Once again, certain Republican members of the General Assembly are advancing bills to call a constitutional convention, as detailed in Article V of the Constitution. Scott Lingamfelter, Jim LeMunyon, and Emmett Hanger are the parties responsible, all part of Republican leadership. It nearly passed last year, and was only defeated thanks to the heroic efforts of Dick Black in the Senate.
As I pointed out last year, this is a horrible idea, and opens the republic up to all sorts of danger.
All the same concerns remain, and have not (and cannot) be addressed by either the General Assembly members who support this, or by Middle Resolution PAC, Convention of States, or any of the other outside forces behind this effort. They can’t limit the scope of a constitutional convention. They can’t guarantee it won’t be hijacked by the left. They can’t explain how they’ll force Congress to adopt a ‘one state, one vote’ format for the convention.
Please lobby your representatives in the House of Delegates and the Senate of Virginia to oppose all three of these bills when they show up on the floor, as they will surely make it out of committee, thanks to leadership support. Possibly as early as this week.
Cross-posted at The Liberty Zone.
85 comments
I respectfully disagree w/ your assessment, Robert. A convention of states to propose amendments to the Constitution is not as dangerous of trying to do the same thing with electing representatives to rein in the Federal government and every growing debt. There are a number of articles that will allay your fears and instead of regurgitating, take a look at
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/conventionofstates/pages/263/attachments/original/1448454708/Article_13-FiveMyths.pdf?1448454708
http://www.conventionofstates.com/succeed
and/or http://www.conventionofstates.com/responses_to_convention_of_states_opposition
Additionally, regarding Virginia’s petition, you’ll see it has specific language in addressing your concerns:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?161+ful+HJ3
This is also complemened by HB1328 to charge any delegate w/ a Class 5 Felony if he/she does not act in accordance to the petition or the state’s directions:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?161+sum+HB1328
This will clear up some of the misconceptions about Article V.
https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/63e39657-e510-4eca-9ba4-e936bd7e12e9
We can argue about a Convention of States until we are blue in the face, but the fact is we must do something soon. Unless you have a solution that can bring our government under control, I strongly recommend that you unite with us and help save this country before it is too late. Research it yourselves and for our nation’s future, please help.
Please people, educate yourselves about a Convention of States. A COS is very necessary. Without it, the America we know is gone. With it, the citizens have the power. Washington is swollen. Massive overreach. We must fix it. For ourselves and future generations. PLEASE understand. We have to get this right. It is not partisan. It is completely bipartisan. Sign the petition at http://www.conventionofstates.com/ and volunteer at http://www.cosaction.com/?recruiter_id=898217
Tell you what, prove that you can do something easier, like repeal the 17th amendment first, then we’ll talk.
I have no desire to send guys like Mark Herring and Tim Kaine to rewrite a new Constitution.
Why? Do you want them appointed by the President? I sure don’t. What you really need to do is come on board with COSP and then work for term limits for Senators. They will not be able to rewrite the Constitution. You’ve got it all wrong. A Convention of States will bring the power back to you and your state. Washington is broken.
At least stop in here http://www.conventionofstates.com/ and learn about the COSP. Just take some time to read up on it. Then sign the petition. Please. Give it a chance.
Do you think we have founder-caliber legislators in office now? Who? Where? What makes you think they will be tapped to represent? — at best our representatives will be one progressive, one establishment, one conservative — at worst; what passes for Congress.
I’ve studied the issue, read the book, listen to the talk show mountebank. The notion preys upon the politically gullible desperate for a Magic Bullet/Hail Mary/Piss on a Sparkplug solution.
We have term limits, every election.
We HAD a check on our Congresscritter, your local party leaders sold you out.
Nothing is going to fix this except for voters to roll up their sleeves, wallow in the hustings, and roil about in the sewerage.
But the COS is a good sparkly for simplecons and TP socials to knotknicker about rather than fixing first the local parties, elections and working our way up.
Either we do it now, or after the dragon.
Well, after the dragon you won’t be able to do it unless you sign up for his list. So you read Mark Levin’s book? Listen, the COSP will break up the political establishment. And by that, I mean those who are only in it for themselves and don’t give a hoot about their constituents. With the power being in your states hands you WILL be able to change things. You WILL.
It is not a good sparkly for simplecons, and I wish you would think more of it (and me) than that. And it preys upon no one. If someone or something preys, it devours. You know what is devouring? A Washington that has become so corrupt, so partisan, so warped and blinkered that they have set us (America) on a course for destruction. I mean, you’re okay with that? Yet you call me a simplecon? I am working for you. And all America. I have rolled up my sleeves. I’m wallowing and rolling trying to get folks to see how important this is.
We don’t have term limits. Uneducated people vote for the same corrupt individual because they don’t know any better. They see a name and push the button because they recognize that name. Term limits mean that corrupt individual cannot keep getting elected because of voters who won’t take the time to learn about the candidates.
The $17 trillion national debt is staggering, but it only tells a part of the story.
If we apply the normal rules of accounting, the federal government owes trillions more in vested Social Security benefits and other programs.
Even if they confiscated everything, it would not cover the debt!
The Federal bureaucracy has placed a regulatory burden upon business that is complex, conflicted, and crushing.
Little accountability exists when agencies—rather than Congress—enact the real substance of the law.
Research from the American Enterprise Institute shows that since 1949 federal regulations have lowered the real GDP by 2% and made America 72% poorer.
This is not a partisan issue!
Washington, D.C., will never voluntarily relinquish meaningful power—no matter who is elected.
States and citizens must be proactive about taking this power back.
So you see, we have to have a COS. If we don’t, make NO mistake, you will NOT recognize your country. Get rid of corruption.
Stand with the Convention of States Project.
I agree with your premise, I disagree with your conclusion. The COS is a gimmick questing for more dealer/distributors. You don’t seem to be a simplecon (my glittering generalities apply mostly to the aggregate) beyond thinking a COS is the answer or is possible. (That’s ok, there are simplecons that still think that Cruz was constitutionally eligible to be President.)
The COS is a resource Tar Baby that consumes political capital and cannot produce anything. Might as well form COS clubs and stand on overpasses with signs, flags, and banners.
The failure to inform and educate the electorate is hardly an excuse for giving pols a bottle of Jack and the keys to the Constitution.
No, no gimmick on the road for more dealers and or distributors. COS is the REAL thing. And I’m about to tell you why.
From the COS website:
1. There is a clear, strong single-subject precedent that would almost certainly be declared binding in the event of a court challenge. There have been over 400 applications from state legislatures for an Article V convention in the history of the Republic. No such convention has ever been called because there has never been an application from two-thirds of the states for a single subject. In addition to this, there is a huge amount of historical precedent that limits interstate conventions to a particular subject. (See Dr. Robert Natelson’s handbook).
2. Ratification of any proposed amendment requires the approval of 38 states. It only takes 13 states to vote “no” to defeat any proposed amendment, and the chances of 38 state legislatures approving a rogue amendment are effectively zero.
3. Improper changes to the process can be legally challenged by state legislators. The Supreme Court has held that Congress acted unconstitutionally when it changed the rules of the process in midstream. See, Idaho v. Freeman, 529 F.Supp. 1107 (D.C. Idaho 1981) (vacated on the ground of mootness.) CSG’s Senior Fellow for Constitutional Studies, Michael Farris, was lead counsel for Washington state legislators in that litigation—the last major Article V case in U.S. history.
4. There is absolutely no historical precedent for a runaway convention. Many opponents of a convention of the states make the historically false allegation that our Constitution was adopted as the result of an illegal runaway convention. Such an argument was invented by the enemies of the Constitution and is unsupported by historical fact. (See “Can we Trust the Constitution?” by Michael Farris).
So you see, American citizens must evaluate the relative safety of two choices. We can allow Washington, D.C., to continue abusing the Constitution and the rights of the people with the vague hope that someday Washington will see the light and relinquish power. Or we call a convention of the states, trusting it will behave properly, and one of the many lines of defense will stop any misuse of power.
And don’t we have to trust something? So why not go this route and work to bring effective changes that will give the power back to where it belongs? Why not take that chance?
I understand what you said about a failure to educate the electorate. But a COS does NOT give pols the keys to the constitution. There should and will be term limits on STATE senators and representatives. And the entire legislatures will begin with NEW blood every other voting year. Can you imagine?
There shall be no chances taken with my Constitution.
When you put limits on the spokesmodel, you empower and embolden the behind-the-scenes bureaucracy.
The COS is a folly that steals focus, direction, and allows for a false sense of purpose.
If only folks worked as hard at the local and political level.
But maybe I’m wrong, look at how much progress has been made and how much activity there has been hyped.
Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain.
I see it the other way around. There will be no behind-the-scenes anything IF there are limits put on pols power. And it will also keep them honest. They won’t have time to cater to special interests as they do now. Especially here in NC.
COS is not stealing anything. They are in it to win it for the citizens of this great nation that is about to crumble before your very eyes. There has been progress. Many states have called for a COS with many more in early 2017. There is no hype. Only truth. And you don’t think this is working at the local and political level? YES. That’s it exactly. Can you see that if this many people believe in this so strongly that there has to be something to it?
I hope to convince you, my friend.
Dorothy
I’d probably be with you in the ideal, but not so much in the real.
The limits on the Politicians here are in their renomination and re-election.
Term limits will cut both ways and would establish a bureaucracy that would end up with the power. (Then unelected civil ‘servants’ would have the juice.)
The only solution for special interest is full disclosure — if my Congresswoman is owned by datacenters, I may be cool with that as long as I’m aware of it. (What’s not to like about datacenters??)
I’m not going to be in favor of ANYONE monkeying with the Constitution unless I have vetting guarantees.
Start small, repeal the 17th, or change the Constitution to allow Ted Cruz to be legitimate in 2020.
No, no one would have the juice. Don’t you see? Because of only getting so much time in office these elected men and women would want to make their mark. They’d do their level best because they know their time is limited. And who doesn’t want respect and admiration for a job well done?
Datacenters are okay but what if another congresswoman in an adjacent district gets the better of the datacenters that own your congresswoman? These datacenters are collecting information for a business that the other congresswoman’s husband owns. So now, your congresswoman is going to have to be up to something sketchy to get the datacenters to give her attention and money.
And there is no monkeying around with the constitution. The Framers adopted this 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!
The states can bypass congress in repealing the 17th amendment. Maybe that is what you should work on after you sign the petition and volunteer for COSP. 🙂
You and I are together on Cruz. But he changed his strategy and people fell away. And he really isn’t eligible though I’ve heard convincing arguments both ways.
You appear to be grossly mis-informed wrt the myth of a runaway convention. I suggest you look at any of the following to get a better understanding of what the Convention of States project is:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/conventionofstates/pages/263/attachments/original/1448454708/Article_13-FiveMyths.pdf?1448454708
http://www.conventionofstates.com/succeed
http://www.conventionofstates.com/responses_to_convention_of_states_opposition
Regarding Virginia’s petition, you’ll see it has specific language in addressing your concerns:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?161+ful+HJ3
This is also complemened by HB1328 to charge any delegate w/ a Class 5 Felony if he/she does not act in accordance to the petition or the state’s directions:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?161+sum+HB1328
So who are our delegates?
Congress approved Obamacare
Supreme Court Roberts approved Obamacare.
And now I’m supposed to trust legislatures who are telling me ‘If I like my Constitution, I can keep my Constitution.’
Prove to me you can competently repeal the 17th, then we can talk.
Choosing the delegates is the next step. The good news is neither the Governor, Lt. Governor nor the Attorney General are involved. Its the Va. House & Senate who will decide.
The Supreme Court approved Obamacare through a perverted interpretation of the Welfare clause. Imho, it seems highly unlikely we’ll ever get enough Congressmen & Senators to ever repeal it. W/ a COS, an amendment explicitly stating that the welfare clause only allows the Federal Government to tax for services that are outside the jurisdiction of individual states, e.g. national defense, will prevent misinterpretations of the welfare clause. … leading to the repeal of Obamacare. Healthcare for a state’s citizens is certainly within a state’s jurisdiction.
Wrt the 17th amendment, much like the 21st repealing the 18th amendment, a new amendment can be proposed from a COS to repeal the 17th, Chapter 3 of Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments offer some great suggestions on how such an amendment will look like.
For the COS project, such an amendment could fall under the topic of “limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government” , although I confess, imho I think that is a bit of a stretch. However, without a COS, there is zero chance of the 17th amendment ever being repealed. There’ll never be 34 states petitioning for a convention on that specific amendment.
So….are you willing to at least reconsider your position wrt the COS project?
I simply can’t get by the people problem. Our Legislatures and Senates will not send people that share our views. I’m just too cynical and I do not trust the bulk of our electeds.
Besides, we only have until November and then it may or may not matter.
I may have to re-examine the issue from my bunk at one of the camps next spring.
I share your frustration w/ our representatives in the House & Senate… at both the State & Federal levels. Fortunately, in Va. the COS resolution restricts the delegates quite severely:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?161+ful+HJ3E
Also, as I noted above, HB 1328 can charge a delegate w/ a Class 5 Felony.
I honestly don’t see any other truly effective means to fix our country. There’ll never be enough Dave Brats or Mike Lees to make a difference.
Not with an ill-informed electorate — start there — educate the voters, we should really begin within the conservative movement in our own GOP.
[…] last year, Sen. Dick Black will lead the fight against this bill. As I have explained several times before, an Article V convention is unwise. SCOTUS case law indicates that limits on the scope of the […]
The “super delegates” are and will dominate the prez candidate conventions the same way. Not with the people or who they choose but who the elitist super delegates choose. Remember the GOP and Ron Paul?
How many falsehoods can they tell before they lose all credibility? I think that “three strikes, you’re out” is more than generous.
They claim it is not a constitutional convention. Go read the definition of “constitutional convention” in any law dictionary. It is a constitutional convention.
They say the convention of 1787 did not exceed its authority, so we have no reason to fear that a convention today would either. Read Federalist #40, where James Madison explains why they DID EXCEED THEIR AUTHORITY.
They say the states will control the convention & Congress will do nothing but say it is time for a convention. Go read the Congressional Research Service report (#R42589, p.18). It says Congress has historically “asserted broad and substantive authority over the full range of the Article V Convention … from start to finish.”
Don’t be so desperate to do SOMETHING, that you fall for these false promises.
The author of this article talks about a “constitutional convention,” and therefore does not seem to understand what it is he is talking about…
The author is not wrong to use the term “constitutional convention”.
There is a myth being spread by convention advocates that the term “constitutional convention” can only apply to a convention to rewrite the Constitution.
This conflicts with the centuries-old definition of the term, as found in any law dictionary:
“A duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising, OR amending its constitution. Art. V of U.S. Const. provides that a Constitutional Convention may be called on the application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the states.” (emphasis added)
A convention held for any of the above purposes is a constitutional convention. And notice, the Article V convention is used as the example of a constitutional convention.
While I certainly understand the desire and need to rein in our out-of-control federal government, holding an Article V Convention is far too risky and even unnecessary. The solution is for the states to exercise their right to nullify all unconstitutional laws and refuse to accept unconstitutional federal grants with their accompanying “strings.”
There are too many inherent dangers in holding an Article V Convention, including the fact that there is no way a convention can be limited to one amendment. Look carefully at what Article V says. It gives the states the authority to petition Congress to call a Constitutional Convention, nothing more. Congress makes the call and, once convened, the delegates may do as they choose. According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress will also choose the delegates. Furthermore, the federal government doesn’t obey The Constitution as it stands. Why should we believe that it will obey another amendment?
The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse; and, Article I, Section 8, lists the responsibilities that the states ceded to Congress. Congress is supposed to only spend money on those responsibilities. All other areas are reserved to the states and to the people (10th Amendment). Yet, over the years, the federal government has formed layers of bureaucracy and departments that it has no constitutional authority over and spends money hand over fist on items outside its jurisdiction. If Congress would obey The Constitution and function within the limits set forth in it, the budget would naturally be balanced, with plenty of money left over to pay the deficit.
The proposed Balanced Budget Amendments do not address the fact that the federal government is operating outside its constitutional limitations. In fact, these amendments would alter the intent of The Constitution (a limited federal government) and make its usurpation of state and individual responsibility/power legal instead of unconstitutional. A good example is the individual income tax. Many people think that income tax first came into existence with the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913. However, Abraham Lincoln ushered it in, and it was in effect on and off from the war years until 1895 when the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. The passage of the 16th Amendment made it “constitutional” even though that was not the original intent of The Constitution. (It may be of interest that the establishment of the Federal Reserve reflects plank number five ofThe Communist Manifesto and the imposition of a graduated income tax, plank number two.)
Why bother? I have a saying, “Laws are the things Democrats hit Republicans over the head with.” Dems don’t follow the laws so we only constrain ourselves with the adoption of more laws. I see this argument in the same light. Any change will be to the detriment of Republicans since Democrats won’t abide by whatever is changed if they don’t like it.
Clearly there are problems that we need to solve if we are going to stop the country from continuing on its current path. I believe an Article V Convention of States is needed, but I am willing to listen to other suggestions as an alternative. What are they? What we’re doing now isn’t working, so “more of the same” isn’t going to be a convincing argument.
A bad idea is a bad idea, regardless of the existence of a good idea to replace it. However, there is a solution. But no solution is really a solution unless it addresses the root of the problem.
The amendment process is designed to address flaws in the Constitution. While I don’t claim the Constitution to be infallible, its flaws are not the source of our problems.
If we were to follow the Constitution today, as written, our budget would be balanced, with a surplus exceeding $2 Trillion dollars annually! Nevada and Oregon would have no battles over federal land, because the Constitution only authorizes federal control over land within a state for the purposes of “forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings”.
The list goes on and on. Without changing a single word, the Constitution can rein in nearly every abuse of the federal government.
So, why do they get away with ignoring it?
Quite simply, they don’t play by the rules, because we the people don’t know the rules.
As Jefferson said, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free … it expects what never was and never will be.”
Promoting a convention as a cure to our nation’s ills is expecting to be ignorant and free. That will never happen.
Only when a larger portion of society understands and demands adherence to the Constitution, will our constitutionally-protected rights be secure.
At this point, the only discussion should be “what is the best way to restore the principles of liberty and the limits of power of the Constitution to the hearts and minds of the people?” All other solutions are simply expecting we can be “ignorant and free”.
As an analyst, this short powerpoint will assist one in gaining excellent no rhertic, facts on what the Article V Convention could do, and why it is NOT necessary. The founders in fact expected an educated electorate to use the 10th Amendment to resolve Federal Government over reach.
See: http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/41085340
Please take the few minutes to educate yourself and move this to others, as both Establishment camps want this— only one reason why.
excellent slide show, raven6 !
Thank you so much. kindest to you.
Actually, your slideshow is completely off-topic… no one is calling for another general convention. We’re talking about an amendments convention. There’s a difference. You might ant to look it up.
Mr. Alexander–It is you specifically who needs to review the Constitutional forensic language and the then relevant english skills. You presume knowledge that is at best false narrative. In an open effort to assist you go to Publius Huldah’s Blog. There you will find forensically accurate information concerning the mis-information you have been given.
Best to you.
Despite the unwarranted insults, I, too, would show you the courtesy of referring to you by your name, but you haven’t given it to me. Neither have you given me your own thoughts, but rather a link to someone else’s. It has been my experience that when one cannot articulate for himself that which he feels needs to be said, then he’s most likely acting as someone else’s echo chamber and probably doesn’t fully grasp the issue, anyway.
Just to clarify, in my previous post, I posited three indisputable facts: 1) No one (in the CSG COS Project) is calling for a general convention, 2) what we are calling for is an amendments convention, and 3) there is a difference between the two.
I will now add one more indisputable fact: Anyone who conflates these two diametrically opposed processes is either a liar involved in a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue in order to generate fear in those who are not aware of the difference, or he is himself misinformed.
So… as it now stands, these facts remain unrefuted.
No one is saying the constitution is the “problem.” DC is. Just for this very purpose, Article V allows for a convention of states to propose amendments to the constitution should remedies be needed. Remedies are surely needed today. Congress is incapable of exercising its constitutional authority. Obama is acting as king. And the judiciary is rampant with activist judges.
What other parts of the Constitution did the founders get wrong and should be discarded? Or is this is the only part?
The Article V convention is the one remaining flaw which Madison raised question about twice at the conclusion of the 1787 convention. He felt it was left too vague. His concern was never corrected.
But don’t worry, the Supreme Court has a solution.
“As a rule, the Constitution speaks in general terms, leaving Congress to deal with subsidiary matters of detail as the public interests and changing conditions may require, and Article V is no exception to the rule.” – Dillon vs Gloss (1921)
Eric: It isn’t an issue of the founders getting it wrong. The founders made it very difficult to amend the Constitution for good reason. They expected debate by legislators and citizens of the states on the subject. it isn’t something that they must do or should do.
The problems in our Country are not caused by defects in our federal Constitution. Our problems are caused by ignorance of our Constitution. Too few have made the modest effort to read it and understand what it says. Accordingly, most act without reference to the strict limits on federal power ALREADY SET FORTH in our Constitution.
So it is absurd to claim that new amendments can “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government”, when our Constitution ALREADY LIMITS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to the 18-21 (it depends on how you count) delegated powers!
So what’s the real agenda behind this massive push for an Article V convention?
There are forces in this Country who want a new Constitution. To get a new Constitution, they need a convention.
At least five (5) Proposed Constitutions are already drafted or in preparation; or, as with the North American Union, will be needed to transform the United States FROM a sovereign nation TO a member State in the North American Union.
Have you read these proposed new Constitutions? Do you know anything about them? Do you KNOW how new Constitutions are imposed? Is it possible that the proponents of the new Constitutions understand something about national conventions which YOU don’t understand?
I agree with you, but if you think there are only 18 or 21 powers granted by the Constitution, please read the “necessary & proper” clause again (and agan, and again.) Ask yourself where are the “Powers vested” found, and what does the Constitution do to restrict those? Answer: not much. So when an amendment made after the 10th amendmend creates a “vested power,” such as one that ensures “equal protection” or grants a power to tax incomes, we will see these powers incorporated against the States in violation of previous limits because a whole new set of powers has been “vested.”
The Necessary and Proper Clause only applies to powers granted by the Constitution. It does not create any new powers.
Precisely! Hamilton and Madison said this – several times each – in The Federalist Papers.
1. Go through the Constitution with a highlighter and highlight the powers delegated to Congress. Then add them up. What number do you get? The powers are listed on this chart – but maybe I left something off – show me if I did https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/chart-showing-federal-structure-3-1-part-a2.pdf
2. The original intent of the “necessary & proper” clause is proved here. Look up the cites to The Federalist Papers. https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/chart-on-three-clauses-the-supreme-court-perverts-1.pdf
3. No amendments can be “in violation” of previously existing provisions in the Constitution. All amendments rescind provisions to the contrary in the Constitution as it existed before the amendments. Eg., the 13th Amendment changed, among other provisions, Art. IV, Sec. 2, clause 3
Hello to you PB, and thanks for the support. Robert.
brutus1776 was saying that newer amendments created the additional powers and claim to use the necessary and proper clause as an excuse rather than a limiting factor.
I don’t understand what you are saying.
Most of the amendments since the 12th delegated additional powers to the federal government – that is clear from the words of the amendments themselves.
The necessary and proper clause – as Hamilton & Madison pointed out in The Federalist – merely grants to Congress the power to make the laws necessary to carry out the delegated powers. E.g.,
Congress may make laws to implement the power granted to Congress in Article V to “call” a convention;
Congress may make laws to provide for the payment of debts contracted under our First Constitution [the Articles of Confederation] – see Article VI, clause 1;
Congress may make laws to enforce against federal law enforcement officers the Rights of The People described in the 4th Amendment;
Congress may make laws to enforce the 16th Amendment [which Americans got hoodwinked into supporting];
and so on – you get the drift
Joanna, the necessary and proper clause has NOTHING to do with Article V. Quit your lying
An Article V convention is like playing Russian Roulette with your rights. The Constitution isn’t perfect, which is why we have an Amendment process where we could debate one Amendment at a time. That is infinitely safer than a convention where anything and everything could be opened up. If that happens, there will be people there who think we should not have guns, who think that free speech and our other civil liberties should be limited.
Reagan said that the loss of our liberties can be only one generation away. I think he said that about a generation ago.
This Article V Convention movement is suppose to be led by the grassroots who want to stop federal overreach. If that is the case, why is it being supported by Establishment Republicans who support Common Core like John Kasich and Mike Huckabee, and more recently by Governor Greg Abbott of Texas who just attended the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland? And why is the Convention of States founder, Mark Meckler working with the likes of Van Jones and Joann Blades of MoveOn.org in a left-wing group called Living Room Conversations? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqQ7Mx06XPo
Establishment Republicans also approve of eating three meals a day. I suppose we should oppose that too right?
This is a classic ad hominem argument. Rather than attacking the convention proposal itself, opponents of Article V seem to enjoy hammering away at other supporters’ character as proof that it’s a bad idea. How about actually disproving the pro-liberty arguments for Article V rather than attacking the millions of easy political punching bags out there? I have yet to hear a single credible, logical, and fact-based argument against why we shouldn’t pursue Article V…instead all I hear is negativity, ad hominems, no true Scotsmen, and even basic name-calling among those who oppose this idea.
Sigh – you should look up “ad hominem” because you don’t seem to understand what constitutes the fallacy.
Halshurtleff”s point is this: COS claims to be a “grassroots” movement – but it is supported by big government and rich statists. That support gives the Lie to the claim that the push for an Art. V convention is a “grassroots” movement.
I highly recommend this Logic Book – its for the whole family – everyone in your family can learn http://www.amazon.com/Fallacy-Detective-Thirty-Eight-Recognize-Reasoning/dp/0974531537/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453733146&sr=8-1&keywords=the+fallacy+detective
An ad hominem “is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly.” You basically did exactly that by attacking Article V on the grounds that “Establishment Republicans” supported it…so how exactly is this NOT an ad hominem?
You really need to get the Logic Book I recommended. It’s marked for 12 years up – but much younger children can learn it when their parents study it and teach them. All of the common fallacies are discussed and explained.
You still didn’t respond to his point. Call the “fallacy” whatever you want, it’s guilt by association, and I might add, without a lick of proof. It’s character assassination, plain and simple. I hear George Soros votes… OMG… do YOU vote, too?!?!? There are over a million unpaid volunteers across the country now advocating for an Article V amendments convention… not a general convention, but a limited one. That’s grassroots, kids.
Joanna, the only fallacy is in you trying to demean the Constitution.
Look, Article V is really easy to figure out. If Congress and the states disagree on any part of the federal convention, it goes to the SCOTUSD, right?
Dillon Vs Gloss (1921)
“Of the power of Congress, keeping within reasonable
limits, to fix a definite period for the ratification we entertain no doubt. As a rule, the Constitution speaks in general terms, leaving Congress to deal with subsidiary matters of detail as the public interests and changing conditions may require, [Footnote 12] and Article V is no exception to the rule. Whether a definite period for ratification shall be fixed, so that all may know what it is and speculation on what is a reasonable time may be avoided, is, in our opinion, a matter of detail which Congress may determine as an incident of its power to designate the mode of ratification. It is not questioned that seven years, the period fixed in this instance, was reasonable if power existed to fix a definite time; nor could it well be questioned considering the periods within which prior amendments were ratified.”
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/256/368/case.html
What if Congress goes by ratification conventions instead of legislatures?
Leser Vs. Garnett (1922)
“The second contention is that, in the constitutions of several of the 36 states named in the proclamation of the Secretary of State, there are provisions which render inoperative the alleged ratifications by their legislatures. The argument is that, by reason of these specific provisions, the legislatures were without power to ratify. But the function of a state legislature in ratifying a proposed amendment to the federal Constitution, like the function of Congress in proposing the amendment, is a federal function derived from the federal Constitution, and it transcends any limitations sought to be imposed by the people of a state.”
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/258/130/case.html
Joanna, you and Shurtleff are wrong on Article V. Always had been, always will be.
And yes, I will continue to call you out as the fraud and charlatan you are.
h
YouTube: The Early Show – Tea Party founder accused of taking gun to airport [Meckler running from reporters.]
The proponents of a constitutional convention posit that it would put needed restrictions on the federal government. But the Constitution already does that. Itlists that which the federal government is authorized to do and the first eight amendments specifically states what it
cannot do and the ninth and tenth state that if we didn’t mention something,you can’t do that either.
The problem is legislators who no longer abide by the Constitution, the Supreme Court for upholding their actions and the electorate for not holding them responsible.
Even if a good amendment were passed, why think that legislators would magically overnight abide by the Constitution?
Since the Constitution is not the problem, changing it is not the solution.
Legislators are the problem. They need to be replaced with ones who will honor their oath of office and abide by the Constitution.
We’ve been chancing legislators since Jefferson’s election in 1800. This clearly isn’t working…
We must change the legislators by replacing them with those who will honor their oath of office and abide by the Constitution. Too many of the ones we have now do not do that. For those who don’t, since they don’t honor this Constitution, why think that they would honor an amended one.
How do you propose to deal with a Supreme Court that now legislates?
Robert is a great man with great principles. We probably agree 90% of the time on most issues, but I think he’s wrong on this.
I strongly support an Article V convention. Does that make me part of the GOP “leadership”? The Founders wrote Article V into the Constitution for a reason. Can anyone else think of a more necessary time to enact it other than now? Every year the SCOTUS chips away at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We have this one last chance to turn things around and save the Republic in my view, and Article V is our trump card. Either we play it now, or we sit on our hands and continue the same path of managing the slow decay of our constitutional liberties.
Remember that time Eric Holder came for your guns?
Me neither.
Christian,
First, read Article V closely. The Congress calls the convention, and has the authority to choose the composition of it. It can set the rules. There could be amendments adopted by voice vote, majority vote, or a 2012 Boehner-style “In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it” situation.
Secondly, there’s no way to limit the scope of a convention. Once in session, everything is on the table. Even if states withdraw, the convention would go on without them.
No. Far too dangerous. But, just for fun, imagine that the CoS folks’ promise of ‘one state, one vote’ somehow comes to pass. Then imagine who each state might send as its delegate. From New York, Giuliani, or worse, Bloomberg. From Rhode Island, Lincoln Chafee. The list goes on.
There are definitely ways to limit the scope of the convention. Look at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787. Many states legally prohibited their delegates from touching certain things. The Connecticut Compromise was created thanks to these restrictions. It’s absurd to argue that we can’t restrain a convention designed merely to add on to the constitution when over 200 years ago we were able to do just that while crafting an entirely new document.
You do understand the 1787 convention went FAR beyond its original constraints and intent, right? That convention makes the argument *against* the idea we can constrain it.
I thought Conservatism was all about embracing the Constitution and the principles behind it, not decrying the Philadelphia Convention as a giant scam which should never be repeated?
What exactly was failed about the convention? You are all acting here like the convention was a monumental failure which ruined America and that this is proof that Article V is an awful idea. Did I miss something here??? The 1787 convention was the greatest thing to ever happen to this country.
And what’s more…what does ANY of this have to do with the proposed convention today? Article V, just like the Second Amendment, was written into the Constitution for a reason…so that it can be properly exercised should the time come. I cannot think of a more deserving moment for something like this than today.
I also don’t appreciate the thinly veiled condescension either Robert. I didn’t spend 3 and a half years obtaining a Bachelor’s in Political Science with a Minor in History only to be lectured about how ignorant I am about the 1787 Convention. I just finished a senior seminar class on this very subject a month ago.
The Articles of Confederation severely limited the power of the Federal govt, especially that of the President. George Washington was such a great man, that they wanted to give him more powers, not having the foresight that they are also giving those powers to possible future tyrants; BHO, for example.
That is the main problem with the 1787 Convention.
“What exactly failed”? If you are so well studied on the history of the 1787 convention, then you know that Madison and Hamilton admitted what they did
Once again, please explain to me how this was a bad thing. I’m still waiting for someone to tell me how the convention was so awful because they discarded the articles…
Wow, you are really slow to get this.
The outcome isn’t the complaint. It is the precedent it set. Limits of power can be ignored. Ratification rules can be discarded. The existing constitution can be replaced with an entirely new one.
You don’t have a problem with that? You are starting to sound like the radical leftist law professor, Larry Lessig. When he was asked if he felt the 1787 convention was a “runaway” convention, he agreed it was, followed by, “Let’s have more runaway conventions!” He has also declared, “It’s time to rewrite the Constitution!” Oh, by the way, Lessig has partnered with COS, to help promote their convention application, as a way to achieve his goals.
If that is what you support, we have nothing more to discuss. I wish to preserve and protect the Constitution. You wish to abolish it.
Wow, you are really passive-aggressive. I didn’t know I was speaking to James Madison here…clearly I’m a moron who doesn’t know what he’s talking about because I support a convention.
Enough of the logical fallacies. You HONESTLY think I’m starting to sound like a leftist college professor simply because I support a different strategy to help restore liberty? What kind of no true scotsman is that? What…are people only truly conservative if they agree with you 100% of the time? I wasn’t aware you set the gold standard for defining what it means to support limited government.
Glad to see you started to study logical fallacies, but keep at it. Now you are employing the “straw-man” fallacy.
I didn’t claim you are only a true conservative if you agree with me 100%.
I said you are using Lessig’s claim that the outcome of the 1787 convention was good, therefore, runaway conventions are good. If that is not what you meant, you’ve done a poor job communicating it.
You’ve made no attempt to refute the evidence that 1787 was a runaway convention, only that it turned out well. You seem to welcome the idea of another runaway convention. What could possibly be your desired outcome from that, if your desires are not aligned with Mr. Lessig’s? Please enlighten us.
Christian, the issue is that that convention gives the lie to the idea that such a convention could be constrained. Compare the founding generation to the crew of politicians we have now. A convention under their control would be extremely dangerous to liberty.
Also, what makes you think our politicians would obey the ‘new’ Constitution that convention might produce, any more than they do the current one. We have to change our entire political culture before we contemplate such a thing, and educate Americans about our founding principles, liberty, and why the Constitution has stood the test of time.
I don’t think it is a coincidence that they timed the 1787 convention to happen when Jefferson was in Paris. Too bad that we don’t have people of Jefferson’s stature today to prevent a catastrophe!
How close are we to catastrophe today – very close. The foundation for ruin and tyranny has already been laid by 100 years of errant and progressive court rulings and legislation that entirely ignores the constitution.
Robert Kenyon is right. The only example we can honestly take from the 1787 convention is that they can NOT be constrained.
10 states, Congress, and the existing constitution all failed at constraining the 1787 convention.
Look at the historical record for yourself. You’ll find COS has not been truthful about history.
What exactly was “failed” about the convention? You are all acting here like the convention was a monumental failure which ruined America and that this is proof that Article V is an awful idea. Did I miss something here??? The 1787 convention was the greatest thing to ever happen to this country.
And what’s more…what does ANY of this have to do with the proposed convention today? Article V, just like the Second Amendment, was written into the Constitution for a reason…so that it can be properly exercised should the time come. I cannot think of a more deserving moment for something like this than today.
Many States prohibited their delegates from touching certain things, and their delegates touched them anyway. Chief among these was considering a new Constitution. Under the Confederation, 2 delegates were needed for a State’s vote to count. But there is only one signature on the Constitution from New York, and Rhode Island & North Carolina didn’t sign at all. Had all the delegates stuck to the instructions from their States, there wouldn’t have been a Constitution. This is the point: once Congress calls the convention, all prior rules are meaningless. Even Congress can’t control it, and certainly not the States. The convention can & may do whatever it wants. 1787 proves this. Add some fabricated hysteria about an economic crisis (like the one that ended in 1786,) with some political strong-arming by the convention’s financial backers (see Robert Morris) and you have a convention that’s “too big to fail.” I hope you can see why those who have impartially read the history & don’t think the Constitution is “divine” think that such a convention is EXTREMELY dangerous.
Agree with you, Christian, except that I don’t see our liberties decaying slowly…
[…] Originally posted at The Bull Elephant. […]