections proposed by the John Birch Society are no longer in play here, so maybe we should move along to the real issue… how an Article V Convention of States can actually help save the nation. Or, if you insist, we can find another one of those 1960s talking-points to debunk.
The basic question still goes unanswered. Is there really a difference between a Constitutional Convention and an Article V Convention of the States? I don’t think there is any difference and I partly based that upon the SCOTUS citation that RimCountry kindly supplied. The terms are essentially interchangeable and have been used for quite some time. This eliminates the terminology issue that RimCountry is so hung up on and allows the discussion to move on to the next questions I posed. If they are not interchangeable, it is now incumbent on RimCountry to explain why not.
Further clarification is needed. Which two objections of the JBS are no longer in play here? They have so many, you need to be specific. And the ones I have examined are currently part of the modern debate.
Look, I am not interested in “winning” any debate here, I am interested in the answers to my bonafide questions. So, in that mode, I followed some of the links provided by numerous contributors to this debate. They are all helpful, but in particular was the link to the April 2014 Congressional Research Service report entitled “The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Contemporary Issues for Congress”. It is here:
http://www.foavc.org/reference/R42589_20...
In there I finally found a well written, well researched, carefully thought out and objective paper that begins to address some of my questions. I learned a lot. There appears to be the question of what type of Convention may be called (none of them called a Convention of States – but so what) and there is a wide range of analysis – as to be expected – amongst scholars on the matter. The types are categorized three ways:
1) The General Convention
2) The Limited Convention
3) The Runaway Convention
The General Convention is characterized as:
Supporters of a general convention note that the language of Article V is broadly inclusive: “... on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, [Congress] shall call a
Convention for proposing Amendments (emphasis added).... ”
They assert that the article places no limitation on the number or scope of amendments that would be within a convention’s purview. Constitutional scholar Charles Black offered emphatic support of this viewpoint: “I believe that, in Article V, the words ‘a Convention for proposing such amendments’ mean ‘a convention for proposing such amendments as that convention decides to propose.’ In fact, he went on to assert that limited conventions would be constitutionally impermissible for the reason that no language is found in Article V that authorizes them:
It (Article V) does not imply that a convention summoned for the purpose of dealing with electoral malapportionment may kick over the traces and emit proposals dealing with other subjects. It implies something much more fundamental than that; it implies that Congress cannot be obligated, no matter how many States ask for it, to summon a convention for the limited purposed of dealing with electoral apportionment alone, and that such a convention would have no constitutional standing at all. Consequently, by this reasoning, the many hundreds of state applications for a convention to consider amendments on a particular subject are null and void.
Writing at the height of debate over the 1980s campaign for an Article V Convention to consider
a balanced budget amendment, former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger asserted that the
Framers deliberately sought to provide a means of amending the Constitution that is insulated
from excessive influence by either the state legislatures, or by Congress. His view of the
convention’s authority is among the most expansive advanced by commentators on the Article V Convention:
... any new constitutional convention must have the authority to study, debate, and submit to
the states for ratification whatever amendments it considers appropriate. According to his judgment, an Article V Convention must be free to pursue any issue it pleases, notwithstanding the limitations included in either state applications or the congressional summons
by which it was called:
If the legislatures of thirty-four states request Congress to call a general constitutional
convention, Congress has a constitutional duty to summon such a convention. If those thirty -
four states recommend in their applications that the convention consider only a particular
subject, Congress still must call a convention and leave to the convention the ultimate
determination of the agenda and the nature of the amendments it may choose to propose.
The Limited Convention is characterized as:
While the concept of the general convention enjoys considerable support, there are those who maintain opposing views. A broad range of constitutional scholars holds that a convention may, in fact, be limited to a specific area or areas contained in state applications, or indeed, that it must be so limited. A fundamental assumption of this viewpoint is that the Framers did not contemplate a wholesale or large-scale revision of the Constitution when they drafted Article V.
Senator Sam Ervin, a champion of advance congressional planning for a convention, wrote that, “... there is strong evidence that what the members of the convention were concerned with ... was the power to make specific amendments.... The provision in article V for two exceptions to the amendment power underlines the notion that the convention anticipated a specific amendment or amendments rather than general revision.”
One commentator, championing the states’ authority in this question, noted that the founders’ intention in establishing the state petition device was to provide a check against a Congress that had declined to propose an amendment or amendments that commanded widespread support, suggesting that a convention limited by the subject area of state applications was constitutional, but that a convention could not be limited by Congress.
The Runaway Convention is characterized as:
Fear of a runaway Article V Convention has been a recurring theme over many decades. What, in fact, is a “runaway convention?” It is generally defined as one that was summoned to consider a limited agenda, but moved beyond its original mandate to consider policy questions and potential amendments not contemplated in the applications of the state legislatures or in the congressional summons. In 1967 hearings held on the convention issue, Theodore Sorenson, one of President John Kennedy’s principal domestic policy counselors, cautioned that, “no matter how many and how sincere are the assurances from the backers of a new Convention that their sole concern is reapportionment, no one can safely assume that delegates to such a Convention, once safely seated and in action, would wish to go home without trying their hand at improving many parts of this delicately balanced document.”
It is, as another scholar noted, the subject of “age old fear.”
“Opponents suggest that a runaway convention, driven by ‘political fringe groups’ might
revisit a wide range of constitutional provisions.”
Proposals to alter parts of the Bill of Rights, in particular, seem to be singled out as being the most serious challenge to the Constitution by a runaway convention.
Now, followers of this thread will recall that one of my questions that went unanswered by RimCountry was:
Where do the purported limitations on the scope of a Convention come from?
The analysis in the Congressional Research Service Report outlines the rationale that if the two thirds of the States apply to Congress on the same worded amendment for a Limited Convention then the Congress must make the call for that type of convention. There is much debate in this consideration about exactly how much authority Congress or the States have over the Convention once convened. And it would appear that Congress in recent decades has given itself and is still trying to give itself increasing influence over many aspects of the Convention. Not too surprising, really. And worrisome.
However, the Congressional Research Service upon weighing in on the Limited Convention has this to say:
One point on which most observers appear to agree is that an Article V Convention, either limited or general, could not be restricted to consider a specific amendment. During the 1980s campaign for a convention to consider a balanced budget amendment, a number of state legislatures proposed specific amendment language. Some would have accepted a “substantially similar” amendment, while others attempted to limit the convention solely to consideration of their particular amendments. In its 1993 study, the House Judiciary Committee indicated the former might be qualified, but:
... an application requesting an up-or-down vote on a specifically worded amendment cannot
be considered valid. Such an approach robs the Convention of its deliberative function which
is inherent in article V language stating that the Convention’s purpose is to “propose
amendments.” If the State legislatures were permitted to propose the exact wording of an
amendment and stipulate that the language not be altered, the Convention would be deprived
of this function and would become instead part of the ratification process.
So, it would appear that a limited Convention as proposed by the COS’s, ACEL’s, and the Goldwater Institutes may have real problems with just what the John Birchers and others are warning against. Nobody knows what could happen. After all, it hasn’t been tried since the first time around. In this day and age, with very well funded leftist groups out there infiltrating all levels of government, calling for a Convention for amendments is actually a very opportune event for the camel’s nose of leftist collectivism to permanently get under the tent.
Good evening, Flootus5. Just in from a glorious day riding quads in the desert with friends… that I am here at the keyboard at all should attest to the passion with which I view this matter… or maybe I’m just nuts.
Anyway, despite your rather circuitous preface, I am glad that the upshot here is that we’re finally advancing beyond the “what’s the difference” meme. You’ve done the legwork and actually answered you own question.
Of the three different types of conventions that you’ve listed, despite all the scholarly opinionizing that a COS must fall into this category, there is one famously “general” convention about which these experts are strangely silent, the Constitutional Convention of 1787, where all but a few of the delegates were charged with the daunting task of “rendering the Articles of Confederation adequate for the exigencies of the union.” Once again, for the reasons already stated, we are not talking about that type of re-invention convention here today. At least I’m not.
Jumping down to the third type that you’ve listed, the “runaway” convention, by the writer’s own description it is simply the fictional creation of those who would rather have us make our decisions based on an “age-old fear” of the improbable rather than on faith, courage, tradition and a belief in what’s possible. I hope that the direction of this discussion may soon allow us both to examine the reasons why this scenario could never occur at a COS.
But before that can happen, we must establish the legitimacy of the second and central type of assembly on your list, the “limited” convention, which is what the COS Project is proposing, and what I have been trying to focus this discussion on from the beginning.
One has merely to look to history and precedent. Of the hundreds of call applications submitted, Congress has never once rejected an application for being limited to a single amendment. To the contrary, as previously noted, Congress did not reject one of the 29 single-subject applications from the states calling for the proposal of the 17th Amendment, nor did it refuse to aggregate any one of the single-subject applications from the states that were calling for the proposal of the 22nd. Not only were those strictly limited applications accepted and aggregated, they carried enough of a “threat” influence to cause Congress to beat a hasty retreat and pass their own versions of the amendments “in camera.”
Conversely, Congress has rejected (or stated more correctly, failed to aggregate) many applications for a call simply because the language of the application did NOT address the same subject, even though that was the intent of the several applicants, to wit: applications dating from the current era back to 1975 for a Balanced Budget Amendment.
To put an even finer point on it, not only are the COS Project applications calling for a limited convention, they are calling for a convention limited to a specific subject, but NOT a specific amendment, thus negating that other “can’t do” argument lingering out there. As previously noted, the subject of the call is worded identically in all state applications submitted to date as such: A convention of the states limited to proposing amendments to the United States Constitution that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, that limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and that limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.
As one might therefore presume, multiple amendments may be proposed once the confab has convened, in line with A5’s use of the plural “amendments,” but it will be up to the leadership within the assembly to rule as to the admissibility of each and every proposal. Should any recognized delegate move to propose a patently whacky idea – say, like abrogating the 2nd Amendment - which would expand, not reduce, the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, then the Chair would find that the subject matter of the motion falls outside the stated parameters of the proceedings, and he would rule it “void ab initio,” or DOA, and the process would move ahead to the next whacky idea… like Mandatory Term Limits for Congress and The Federal Judiciary. /s
Granted, it’s late, and this is a rather cursory overview of what would be standard procedure in a typically-run convention of any type, but even at that I cannot see any flaps left open just waiting for the proverbial camel’s nose. But I’ll certainly entertain any opinions to the contrary.
God bless.
As an irrelevant aside - hey, we are human - I, as well, live in the west (NE Nevada), formerly lived for ten years in central Arizona, and love it. I know the rim country well.
Have a blessed Sunday.
Question 3.) Where do the purported limitations on the scope of a Convention come from? Again, there is nothing in Article V providing the States any binding authority to place limitations on the scope of a Convention.
And
Question 4.) What would stop a Convention from immediately changing the rules or restrictions a State may have attempted to impose on a delegate?
After the Congressional Research Service outlined the three possible types of Conventions they felt it necessary to specifically address the theoretical nature of a Limited Convention.
It is under the header of “An Article V Convention Limited to the Consideration of a Specifically Worded Amendment?―H.J.Res. 52 in the 113th Congress”.
They make the point that most observers agree that an Article V Convention cannot be limited to a specific amendment.
They quote Solicitor General Walter Dellinger:
“Walter Dellinger has further argued that exact language proposals “short-circuit” the checks and balances built into Article V by the founders. According to his interpretation, they intended to provide sub-federal communities, embodied in the states, the authority to propose a convention to consider amendments, but deliberately refrained from giving the state legislatures the power to determine the exact text of the amendments to be proposed”.
This dovetails with Walter Dellinger’s other comments regarding a General Convention:
“... any new constitutional convention must have the authority to study, debate, and submit to
the states for ratification whatever amendments it considers appropriate”.
The Research Service adds: “According to his judgment, an Article V Convention must be free to pursue any issue it pleases, notwithstanding the limitations included in either state applications or the congressional summons by which it was called”.
Also dovetailing with Constitutional scholar Charles Black who:
“Went on to assert that limited conventions would be constitutionally impermissible for the reason that no language is found in Article V that authorizes them”.
From Theodore Sorenson in 1967 on the Convention issue of limiting it to reapportionment, comes a point of caution:
“no matter how many and how sincere are the assurances from the backers of a new Convention that their sole concern is reapportionment, no one can safely assume that delegates to such a Convention, once safely seated and in action, would wish to go home without trying their hand at improving many parts of this delicately balanced document.”
An age old fear that is quite justified.
So, we have established that most observers agree that an Article V Convention cannot be restricted to a specific amendment.
So, how about a specific list of amendments? Article V provides the Convention with the purpose to “propose amendments”. If the States attempted to propose the exact wording of an amendment or amendments it would deprive the Convention of its Article V authority.
Research Service wrote: “During the 1980s campaign for a convention to consider a balanced budget amendment, a number of state legislatures proposed specific amendment language. Some would have accepted a “substantially similar” amendment, while others attempted to limit the convention solely to consideration of their particular amendments. In its 1993 study, the House Judiciary Committee indicated the former might be qualified, but:
... an application requesting an up-or-down vote on a specifically worded amendment cannot be considered valid. Such an approach robs the Convention of its deliberative function which is inherent in article V language stating that the Convention’s purpose is to “propose amendments.” If the State legislatures were permitted to propose the exact wording of an amendment and stipulate that the language not be altered, the Convention would be deprived of this function and would become instead part of the ratification process”.
So, even a strict list of specific amendments would strip the Convention of its Article V authority to propose amendments that would possibly arise as part of the proceedings of the Convention.
The Congressional Research Service also covered another topic of interest. What is the role of Congress after the call for a Convention has been made? It is widely accepted that Congress has authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause to implement ways to carry out its mandate under Article V to call a Convention when 34 States have made application. But how far does their authority go? Apparently it has evolved from the issuance of a simple call for a Convention – and then stand aside - to expanded measures in the 1970’s and 1980’s for Congress to include very specific standards for State applications, delegate apportionment formulas, delegate qualifications, convention procedures and funding, specific limits for the life of a convention, ratification procedures, and judicial review. It would appear the Congressional nose is under the tent and we all know what the approval rating of Congress is.
It appears to be boiling down to the question of whether the States can “pre-direct”, i.e. limit the Convention ahead of time with instructions, strict lists of topics, subjects, etc. As has been brought up, Article V provides no specific authority for the States (or Congress) to do so.
In general, it has been widely accepted that the make-up of the delegates from each State to the Convention would mirror the representation in Congress of both houses. 535 delegates presumably chosen by the State legislature. So, picture the coterie of nut jobs that California and New York might send to this potentially wide open process. A definite cause for concern. And then the Congressional Research Service summarized the whole Convention issue with this:
“In the final analysis, the question “what sort of convention?” is not likely to be resolved unless or until the 34-state threshold has been crossed and a convention assembles. An estimate of the outcome of this process might well be based on the application process itself. It seems fair to assume that a convention summoned to consider a balanced budget, for instance, would confine itself to that issue. It is possible, as surmised by various observers over the years, that a convention could be “hijacked” by agenda-driven factions, but it seems more likely that it would reflect James Madison’s judgment in The Federalist, that the size and variety of the convention, as with that of the Union, would serve as a check to faction”.
It seems fair to assume …… it seems more likely……..
This is familiar. “You’ll have to pass the bill to see what’s in it”. You’ll have to call a Convention before you’ll ever know if it can indeed be limited. My take away from the April 2014 Congressional Research Service report is that there is a risk for a Runaway Convention. And one with a faction full of fruit loops that hate this country and want to “fundamentally” change it.
Next: Evidence for the leftist fruit loops.
So, to begin… you posed four questions, then proceeded to answer the first two on your own: 1) about the difference between a Con-Con and a COS, and 2) about how many different kinds of conventions there are. That leaves me with the last two, which are:
3)“Where do the purported limitations on the scope of a Convention come from? Again, there is nothing in Article V providing the States any binding authority to place limitations on the scope of a Convention.”
4)“What would stop a Convention from immediately changing the rules or restrictions a State may have attempted to impose on a delegate?”
I would answer the first by agreeing with your follow-on statement that A5 is silent on the issue. One would have to look beyond the text, preferably to the vast body of documentation that reveals the original intent of the Framers. In that all of the scholars you’ve cited have examined those documents and agree, at least to some extent, that A5 was specifically intended to be a vehicle whereby the people, through their state representatives, could propose constitutional amendments for ratification by the several states without the interference of Congress, it is only logical that the authority to define the terms of those amendments lies with the people.
To this very point, that 1984 Congressional Report that you cited, the “Constitutional Convention Implementation Act", concluded that "...it is the States themselves, operating through the Congress, which are ultimately responsible for imposing subject-matter limitations upon the Article V Convention."
To take the issue even further, I would be inclined to hesitate at using the word “limitations” as you’ve employed it in your question. It implies a rather negative, restrictive element of control that would be somehow imposed on the process. That, I believe, runs against the grain of original intent. I think we both agree that there really are very few “limitations” or restrictions on what can or cannot be proposed in a COS, and I’ll acknowledge that some see this as a bad thing, while I do not.
I would probably choose either “guidelines” or “protocol”, as both imply structure rather than stricture. In such a deliberative setting, with representatives from all of the several states, possibly every legislative district in the nation, any such rules should be quite broad and inclusive, rather than narrow and exclusive. You cited the work of Solicitor General Dellinger a number of times, and within those same writings he agrees:
“…any new constitutional convention must have the authority to study, debate, and submit to the states for ratification whatever amendments it considers appropriate.”
His use of the term “constitutional convention” reflects the terminology of the day… he wrote this in 1979, before more clear semantic distinctions were being made.
So, it can be concluded that if, through their state legislatures, the people decide to call for a convention limited to proposing a single-subject amendment, for instance, then they can do so, as was and is currently the case with both the attempt to overturn a number of Supreme Court decisions on district-level gerrymandering in the states back in the 1960s, and more recently the drive for a Balanced Budget Amendment that began in the 1980s. If, on the other hand, the requisite number of state legislatures decide to send delegates to a convention to propose a wide array of ideas within the clear parameters of a single subject, such as “limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government,” then they can and are doing that as well.
I completely understand that fear is a natural response to that lack of “limitations,” but the issue of Checks and Balances is more than adequately addressed by A5’s requirement that any proposals emanating from the COS must be ratified by ¾ of the states… a super-majority… exactly the same requirement that it imposes on amendments proposed by Congress… and that’s a very high bar. Nowhere in any of the writings of the Founders is it prescribed that the bar should be higher for the states than it is for Congress. Again, that 1984 Congressional Report concluded that every amendment proposed (by a COS) would be subject to the same stringent conditions faced by amendments proposed by Congress, and that “…the notion of a ‘runaway’ convention succeeding in amending the Constitution in a manner opposed by the American people is not merely remote, it is impossible.”
Now, to re-state your second (or fourth) question: “What would stop a Convention from immediately changing the rules or restrictions a State may have attempted to impose on a delegate?”
To my knowledge, delegates to the convention will not be overly burdened with rules or restrictions. They will be sent to the convention with a mandate or a commission, depending on the various terminology used in the states, that defines the mission.
Now, at this point, although there are several different A5 movements out there, I can really only speak with any certainty about the legislation being advanced in all 50 states by the Citizens for Self Governance COS Project. That is the effort for a convention limited to a single subject, not to a specific amendment, so the “rules and restrictions” placed on the delegates are very minimal. A delegate to the CSG COS will be charged with introducing a slate of proposals. The delegate will be expected (mandated by state law) to take a positive position in any debate on those proposals, and can be immediately recalled and replaced at the discretion of the legislature and prosecuted for failure to perform. The delegate will further be expected to participate in all official duties and activities as required in his capacity as a member of the assembly, to include leadership, if so chosen.
I pointed that out – leadership – because the only entity that could do as your question supposes: “immediately chang(e) the rules or restrictions,” would be leadership, and they, too, will be subject to immediate recall and arrest should they abrogate their responsibilities. That scenario, however, is about as unlikely as Obama calling for a special prosecutor to investigate Eric Holder.
I hate it when someone answers a question with a question, but sometimes, the peculiar nature of a question simply begs another… and in this case, I am tempted to ask, “Why would they?”
The leaders of this conclave will most certainly be among the most informed and most deeply dedicated to the cause of freedom, liberty and the democratic process. For such an event to occur, it would require a “Manchurian” element that stretches credulity, but does, I suppose, make for good discussion amongst the what-if crowd.
That will have to do for now. I’ve been summoned to fire up the grill. I’ll return later, most likely tomorrow, to re-read the remainder of your comment, and reply as necessary. At the very least, we can no longer say that your questions have gone unanswered, and to my extreme satisfaction, one of your own constitutional sources has put the age-old fear of a runaway convention to rest, hopefully for good.
Recently, I explored these matters further and have learned quite a bit more about the nature of the debate. I can see that we will probably end up likely summarizing the current state of the debate, and we may or may not agree to disagree, but I hope the upshot is that readers of this online debate in the Gulch will have learned plenty. I hope they are out there.
Like you say, more in time.
Anyway, I spent last evening reading over some of the material that you cited above, particularly The Congressional Research Service’s report on A5 from April of this year. I was not familiar with the report itself, but I was at least somewhat familiar with much of the ground it covered. I carried on anyway, as one can always use a refresher in such knotty issues. About two-thirds of the way into the report, I was astounded to learn of something about which I had not heard one word uttered – that in September of 2013, a House Joint Resolution (H.J.Res.52 ) was introduced in Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to re-shape Article V.
After a quick search, I read the text of the resolution, and finding it to be an essentially minor clarification of the “plurality” issue, I almost decided to ignore the matter, since the bill never even made it out of committee. So, I went back to the CRS Report. But as I read further, I discovered in the footnotes that this H.J.Res.52 was only the latest of at least 40 attempts by Congress to modify or supplement Article V since 1973. That really got my interest… as it should yours and anyone else out there who is now or has ever been concerned about a “runaway convention” changing the very face of our Constitution. It would appear that that is EXACTLY what our runaway Congress has attempted to do over 40 times, and what they still have the power and authority to do today!
Now, looking at the particulars of some of the proposed changes, I’ll state right up front that, in my non-scholarly opinion, there are some very good suggestions among some very bad. That, I suppose, is to be expected, for Congress does represent the entire patchwork quilt that is the American politic, and to be frank, I would expect nothing less from any slate of proposals issued from an Article V Convention of the States, as well. The big difference… no, the HUGE difference between the two is that there are no eyes looking over the shoulders of Congress as it goes after this undertaking. We, the people, would not see their work product until they have secretly drafted, quietly debated, carefully revised, overwhelmingly approved and, with all the fanfare that a neutered and terminally terrified press can give them, submitted their take-it-or-leave-it proposal(s) to the states for ratification, all done with no input from the government closest to the people, our state legislators.
I am reminded that the 17th Amendment changed our representation in Congress… in all the years of our nationhood prior to 1913, Senators were selected by the state legislatures and sent to Washington, subject to recall by the legislature should they fall out of favor with the state that sent them there. The system was designed that way to provide a check against the popularly-elected “House of the People”, the House of Representatives. Since ratification of the 17th, Senators are also now elected by virtue of a popularity contest, and really only have to return to their state every six years to say whatever they need to so that they can 1) get re-elected, and 2) get back to Washington and the business of the Party, which is rarly the same as the business of their state.
The states literally no longer have direct representation in ANY process that Congress conducts. Back to that difference - any proposals written by a state-led convention would be done without interference by a Congress wrapped up in the preservation of its own power, as the Framers intended, and would necessarily represent more closely the ideas of the people than anything concocted by those encased in the self-perpetuating bubble that is Washington, DC.
Just a quick list of some of the issues / changes that have been proposed:
- Establish a standard format for state applications to Congress, establish time frames for receipt and response, formalize record-keeping. (All good things, IMO.)
- Define how the states shall select their delegates, how many delegates, how much weight the votes of some states should have relative to the others, whether the District of Columbia and Territories should be allowed to send delegates. (All bad ideas, none of their damned business!)
- Provide federal funding for the COS and its delegates, yes or no. (No. Federal funds never come without strings attached.)
- Define procedures inside the convention, such as 2/3 vote required to approve a proposal. (Bad idea, especially when a simple majority is good enough in either Congressional chamber to present a proposal for debate. Once the proposals are sent to the states, then a ¾ supermajority is required, the same as Congress.)
- Congress will determine whether or not proposed amendments submitted for state ratification are within the established parameters of the call. (Good idea. This is another level of Checks and Balances to ensure against a “runaway convention,” but best of all it eliminates the need for the immediately previous item.)
- Define a limited term for the COS, either 6 months or 1 year. (OK… if it gives them something to do.)
- Decide whether or not states should be able to reserve the right to rescind at a later date their application for a call, and if so, how much later. (Bad idea. A state should always have the right to rescind an application, period… any time prior to ratification, that is. If the political winds change within any given state between the time they passed the legislation and the amendment is up for ratification, then the same process that approved the application should be empowered to rescind it.)
- Judicial Review, to set procedures for the Supreme Court to rule on convention procedures and proposed amendments. (Absolutely not. The only thing the SCOTUS should be involved with would be to settle any dispute as to the validity of a state’s application. Beyond that, the Political Doctrine Question should apply, and it should be hands off.)
- Whether or not US Senators and Congressman should be allowed to serve as delegates to a COS. (Hell no! It even mentions in the report that, besides being a clear conflict of interest of the regulated being the regulator, it arguably runs afoul of Article 1 that prevents any member of Congress from serving in any other federal civil office, either appointed or elected.)
So, to wrap it up, any fair reading of original intent makes it clear that the Founders foresaw the day when the people, in the normal conduct of self-governance, would discover a defect in the Constitution, one that could and should be remedied by amendment. They also foresaw the possibility that one of those flaws might be Congress failing or refusing to act in the best interest of the nation. For that reason alone, it should be clear that, since Article V provides a dual path to amend the Constitution, one for Congress and one for the States, that Congress should not be involved within the state process beyond the ministerial role given to it by the existing text. To do so would give Congress primacy over both processes, which flies in the face of original intent.
And lastly, it should also be clear that, if past is prolog, some in Congress want very badly to gain more control over this process than they currently enjoy. Not having had time (yet) to research each of these bills that may or may not be still pending, I really do not know, since they have all the power and authority that they need, what has kept these bills from passing, other than the same bi-partisan bickering that has kept virtually everything else of any substance from making it to the president’s desk… that and possibly an inherent ignorance of the issue, born from the Arrogance of the Untouchable.
I’m going with that last one. It’s now or never. One of these days, as self-absorbed as they are, they WILL wake up… and when they do, they’re going to take this away from us.
https://conventionofstates.com/
Indeed, I was also not aware of just how much attention has been paid to the issue of an Article V Convention over the last several decades. I remember the era of the Balanced Budget Amendment attempt when 32 states had made application for a convention. At the same time I guess it should not be surprising that politicians and activists of all stripes have been circling this issue.
So, it really comes down to where is it all at currently. I did more digging around and found more material on both sides of the debate.
First a recent article:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014...
I also learned of the effort of the Indiana legislature that is considered to be the model for similar legislations in other states:
http://www.indianasenaterepublicans.com/...
The article outlines many points of the legislation that are intended to ensure that the Convention would be limited. One major rationale put forward is the issue called “Precedent For Limited Conventions”. The flaw that I see in this presentation is that all the examples given including the 1787 Philly Convention are before Article V was actually written as it is and as such provides no mechanism for limiting such a Convention. They correctly point out that there has never been an Article V Convention called in the history of the country. So, the question still remains as to whether or not a State legislature can alter Article V of the U.S. Constitution. I think the conclusion is evident that a State or States does not have that authority no more than they can alter any other part of the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence.
Apparently in June of this year the Indiana State Legislature hosted a gathering of State Legislatures called the Assembly of State Legislatures. Wisconsin Republican Representative Chris Kapenga has spearheaded this Assembly to call for a Convention of the States. At the June meeting there were 109 state legislature delegates. Eleven were Democrats. Minnesota Democrat Raymond Dehn was one of them. Dehn is a liberal Democrat that is pushing for the “Move To Amend” call for a 28th amendment that would declare corporations have no Constitutional Rights. This will be explored further in a bit. Right now the point is that the Assembly of State Legislatures is being infiltrated. Why?
Eric Burk, the Grassroots Coordinator for Citizens for Self Governance’s Convention of States Project stated “The plain and simple truth is that unless we can get both support from Republicans and Democrats, we cannot hope to get our application passed in 34 states”.
But back to the matter of limiting a Convention, I found more research:
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/conco...
From Corpus Jurus Secundum 16 C.J.S 9
The members of a Constitutional Convention are the direct representatives of the people (1)
and, as such, they may exercise all sovereign powers that are vested in the people of the state. (2)
They derive their powers, not from the legislature, but from the people: (3)
and, hence, their power may not in any respect be limited or restrained by the legislature. Under this view, it is a Legislative Body of the Highest Order (4)
and may not only frame, but may also enact and promulgate, Constitution. (5)
Citations:
(1) Mississippi (1892) Sproule v. Fredericks; 11 So. 472
(2) Iowa (1883) Koehler v. Hill; 14 N.W. 738
(3) West Virginia (1873) Loomis v. Jackson; 6 W. Va. 613
(4) Oklahoma (1907) Frantz v. Autry; 91 p. 193
(5) Texas (1912) Cox v. Robison; 150 S.W. 1149
They also had the 1983 letter from Chief Justice Warren Burger on this very topic:
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/conco...
The ability of the State Legislatures to limit a Convention is in serious doubt.
So, we are back to the issue of the possible make up of the Article V Convention including the influence of George Soros and other leftists. I found other sources that weigh in on this question. There is a significant amount of research and citation that has been presented here:
http://securetherepublic.com/blog/2013/1...
Note that they mention a new Constitution has been written to be proposed at the Article V Convention. I found one here:
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/conco...
So, going back to the call from Move to Amend to propose a 28th amendment that would establish that corporations do not have Constitutional Rights. There is a huge list of leftist nut job organizations in Move to Amend including Code Pink, The Sierra Club and The Progressive Democrats of America:
https://movetoamend.org/organizations
One of the nut job groups has a site pushing for the Article V Convention:
http://www.wolf-pac.com/the_plan
Note the association with the Young Turks.
Wickipedia:
The Young Turks (TYT) is an American liberal/progressive political and social commentary program hosted primarily by Cenk Uygur and distributed on a variety of Internet-based platforms. TYT was founded in 2002 by Uygur as a talkshow on Sirius Satellite Radio.
Don Gainor reports on how widespread the George Soros funded media and all kinds of “Centers” and “Foundations” are:
http://www.mrc.org/commentary/soros-fund...
That’s right. George Soros — the financier of global fascism — is pumping millions of dollars into the same Article V campaign that is being promoted by Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and other popular conservative spokesmen.
In the course of all this I found a very fun, interesting (and scary) interactive site:
http://www.muckety.com/Open-Society-Foun...
So, personally, and with all respect to the depth of this debate, I remain in the camp of those considering an Article V Convention as indeed risky and dangerous. And this camp maintains that federal usurpation is better rolled back through the Principle of Nullification.
http://www.libertyclassroom.com/nullific...
Anyway, it's good to be home, and good to see that you're pursuing your "Continuing Education" on Article V. Me, too. The evening before we left for St George, my wife and I attended a Convention of States presentation at the Phoenix Center for the Arts. Besides attending a pow wow with the state bigwigs, we were treated to a couple hours of Q&A with Dr. Michael Farris, Director of the CSG COS Project. Wished you were there!
But for now, I'll have to beg your indulgence... you've dumped quite a lot into one post... what used to be referred to as "burying someone with BS"... but I won't let that deter me. Over the next few days, I will look at what you've compiled here, read the articles that you've linked to, read and consider your comments on and analysis of those articles, then I will reply to you.
I can tell you right now that, after a quick read and a perusal of your final thoughts leading up to your rather abortive conclusion, I'll be spending some time trying to explain to you the difference between what we - those affiliated with the Citizens for Self Governance - are involved in, and what everyone else, including those aligned with George Soros, is trying to do.
Once again, I am caused to wonder if you really don't understand the vast differences between these separate and distinct endeavors, or if you are deliberately conflating ALL the various Article V efforts into one gigantic mashup so as to enable your feigned uncertainty and distrust.
Whatever the case may be, it is to that end that I will focus my reply, for once again, it is clarity of language upon which this discussion must rely.
The operating gold mine tour was fantastic as that is the business I am in and am pursuing a damn good gold potential property. The past few days have indeed been busy with the furtherance of how to exist profitably and survivable into our now bizarre and uncertain future. NE Nevada is indeed as remote as you can get but with major limitations. We must deal with the issue of the feds unconstitutionally claiming jurisdiction of the nearly 90% of our land and the "executive privilege" that purportedly goes along with it. This, of course, could be an entirely new thread, but I'll stick with the current one and not go there.
P.S., I have personally met Clive Bundy in the past and am connected into the public land issues in a big way.
“We don’t"