Article Five Convention: How to amend without exposing the entire document?
Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years, 3 months ago to Government
Article Five Convention: How to amend without exposing the entire document?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gop-ca...
Article V Convention: The applicable Constitution text
"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."
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs...
The Pdf goes on to point out the precedents and possible pitfalls.
This movement is building a following. Could it help? What are the dangers? If the Federal government does not adhere to it now what makes us believe they would respect any changes. On the other hand, since they are not adhering to the document now, what risk is there anyway? What do we have to lose? One common proposal that could be a positive would be to repeal the 17th amendment and return Senate control to State legislatures. At least this could bring some power closer to the people, increase local accountability and might reduce the exposure to Washington corruption…
Also as the Pdf link notes: “Although the convention method for proposing amendments
has never been used, the threat of a convention has sometimes spurred Congress to action.”
Could this be our best possible outcome?
Mark Levin’s book “The Liberty amendments’ makes his best case, but many fear the process could be abused and instigate a dangerous runaway convention controlled by the corrupt Congress as it once again usurped power from the States.
I feel more comfortable with States forcing the issue of nullification, though it has been argued that it is useless and ineffectual due to previous precedent. It may however be a perceived threat to the Federal government sufficient for them to accede to the wishes of the States if enough band together, while exposing less danger to the constitution.
What say you?
Rspectfully,
O.A.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gop-ca...
Article V Convention: The applicable Constitution text
"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."
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs...
The Pdf goes on to point out the precedents and possible pitfalls.
This movement is building a following. Could it help? What are the dangers? If the Federal government does not adhere to it now what makes us believe they would respect any changes. On the other hand, since they are not adhering to the document now, what risk is there anyway? What do we have to lose? One common proposal that could be a positive would be to repeal the 17th amendment and return Senate control to State legislatures. At least this could bring some power closer to the people, increase local accountability and might reduce the exposure to Washington corruption…
Also as the Pdf link notes: “Although the convention method for proposing amendments
has never been used, the threat of a convention has sometimes spurred Congress to action.”
Could this be our best possible outcome?
Mark Levin’s book “The Liberty amendments’ makes his best case, but many fear the process could be abused and instigate a dangerous runaway convention controlled by the corrupt Congress as it once again usurped power from the States.
I feel more comfortable with States forcing the issue of nullification, though it has been argued that it is useless and ineffectual due to previous precedent. It may however be a perceived threat to the Federal government sufficient for them to accede to the wishes of the States if enough band together, while exposing less danger to the constitution.
What say you?
Rspectfully,
O.A.
You could be right. What have we got to lose since they do not adhere to it now? They seem to believe that the complacency of the people is license to run roughshod on the document. A convention may ameliorate the complacency, demonstrate the determination of the people and the disdain for those that would abuse our founding documents. Sovereignty must be restored to its proper proportions and entities.
Regards,
O.A.
I am not against a constitutional convention, but to work it needs to have a specific issue or group of issues to work around. For instance, the balanced budget amendment in the 1970s almost got enough states to call for a constitutional convention. Another potential issue would be to stop non-elected people from making regulations (laws). Another might be a regulatory bill of rights that provides real teeth that regulations actually do what they are passed to do.
I see what you mean. Yes, in some cases State and local governments have legitimate power that is prohibited to the Federal government in the Constitution (ninth and tenth amendments). However, to address what I believe is your point; in many cases they are doing things no level of government should do.
Your other points are definitely areas worthy of examination. I would add that all regulations should have a short life with a sunset so when they are found unnecessary or counterproductive they automatically end. We need some teeth also; there should be penalties for those politicians and bureaucrats that have passed unconstitutional laws and regulations. Deterrence... Every new law or regulation should provide reference to where the Constitution authorizes such authority.
Regards,
O.A.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_att...
Sounds like something any busybody could abuse, particularly in environmental cases since the EPA is now regulating every mud puddle. A disgruntled neighbor could create a lot of grief and financial burden at no cost to themselves. There should definitely be a counterweight for the accused. I hate to suggest that the government agencies be held liable for damages since any payout would come from the taxpayer. It should come from the pockets of the one that initiates the suit... loser pay. That would discourage frivolous suits.
What do you think?
Regards,
O.A.