Convention of States Hits an Even Dozen!
Posted by RimCountry 6 years, 11 months ago to Government
The last time we talked – I believe it was in 2014 – there were 4 states that had signed on to the Convention of States bandwagon. Last week, despite the one-off state-count in the FNC video, Missouri became the 12th. So, given that 34 states are needed to compel Congress to call the convention, we’re one-third of the way there.
Mark Levin has said that the push for an Article V convention has been flying under the radar up until now. The movement has been gradually but steadily gaining momentum, and the story is now starting to gain traction with the mainstream press, to include FNC. Levin says that this is just the bare tip of the iceberg... that once we hit 20 states, the Convention of States Project will become a VERY hot topic, and we’ll be seeing a lot more reports and analysis, and it will very likely come hard and fast from both ends of the political spectrum.
Critics say, among other things, that at this rate, we won’t see a convention until 2023, if at all. Proponents respond, “What’s the rush?” After all, it did take ten years to get from Revolution to Ratification.
All opinions, comments and questions welcome.
Mark Levin has said that the push for an Article V convention has been flying under the radar up until now. The movement has been gradually but steadily gaining momentum, and the story is now starting to gain traction with the mainstream press, to include FNC. Levin says that this is just the bare tip of the iceberg... that once we hit 20 states, the Convention of States Project will become a VERY hot topic, and we’ll be seeing a lot more reports and analysis, and it will very likely come hard and fast from both ends of the political spectrum.
Critics say, among other things, that at this rate, we won’t see a convention until 2023, if at all. Proponents respond, “What’s the rush?” After all, it did take ten years to get from Revolution to Ratification.
All opinions, comments and questions welcome.
SOURCE URL: https://youtu.be/jTyA3kQPukU
http://www.cosaction.com/?recruiter_i...
May a Convention Of States bring on term limits.
It's the only way to get rid of some parasitical professional politicians who only care about number one.
Just a little over six months ago, I was sickened at the spectacle of the President of the United States looking the other way while corrupt appointees in his administration used their bureaucratic authority in an attempt to steal an election!
And just a little over a year ago, I stood in disbelief that a President (of either party) could take for himself the unilateral power to use Executive Orders in blatant contravention of the other two branches of government, to kill Americans with drone strikes, to ignore congressional edicts by choosing which immigration laws to enforce and which to supersede, and to repeatedly meddle in the relationships between doctors and patients and mandate that some individuals purchase health insurance or pay penalties, while to others these decrees need not apply.
It's time to once and for all reduce the size, scope, and jurisdiction of our over-reaching federal government, and the ONLY way to accomplish that is by constitutional amendment. It’s inarguable that Article V of the Constitution gives STATES the power to propose amendments to the Constitution whenever 2/3 of the states decide that Congress has failed to act, and I think it’s fair to say that Congress has failed to act... responsibly.
At a time when federal spending has accumulated inconceivably staggering debt; when the NSA spies on innocent civilians using mass surveillance technology; when the Federal Communications Commission openly seeks to control or even abolish websites that are "too conservative," and to determine what stories newsrooms may run...
When the IRS blatantly targets grassroots organizations because of their political or religious beliefs; when the Department of Defense indoctrinates soldiers to accept that people who extol the virtues of the Founding Fathers, or who believe in the fundamental teachings of biblical Christianity, are extremists and potential terrorists...
When the Department of Housing and Urban Development can take private property and re-develop that land to the benefit of the "winners" as defined and identified by the government…
When the Department of Justice can order an American multinational technology company to scan tens of millions of eMail messages searching for a list of specific "keywords," while using national security as justification; when the Department of Education orders schools to allow students to use restrooms irrespective of their biological gender...
When the Supreme Court invents doctrines that subvert the very Constitution from which they derive their authority, and when Congress is simply too busy raising money for re-election to care or even notice...
When, in short, the federal government has run amuck, is it not time to at least TRY an Article V convention?
And to those who say such an endeavor is “dangerous,” I would suggest that, all things considered, it's more dangerous NOT to attempt an Article V convention. Just as the Second Amendment secures the right of the individual to defend himself against an intruder, so does Article V secure the right of society to defend itself against an intrusive government. As someone recently rather famously asked, "What the hell have we got to lose?"
----
Our Political Plan to Call a Convention of States>http://wiki.conventionofstates.com/do...
1. Sign the Convention of States Petition http://bit.ly/COSpetition and join the fight
2. Volunteer to help get er done! http://www.conventionofstates.com/vol...
There is no practical intellectual base for political reform through amending the Constitution -- which already is only partially followed, and that by momentum, not conviction. The "states" cannot be relied on to improve the Constitution, or enforce it, or do anything but go along with the same collectivism already entrenched and progressively increasing in both the Federal and state governments. More conservative anti-intellectual promotionalism is not an answer to that.
"The "convention" activism does not acknowledge or address that the descent is caused by philosophy."
"Convention activism"? Really? What is that? I think you should do a lot more research.
There is no separation of philosophy and action in the minds of those volunteers and supporters of Convention of States Project. A very large number of them (or all for all I know...) came to their decisions to support COS because of philosophy and understanding that socialism does not work.
It sound like you are separating philosophy from action. The Founders and Framers knew philosophy and in fact studied it a lot. But without the actions they took, there would be no separation from England, not USA, and no Constitution.
One can study Engineering ( I did ) but UNTIL one begins building roads, bridges, power plants, etc, that study is worthless. Thinking alone does not make you a Producer, and in fact leads to being a Taker.
Likewise, without the Constitution (diametrically in opposition of socialism, without the Bill of Rights, etc, there would be no USA. And without that protected incubator of thought, study of philosophy in opposition to socialism, islam, and other tyrannies would not exist. Pretty much, the rest of the world is in that state, and the USA is declining in that direction.
It is the PURPOSE and INTENT of the COSProject to stop that trend, reverse it, and build on it.
To think philosophy is not part of that indicates you do not know the movement and the people in it. They are in fact building on the knowledge base of anyone who wants to learn and believe that learning is one of the KEY goals necessary. But knowledge without action is like a computer with recorded ideas, and turned off. It has no effect. That is not a description of COSProject.
Amending the Constitution is 1/7 of its articles. To say that it should not be done ls in disagreement with the Framers who wrote it. I should add that this was the one Article that ALL of the Framers approved and insisted that there be a way for the states to propose. And specifically that Congress would never propose amendments that restricted the Federal government (IE, Congress).
Amendments should be provided to correct defects, thus preventing “chance and violence”
http://indianaliberty.weebly.com/blog...
Ironically, you give your opinion the states (which created the Constitution....) cannot be trusted to amend it.
Huh?
And yet, provide NO Constitutional solution that works, but apparently just want everyone to sit and talk among themselves.
That will not and never has reversed the slide.
They ignore that states are just as bad as the Federal government with their own statism, and yet expect us to believe that this is all only a dispute between the Federal government and the states, as if either side gaining more power relative to the other would make any difference to the political trends.
They ignore that they have no means to make any substantial progress for Constitutional amendments against the same culture that caused the need for reform. They ignore that states imposing their own statism are not going to suddenly in a super majority reform the Federal government even if they could, for the same reason.
That is why this is an anti-intellectual movement promoting itself as our savior with no clue what the cause of the problem is, apparently oblivious to how ironic it is for such conservative anti-intellectual militant activists to try to hijack an Ayn Rand forum for their promotions.
COS volunteers are spreading that thinking, the same thinking the Founders had, to all the states. IN quick summary, it is about who decides. It is about moving power back to the states and away from the Feds. And yes, amendments can do t hat. It takes action to do that, and I'd call it COS Action.
What I see though from you is just a negative attitude toward that, and NO solution that is ( like the COS solution is...)
1. Constitutional
2. Can actually work in this real world.
Moreover, your attacks, which are ad hominem in nature... "conservative anti-intellectual militant activists" do not follow the forum rules here.
Rather than giving a solution, or following sound solutions to moving the country back to Producers and away from Takers, you offer nothing that answers #1 and 2 above.
Just fear.
Wesley Mooch offered none either.
The only thing we can do is make relationships with our local state rep and district senator. They are willing to speak to us. We need democrats too but they are slow learners. LOL
The reason the Article V con-con is dangerous is simple. There are just no provisions for controlling what goes on in the convention after it convenes. There has been only one Constitutional Convention in the country's history - the original one in 1787. It was convened with the mandate to fix the Articles of Confederation. They threw all that out and drafted an entirely new Constitution. Fortunately the caliber of statesmen back then was very high - something we don't have today,
There is nothing to prevent a convention these days from totally overhauling the Constitution and you can bet many of the delegates are going to be left wing nutjobs (just picture who California would send). And it is well known that leftists are preparing to hijack the convention with a lot of agendas in mind. They want Citizens United overthrown, 2nd amendment eviscerated, collectivism enshrined in the Constitution, etc, etc, etc.
We hashed this topic over extensively a few years back. Is there a way to search back through Gulch history to find that extensive coverage? If I recall, it was in 2013.
Your arguments re-enforce those of the Soros led Common Cause organization.
Please explain why you would do that?
----
This is right off the Common Cause website, linked here.
As Ayn Rand said, you should "check your premises"
https://www.google.com/search?q="check+your+premises"
------
PDF Fact Sheet: Common Cause Opposes a Constitutional Convention
http://www.commoncause.org/issues/mor...
==This is from the Common Cause PDF linked above ===
Common Cause Opposes a Constitutional Convention
The call for a federal constitutional convention is
a dangerous threat to our democracy. Common Cause opposes a call for a constitutional convention, regardless of the amendment being proposed, for the following reasons:
THREAT OF A RUNAWAY CONVENTION:
There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent a
constitutional convention from being expanded in scope to issues not raised in convention calls
passed by the state legislatures, and therefore could lead to a runaway convention.
INFLUENCE OF SPECIAL INTERESTS:
An Article V convention would open up the Constitution to revisions at a time of extreme gerrymandering and in an environment of unlimited political spending. It could allow special interests and the wealthiest to re-write the rules governing our system of government.
NO RULES:
There are no rules governing constitutional conventions. A constitutional convention
would be an unpredictable Pandora’s Box; the last one, in 1787, resulted in a brand new
Constitution. There’s a significant danger that opponents of certain civil liberties or other
members of the organized Right could change the scope of the convention and undermine basic
rights long protected by the Constitution.
UNCERTAIN RATIFICATION PROCESS:
A convention could re-define the ratification process (which currently requires 38 states to approve of any new amendments) to make it easier to pass new amendments, including those considered at the convention. This happened in 1787, when the convention changed the threshold necessary for ratification.
THREAT OF LEGAL DISPUTES:
No judicial, legislative, or executive body would have clear authority to settle disputes about a convention, opening the process up to chaos and drawn out legal disputes that threaten the functioning of our democracy and economy.
APPLICATION PROCESS UNCERTAINTY:
There is no clear process on how Congress or any other governmental body would count and add up Article V applications, or if Congress and the states could restrain the convention’s mandate based on those applications.
POSSIBILITY OF UNEQUAL REPRESENTATION:
There are no rules for how states would choose delegates to a convention, how states and citizens will be represented within a constitutional convention, and who would ultimately vote on matters raised in a convention.
Fear and depredation proffered like that, if present at Valley Forge, would have cancelled the crossing and ended the revolution at that precipitous stage.
George Washington and his men were courageous enough to conquer frozen weather and a river, plus the enemy.
Naysayers to the Constitution are afraid of mere words constructed by the states, and the state formed the Constitution to begin with. Under the threat of death, they came through all the way.
I am appalled.
But because they summarize and quote the well known mainstream analysis of the topic doesn't mean they agree with it. I would be seriously suspect of their motives as it is also well known that many left wing collectivist Soros influenced groups are supportive of the Article V con-con.
But they only support overturning campaign financing. And they have no traction, can only get a few states, can not even begin to approach 2/3 for proposing or 3/4 for ratification.
And they don't need to. The progressives are getting almost everything they want through judicial reform, Congress, regulatory agencies, and more.
They do NOT support the COS application.
-----
COS Application
http://bit.ly/cosAppHiLite
Let's try again.
http://www.commoncause.org/issues/mor...
Now as for actually supporting this PDF, they certainly do. At least 220 Soros led groups are on board with the opposition against Convention of States Project.
More here at these two links:
More Than 200 Organizations Oppose Calls for New Constitutional Convention, Warn of Dangers
https://www.commondreams.org/newswire...
PDF 200+ groups - Constitutional Rights and Public Interest Groups Oppose Calls for an Article V Constitutional Convention
http://www.commoncause.org/issues/mor...
The simplification of Constitutional Convention is Con-Con. It is that simple. I am amazed at the display of cognitive dissonance by the COS followers that can't accept this.
These groups are ALL socialist progressives, and anti-Constitution and anti-objectivism .
They are intent on destroying the free market economy we have, liberty, and all that goes with it.
The cognitive dissonance here is between those groups and you. This is George Soros and his groups. I am quite astonished you would side wit them.
There is no con-con, it is a fabricated term to go with a fabricated argument.
---
Extreme right/left scam against Constitution
http://indianaliberty.weebly.com/1/po...
However, the point of the caution that I have should have elaborated upon is that I don't trust their motives. You are absolutely right. Most of these groups and their objectives are not desirable to a person interested in Constitutionally protected liberties. So, the question must be posed as to why they are taking these positions. It does not make sense they would adopt these long carefully thought out points. I suspect a strategy of diverting true Constitutionalists off into the sophistry of the COS position. If the COS efforts were to prevail, these groups would be ready to pounce.
On the other point of a Con-Con. It is merely a shortened version of a Constitutional Convention. It has been used for decades and is well known to be what it is. I have heard many arguments trying to work around this simplicity, and they just don't hold up. However, I'm open to repeated attempts to try and explain this.
But also, elsewhere in this thread, I have inquired to any possible method of accessing old threads on the same topic. Any ideas?
I'll be on the road for the next 4 days.
I already knew "con-con" is a derisive term for Constitutional Convention, and "con" is a negative term. No one wants to get "conned", so it is a somewhat clever way to be negative on what is actually a very positive Article V.
I already know that a "Constitutional Convention" is one in which and ENTIRE new Constitution is formed and the Constitution including Article V does NOT allow for that.
The whole argument that an Article V convention to amend (that is what it says) is a Constitutional Convention (IE to write a new one) is bogus from the start. That fact has been noted here and other places and you ignore the error and continue.
Especially humorous, is that a multitude of progressives (who originated the argument decades ago) are on the same side of the fence with the same error, in the same wording.
They are NOT copying you (IE your sources either), but the reverse. [see below for proof]
As I see it, you therefore stand with the progressives, using their own argument against the Constitution.
And COS is on the other side of the fence being attacked by the Soros $$_billions and his minions.
The sophistry (the word you used, dictionary:"the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving".) the deception is on the part of those on the Soros side of the fence. Theirs is an attempt, succeeding with some so called "conservatives", to get them to reject Article V of the Constitution, and generally along the way Article VI and/or the Preamble.
No, it is the naysayers that are rejecting the Constitution.
As for finding old posts, I know I can. But it would be a rehash of the old, with newer more relevant stuff out now. I don't need to waste my time on it.
--
[Excerpt, use the link to get all of it]
THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST A CONVENTION AND THEIR SOURCE
Opponents present an array of stock arguments against using the Constitution's convention procedure. One such argument—the claim that “amendments won't work”—has been so resoundingly contradicted by history that it has little credibility.2 The others can be distilled into the following propositions:
Little is known about how the process is supposed to operate;
a convention for proposing amendments would be an uncontrollable “constitutional convention;”
a convention for proposing amendments could be controlled or manipulated by Congress under the Constitution's Necessary and Proper Clause;(3) and
a convention for proposing amendments could unilaterally impose radical constitutional changes on America.
These arguments are largely inconsistent with established constitutional law and with historical precedent, and (as the reader can see) some are inconsistent with each other.
This paper shows that these arguments did not originate with the conservative groups that rely on them. Rather, they were produced as part of a disinformation campaign run by America's liberal establishment. Members of that establishment injected these arguments into public discourse to cripple an important constitutional check on the federal government.
This disinformation campaign dates from the mid-20th century. Its participants included members of Congress who feared that a convention might propose amendments to limit their power, activist Supreme Court justices seeking to protect themselves from constitutional reversal, and left-of-center academic and popular writers who opposed restraints on federal authority.
The campaign succeeded because its publicists enjoyed privileged access to both the academic and the popular media. The fact that many conservatives swallowed the propaganda enabled liberal activists to recede into the background and rely on conservatives to obstruct reform.
http://wiki.conventionofstates.com/do...
http://wiki.conventionofstates.com/do...
And I have to laugh. Yep, the same old arguments. So, I think a constructive thing for all that are interested in this topic would be to see if there is a way to re-access our old debate. I learned a lot in the sequence of all that. Do you know or anybody else out here know of a way to do that?
I'll be on the road for the next 4 days.
They couldn't even get the minority of state votes so far to support a convention for their agenda, only very limited specific amendments like a single balanced budget amendment, yet their cheer leading would have believe they have great momentum.
A bigger practical danger than "runaway" leftist amendments is more runaway compromises further undermining the rights of the individual and limits on government, with conservatives not caring or even realizing it.
At the root of their problem is that they are anti-intellectuals with no idea of the intellectual cause of the problem; they think that it's only a power struggle between the Federal government and "states", oblivious to what is going on in both the Federal and the state governments, to say nothing of counties, cities and towns, and the reasons for it.
Why mandate a balanced budget when it's far quicker to have a Court abolish all the alphabet-soup agencies?
Where does the Constitution grant to Congress the power to delegate any of its authority to an executive agency? Does the power "to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court" include the power to constitute executive agencies having quasi-judicial powers? And combining said powers with quasi-legislative powers?
Now if you're worried about getting the matter before a proper judge, then the remedy is simple--difficult, but simple. You run candidates for the House and especially the Senate until you have two-thirds of both Houses on board with returning to the Constitution. They then (1) expel the remaining third of the members, (2) remove the judges from the bench on impeachment for and conviction of infidelity to the Constitution, in violation of their oaths of office, and (3) set about abolishing those agencies. While they're at it, they should repeal Amendments XVI and XVII and Article 1 Section 8 Clause 9 ("The Congress shall have the power...to establish post offices and post roads").
It's obvious that you understand the need for remedy, but the only part of your proposal that I could possibly agree with begins with "While they're at it..." You should know that "they" are way ahead of you, as each of these items are widely considered prime targets once the assembly is convened.
As I said, you're analysis and your intentions are spot on... it's your methods that I take issue with. Article V is the remedy left to us by the Framers... all we need is the courage to use it.
I understand "fear," Temlakos, but in order for you to be taken seriously, your trepidation should be based at least somewhat in fact.
And disinformation from the left has greatly aided in their victory over you. Read about it here
http://wiki.conventionofstates.com/do...
It is a good read to do the whole thing.
---
Executive Summary
Some conservative organizations regularly lobby against using the Constitution's procedure for a “convention for proposing amendments.” Those organizations may think they are defending the Constitution, but in fact they are unwittingly repeating misinformation deliberately injected into public discourse by their political opponents. This paper shows how liberal establishment figures fabricated and spread this misinformation. This paper also reveals the reasons they did so: to disable a vital constitutional check on the power of the federal government.
INTRODUCTION
Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, any constitutional amendment must be ratified by three fourths of the states (now 38 of 50) to be effective. Before an amendment can be ratified, however, it must be proposed either (1) by Congress or (2) by an interstate task force the Constitution calls a “convention for proposing amendments.” This gathering is convened when the people convince two thirds of the state legislatures (34 of 50) to pass resolutions demanding it. The convention itself is a meeting of the representatives of state legislatures—an assembly of the kind traditionally called a “convention of states.”
The Framers adopted the convention procedure to ensure that Congress did not have a monopoly on the amendment process. The Framers saw the procedure as a way the people, acting through their state legislatures, could respond if the federal government became dysfunctional or abusive.
There is widespread public support for amendments to cure some of the real problems now plaguing the country. However, since repeal of Prohibition, Congress repeatedly has refused to propose any constitutional amendments limiting its own power and prerogatives. When reformers sought to check lavish congressional pay raises, for example, they could get nothing through Congress. Instead, they had to secure ratification of an amendment (the 27th) that had been formally proposed in 1789!
Such unresponsiveness would seem to be exactly the occasion for which the Founders authorized the convention for proposing amendments. Yet a handful of conservative groups—including but not limited to, the John Birch Society and Eagle Forum—have uncompromisingly opposed any use of the convention procedure to bypass Congress. They assiduously lobby state legislatures to reject any and all proposals for a convention, no matter how worthwhile or necessary they may be. This uncompromising opposition has become a mainstay of those groups' political identity and, perhaps, a useful fund raising device.
Although these groups bill themselves as conservative, their reflexive opposition to the convention process regularly allies them with the liberal establishment and with special interest lobbyists who seek only to protect the status quo. Since the 1980s, this strange coalition has blocked all constitutional efforts to address federal dysfunction. As a result that dysfunction has become steadily worse. For example, their long-held opposition to a balanced budget convention is a principal reason America now labors under a $18 trillion national debt.
I read it all, I did my own research to verify.
And I am not stuck in a rut...anymore.
One could say, take your unproven theories somewhere else.
The link given is to a 12 page researched document detailing where the objections to Article V conventions originate from.
I can post the entire 12 pages here, but I think that is rather abusive and a link is better.
And I suppose the 12 pages can be broken up into12 or more comments.
I can give you another link to the same docuemt from a different site.
I hope you are not against research, as this is that and what I thought this site and philosophy was about.
The posts and quotes are whatever supports MY case, which happens to agree with COS. I discovered COS after I had already drawn my own conclusions.
Here is one I used already, quoting NOTHING from COS and virtually all of it quoting the Framers.
----
Convention Debates, June 11, 1787
9/5/2014
0 Comments
Picture
Consent of Congress not required
The discussion continued with Col Mason insisting that the plan will have defects, as did the Articles of Confederation. Therefore amendments would be needed in a civil organized manner, to avoid “chance and violence”. The amendment process would be provided to avoid that. And the approval of Congress should not be required because Congress itself might be the problem and reason for the amendments. Mr. Randolph reinforced Mason's views.
Takeaway points:
Amendments should be provided to correct defects, thus preventing “chance and violence”
Still under consideration, is not requiring the approval of Congress
June 11, 1787
Resolution 13, for amending the national Constitution hereafter without consent of Natl. Legislature being considered, several members did not see the necessity of the Resolution at all, nor the propriety of making the consent of the Natl. Legisl. unnecessary.
Col. MASON urged the necessity of such a provision. The plan now to be formed will certainly be defective, as the Confederation has been found on trial to be. Amendments therefore will be necessary, and it will be better to provide for them, in an easy, regular and Constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence. It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account. The opportunity for such an abuse, may be the fault of the Constitution calling for amendmt.
Mr. RANDOLPH enforced these arguments. The words, "without requiring the consent of the Natl. Legislature" were postponed. The other provision in the clause passed nem. Con.
>http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_centu...
===========================
Article V, the 1787 Formation Process
Index to all the Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention, Federalist 43 and 85, and Jefferson's letter to Samuel Kercheval
>http://indianaliberty.weebly.com/blog...
And still don't have a solution to the probems of governmental problem that Ayn Rand covers in her books.
Why else are we here? To avoid stirring the establishment and sending them home?
I want to send them home, tell them to be Producers. And stop Taking.
No product or institution can survive a second exposure to the process that created it.
This convention will run away, and you'll have Mister Thompson. And all the rest of his cronies.
While this may not change your mind, solely in the interest of providing the drive-by reader with the actual historical record, I offer the following:
In the months between the Annapolis Convention (Sept, 1786) and Philadelphia (May, 1787), there were seven states that independently passed similarly broad resolutions commissioning their delegates to Philadelphia to take such steps necessary to render the construct of the federal government "adequate to the exigencies of the union." Those states were VA, NJ, PA, NC, NH, DE & GA. This was completely independent of Congress, since it was, after all, a Convention of States being contemplated.
New York, seeing the writing on the wall, turned to Congress instead and submitted a resolution requesting that they, Congress, call the convention and limit it strictly to revising the Articles of Confederation. That resolution failed.
Massachusetts, following New York's lead, actually came up with an alternative construct which finally did pass, allowing Congress to have it both ways. It was a wizardry of wording that should make some of today's more mealy-mouthed legislators drool. They offered a substitute resolution whereby Congress would declare that it would indeed be beneficial if the convention were called "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation,' but then went on to request that the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention report back "such alterations and provisions therein… [to] render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union."
Not really what anyone would call a "limited" mandate, now, is it? And nowhere do you find the words, "convention for proposing amendments." Just sayin'.
Now, once Congress had limped into the fray with that unhelpful injunction, three more states - CT, MD & SC - adopted their own broadly worded calls for a convention (again, independent of Congress), bringing the number of delegations to 10 of the 12 in attendance (all but NY & MA) with broad authority to ignore the non-mandate from a notoriously paralyzed Congress. After all, it was an ineffectual Congress that was one of the primary reasons for the Annapolis Resolution to begin with.
It can be further argued that, under the existing Articles of Confederation, Congress had no authority to call for a convention of states, so even if its "suggestion" were only half as ambiguous as it was, it would still have lacked the prerogative to limit it.
You'll note that RI wasn't mentioned, as they were perennial nay-sayers and refused to even send a delegation, having vetoed, under the current unworkable AoC "unanimity" requirement, every previous attempt by the other states to amend the Articles of Confederation.
So, again, to suggest that the delegates to Philadelphia just all of a sudden went rogue and "ran away" with the convention simply defies American History, despite the partisan oratory and hyperbole of the politicians of the day. Virtually all of them knew at the opening gavel the gravity of the responsibilities they were facing, and it was a whole lot more than nibbling around the edges of the tattered, inadequate and inefficient system of self-governance that they all agreed needed some serious repair.
Except Rhode Island.
The second issue is your contention that the convention will "run away," while providing no evidence or even a hint of a rationale for such a statement. My only response to you would be to ask, "How?"
They can do anything they want because--according to the Declaration of Independence ("whenever any government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government...")--the powers of any delegates to a convention of this kind are plenipotentiary.
Soros has tried ( his minions and all ) to get Republicans out of office, and yet the state legislatures keep increasing their control of the statehouses, now at about 75%. They failed to get HRC into office, and failed to get that next Supreme Court appointment.
Contrary to your wild claims, this is still a Republic, and one man, especially Soros, does not control the electorate.
And in fact, his worse nightmare is a Convention of States, because it will be run by and under the pressure of thousands of grassroots supporters who pay no attention to his money.
It is God who oversees the affairs of men, and not Soros.
---
Followed the $$$! Found them/Soros AGAINST ArticleV http://blog.heartland.org/2016/02/sor...
Quite to the contrary, they prefer to look to state law for delegate selection, and they also overwhelmingly support a sunshine clause in the convention rules to be drafted prior to calling the assembly to order.
None of your unsubstantiated, imaginary nightmare scenario is possible. Not. Even. Remotely.
I've shown you over a thousand lawmakers and over 2 million fellow citizens... if you show me just one ounce of evidence that George Soros has any influence whatsoever over our organization or its end goal, I just might reconsider.
By the way, for your edification and for clarification, the organization that I support and to which I am referring here is the Convention of States Project, and none other. More information is available online.
Over a thousand lawmakers, and over two million citizens, can always be wrong.
Ask yourself why, except maybe for President Trump, every Republican President, Senator or Representative has always acted more than a little strangely after taking office.
George Mason argued for Article V to be included in the Constitution to ensure that the states would have a method of amending the Constitution to remedy errors discovered in the normal conduct of government, without interference from Congress, IN THE EVENT THAT THE ERROR INVOLVED CONGRESS ITSELF. Has there ever been a time in history that better fit that description?
And you're right... raw numbers are not corroboration, but as I stated, they certainly IMPLY validity, and will stand as such until and unless you can show otherwise. The alternative that you're asking everyone to accept is that despite all those legislators, all those advocates, and every signer of our Constitution, YOU are the only one who is right.
No... I'm sorry... you're going to have to come up with a better boogeyman.
Amendments should be provided to correct defects, thus preventing “chance and violence”>http://indianaliberty.weebly.com/blog...
You choose not to heed it.
I leave you with this:
"No person stays in this valley by faking reality in any manner whatever."
Unless I have Soros all wrong, this makes me favor it even more.
Don't take that chance. And don't try for quick fixes, either.
To put things in their proper perspective, I'll remind you that it took ten years to get from Revolution to Ratification. When it comes to saving the Republic, those of us who have marched dutifully to the polls every election cycle and pulled the Right lever have learned the hard way... there ARE no quick fixes. Now we've decided to look to what the Framers of the Constitution provided as a remedy -- Article V.
Campaigning in election after election to educate people on how a Constitutional government will better serve them than whatever "goodies" they think they're going to get from the present system, is the slow-but-sure fix.
Don't amend it. Obey it.
Another easy-to-say, hard-to-accomplish bumper-sticker slogan.
That's what this entire movement is about, Temlakos... putting some TEETH into the Constitution so as to FORCE the federal government to obey it. I mean, the bumper-stickers are catchy, but look around out there... how's that working out for you?
This is right off the Common Cause website, linked here.
They are using the same arguments you are using.
They have defeated you, misled, whatever.
As Ayn Rand said, you should "check your premises"
https://www.google.com/search?q="check+your+premises"
PDF Fact Sheet: Common Cause Opposes a Constitutional Convention>http://www.commoncause.org/issues/mor...
==This is from Common Cause============
Common Cause Opposes a Constitutional Convention
The call for a federal constitutional convention is
a dangerous threat to our democracy. Common Cause opposes a call for a constitutional convention, regardless of the amendment being proposed, for the following reasons:
THREAT OF A RUNAWAY CONVENTION:
There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent a
constitutional convention from being expanded in scope to issues not raised in convention calls
passed by the state legislatures, and therefore could lead to a runaway convention.
INFLUENCE OF SPECIAL INTERESTS:
An Article V convention would open up the Constitution to revisions at a time of extreme gerrymandering and in an environment of unlimited political spending. It could allow special interests and the wealthiest to re-write the rules governing our system of government.
NO RULES:
There are no rules governing constitutional conventions. A constitutional convention
would be an unpredictable Pandora’s Box; the last one, in 1787, resulted in a brand new
Constitution. There’s a significant danger that opponents of certain civil liberties or other
members of the organized Right could change the scope of the convention and undermine basic
rights long protected by the Constitution.
UNCERTAIN RATIFICATION PROCESS:
A convention could re-define the ratification process (which currently requires 38 states to approve of any new amendments) to make it easier to pass new amendments, including those considered at the convention. This happened in 1787, when the convention changed the threshold necessary for ratification.
THREAT OF LEGAL DISPUTES:
No judicial, legislative, or executive body would have clear authority to settle disputes about a convention, opening the process up to chaos and drawn out legal disputes that threaten the functioning of our democracy and economy.
APPLICATION PROCESS UNCERTAINTY:
There is no clear process on how Congress or any other governmental body would count and add up Article V applications, or if Congress and the states could restrain the convention’s mandate based on those applications.
POSSIBILITY OF UNEQUAL REPRESENTATION:
There are no rules for how states would choose
delegates to a convention, how states and citizens will be represented within a constitutional
convention, and who would ultimately vote on
matters raised in a convention.
And campaigning election after election to fix it? Really? How is that going for you? [no so very well or we would not be having this discussion....]
And you said: "Don't amend it. Obey it."
That is not an admonition for us is it? It IS for the FEDS.
The Feds ARE obeying the Constitution, the 3000 page version created by all the court judgements, laws passed, agencies, and more.
---
The government follows a 3000-PAGE Constitution>http://www.conventionofstates.com/the...
But that's only if one were curious would one ask such a question...
The way you apparently know what Soros thinks.... how could that really be? Either it is conjecture, or you are in his inner circle....
I'm going with conjecture, which means you have no proof.
Instead, Soros has come out with his minions of 220 (at least) groups specifically against the Convention of States Project in no uncertain terms.
The interesting thing???
His groups use EXACTLY the same talking points you are using, and even more that some other supposedly "conservative" groups use. Read them here right from Common Cause itself.
---
PDF Fact Sheet: Common Cause Opposes a Constitutional Convention>http://www.commoncause.org/issues/mor...
But, more to your question: Why don’t “they” propose these specific amendments that you mentioned? If by “they” you are talking about the proponents of an Article V Convention, the civilian activists like me who are advocating for it, then the simple answer is that we have no such authority.
Article V provides that the STATES, or the delegate-commissioners who are sent by the states, are the only ones who may introduce, debate and propose such amendments. We advocates are simply a grassroots organization encouraging the various state legislatures to pass resolutions applying to Congress for a convention. Once the 34-state threshold is met and the convention is called, it will then be up to the duly-commissioned delegates to submit their proposals, all of which will be strictly limited to the specific constraints of the call.
In case you missed it in the video, all of the applications being sent to Congress are identical and limit any proposals to those that would 1) reduce the size, scope and jurisdiction of the federal government; 2) impose fiscal restraints in the form of a rational balanced budget amendment; and 3) set mandatory term limits for all federal officials, including the judiciary.
I’m sure you’ll agree that if anyone is going to be suggesting legislation in any of those three areas, it should be duly-elected, constitutionally conservative lawmakers doing the drafting, the debating, and the proposing, not a bunch of far-flung, rag-tag activists and keyboard kommandos.
From RimCountry:
"What is being discussed here and in the video is a LIMITED Article V Convention to Propose Amendments to the Constitution, NOT a general Constitutional Convention, which would at the very least be extra-legal, since there is no place in the Constitution that even contemplates such an assembly."
There are some major problems with this statement. There are no provisions under Article V for a LIMITED Article V Convention to Propose Amendments to the Constitution.
Unfortunately for RimCountry and supporters of an Article V Convention, Article V in its provisions provides only for a general Constitution Convention. If there is no place in the Constitution that even contemplates a general Constitutional Convention - words that RimCountry even uses - a con-con, what is the point of Article V? It says nothing about a LIMITED Convention!
And a general Constitutional Convention being extra-legal? Ummm...things that are outside of the Constitution are called extra-Constitutional. That is a higher bar than extra legal.
Very contradictory statements.
But aside from such procedural open-endedness, the activists for the campaign show no idea of what it takes philosophically to formulate proper amendments and get the public and state representatives to agree on the purpose of a constitution and government, let alone improvements. They are running around claiming that the scheme itself is the solution to all our problems, much like the mindless Trump idolatry that began in the primaries. It all resembles the mentality of the campaign in Atlas Shrugged promoting Mr Thompson's speech as about to tell us what to do and save us. But there is no John Galt to hijack the radio frequencies and state the proper ideas based on what matters to solve the problem, and the hysterical conservative activists certainly aren't about to fill the gap.