Advocates of an Article V Convention of the States to amend the U.S. Constitution continue efforts to seek approvals in the necessary number of states to call the Convention.
The latest effort is a simulated Convention designed to demonstrate how a convention would work, and to dispel skeptics’ doubts about the proceedings being hijacked by progressives or others hostile to the mission motivating conservative advocates of the project. The simulated convention is to be held in Colonial Williamsburg on September 21-23, and will feature representatives, including sitting legislators, from at least 48 states.
According to principal organizer Mike Farris, in an exclusive interview provided to The Bull Elephant, the simulation will include both convention advocates and convention skeptics. Although the simulation will include a preponderance of conservatives, Farris tells TBE that there will be liberal/progressive representation to better simulate how an actual convention would operate.
This year, after desperate efforts, the effort to pass a Convention of States resolution in Virginia ultimately came up short. Farris blames two unnamed Republican senators for the failure of the 2016 effort, but indicates that the effort will be revived for the 2017 session of the General Assembly.
Those interested in following the simulation can watch online by signing up here.
111 comments
Funny, because the ASL tried to pass a motion to keep all federal elected officials, judges, etc. from serving as delegates but could not get agreement. That motion did not pass. Do you really think that the Congress would call a Convention (their action stipulated by Article V) and simply faint away? They will attempt to set rules as every other entity that calls a convention does. If there is a dispute, just who do you think the Supreme Court will side with? This convention effort is all wishful thinking that nothing will go wrong, even though there are tons of books written by Lefties who have advocated for decades for a new convention to “improve” our Constitution.
Members of the ASL are most definitely attending this mock Convention, even if they are not “in charge” of it. It is a bit ridiculous because apparently Mark Meckler gets to appoint the various officers of the mock convention, as if he would be granted such power! This is a “play acting” show to try to convince the public how safe and wonderful a convention to change our constitution would be. Do the participants think they actually compare to our Founding Fathers? Well, “we the people” know better and we don’t trust elites to change our Constitution, period!
Trusting state legislators to “re-write” the Constitution they regularly demonstrate they have no working knowledge of, nor interest in upholding, is P.T. Barnum at his best. State legislators from 48 states are not listening to We the People.
NON-public servants from 48 states, elected at-large via notarized voter registration, and paper ballots were elected to Continental Congress 2009, at which I was the voting delegate from North Carolina.
That group of patriotic Americans spent about the same amount of time the Framers spent meeting in 1786-87 to produce 15 Articles that includes instructions to our public servants, and a plan of action recommended to our fellow citizens should our public servants fail to uphold their oath and restore constitutional governance.
READ and HEED the official version of the Articles of Freedom adopted January 31, 2010:
http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/OFFICIAL-AOF-1-31-10.pdf
No special interests. No current public servants trying to keep their job. No re-writing or hijacking of the Constitution. Straight-forward, non-partisan.
The event next week isn’t just a mock Article V “Convention for proposing Amendments,” its a mockery of the Constitution.
The Constitution isn’t the problem. Amending it isn’t the solution.
Question: Were these “Articles” ever ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures or by state ratifying conventions so that the people in the states that your “delegates” represented had a say in what you “adopted?”
I didn’t think so.
You said it yourself… you were not elected officials, so you represented no one, and your opinions represented none other than your own. This nation is a representative democracy, and there are minimum standards to affecting change that you utterly failed to meet.
Given that the very purpose of this amendments convention, and the ONLY reason that the states are signing on to the movement, is to REDUCE the size, scope and jurisdiction of the federal government, it’s a logical conclusion that the 34 states needed to convene the assembly will ensure that only good, strong, constitutional conservatives well-versed in Originalism, either duly-elected or democratically appointed, will make up the vast majority of delegates in attendance.
Additionally, according to the bills that I have seen discussed in several of the current applicant states, each delegate or commissioner will attend under the exclusive authority and strict limitations of a specifically directed sworn mandate from their state legislature, and will be closely monitored throughout the entire proceeding, remaining subject to immediate recall, replacement and imposition of heavy legal penalties for failure to perform.
And lastly, after the convention has done its duty and adjourned, it will have done nothing more than PROPOSED amendments to the Constitution. It will not have changed a thing, and here, Article V speaks very clearly: Not until ¾ of the several states have ratified those proposed amendments do they become the Supreme Law of the Land.
This ain’t bean-ball, and believe it or not, there are a lot of highly qualified, very intelligent and well-informed people in this movement who are dedicating their time and treasure to making certain that every conceivable contingency is covered.
Please… before making ill-informed, disparaging remarks about the Citizens for Self-Governance Convention of States Project, take the time to examine the details.
Finally… a solution as big as the problem! http://ConventionOfStates.com
I did find these legislators from Virginia on the Convention of States website listed as attending the simulated Article V Convention: Delegate Scott Lingamfelter who has introduced the COS Article V Application; Delegate JIm LeMunyon who has introduced the so-called balanced budget Article V Convention Application; former speaker of the House of Delegates Vance Wilkins who is no longer in office; First term Senator Amanda Chase. They are all Republicans.
Look at their donors and supporters, follow the threads.
They may be Republicans, but must be safe or protected enough to indulge in such fantasy.
Selection of Delegates: Simulation Fail.
This Article V simulation will be a far cry from the real thing. “Conservatives” are organizing this show, but Congress calls and organizes an Article V Convention according to Article V and the Congressional Research Service. And please don’t forget, Wolf PAC has already had its Article V application passed in just a few states shy of the states that passed the COS Application. And keep in mind that larger, liberal states will not stand to have the same number of votes as Rhode Island. The Library of Congress Congressional Research Service states that voting at a Convention will be proportional according to the population of the state. Further, COS’ own “legal expert” Rob Natelson has stated that the Convention itself will decide how voting at the Convention takes place. Also, when you read the wording of Article V of the Constitution is also clearly states that Congress decides how amendments will be ratified. They could pick rigged “ratifying conventions” in the states. I think anyone in politics can attest to being present at a rigged convention. But most important: after all this effort and expense, even if a “good” amendment passed, why would Congress and the President obey the revised constitution when they disobey the one we have. This charade is taking the focus off the upcoming election to stop Hillary! Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Mike Farris is “never Trump” and convention supporters have been quoted as saying “elections aren’t working very well…” Dictators love to hear such remarks!
Your entire argument here is based on the premise that The Congressional Research Service is some sort of authority. You’re wrong. They are a research arm funded by the Library of Congress comprised of student interns… Google it.
The clear text of Article V and over 300 years of precedent regarding political conventions, NOT A DEMOCRAT WISH LIST, will dictate events… period.
I tried to observe their meeting in 2013 but the grounds were gated, doors locked and armed guards prevented “we the people” (and the tax payers) from getting in. An Article V convention would be a huge mistake! Do you really trust “the states” that expand Medicai, adopt Common Core, take every federal grant they can get their hands on, to “rein in” the federal government? Congress will call and make the rules for this convention as every other entity that calls a convention does! Don’t be fooled. The elites in Congress cannot wait to team up with the states to “modify” our Bill of Rights. Don’t trust the political elites who will run this show.
Prepared just for you: A Learning Moment…
An Article V Convention to Propose Amendments to the Constitution is a state-led initiative, where federal officials are precluded by law from participating (see the Incompatibility Clause of Art I, Sec 6, USC).
You’re welcome.
What do you mean by “state-led initiative”? If you mean state legislatures trigger a federal Constitutional Convention, I agree.
If you believe federal officials are precluded from from participating, then you are sadly mistaken. Read the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Sec 10 para 3. “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress…enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State”
I mean neither… we’re not talking about a Constitutional Convention here… nowhere in the Constitution will you find the provision or authority for a second Constitutional Convention. The one (and only) Constitutional Convention in 1787 was enough.
This is an Article V Convention of the States to Propose Amendments to the Constitution, and as such, is NOT a compact, which not only would require the consent of Congress, but also the signature of the President.
There is absolutely no question that the Founders intended for the states to be able to propose amendments to the constitution independent of Congress – that means without their interference. To suggest that Congress should be permitted to control any of the details of the convention would not only fly in the face of original intent, but would strain all logic… why in the world would the regulated party be allowed to control the determination of its own regulations?
The Founders were not fools.
There is no question what the founders meant by natural born citizen, but along came Ted.
Let us know when you have founder-comparable legislators and an informed and enlightened virtuous electorate.
????
Changing the subject, or just unable to follow along?
You mentioned the founders intent. I gave an example of how our contemporaries can, will, and do cherry pick the Constitution thus illustrating that the state-of-the-art delegates of a COS could be equally ‘flexible.’
OK… thanks for clarifying.
For the record, the opinions of Ted Cruz, or any other federal elected or appointed official or employee, for that matter, are irrelevant to the inner functions of a state-initiated and state-led amendments convention, thus making your “example” equally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Although you seem to have difficulty coming right out and saying what you really think, it would seem to me that you have a major issue with trust. I get that.
What I don’t get is that Congress right now, as we live and breathe, has exactly the same power as a Convention of States has… if Congress saw fit, they could at any time propose any amendment that came into their minds… or into yours. They could do it RIGHT NOW!
You know why they don’t?
Because of us… The American People… it’s clear that they trust us more than you do, because they know that a hair-brained proposal would never be ratified by the states. Never.
So, again… I don’t get it… I don’t get why you trust our own state legislators LESS than this Congress.
But that’s OK… I don’t need to understand why… it’s just good enough for me to understand who I’m talking with.
Not exactly. I would trust the state legislators with the election of Senators to the US Senate, this process worked, and for a time, blocked amalgamation of power to the national government.
Unfortunately, Our state legislators have become the current farm team for federal legislators.
I do not trust our existing state legislators to protect the Constitution against it’s domestic enemies who would further corrupt the COS process for their own nefarious ends.
I do not trust our existing state legislators to elect the kind of people required to Constitutional changes and not get ‘remotivated’ into another direction.
I do not trust ‘Constitutional Conservatives’ who have shown their stripes in recent RPV conventions and SCC meetings.
As far as what the people have voted for, take a look around for the last 16 years. Look at the behavior of our Congressmen and Senators — they would love to corrupt the process and the Constitution.
We need to clean up our own house before we consider ourselves competent enough to clean up the Constitution.
Why can’t we start with the 17th Amendment repeal? Because Congress won’t listen? Then first we change Congress. We didn’t get here overnight and we’re not going to magically fix the US with the election of Donald Trump. It will be a long unpleasant journey if we are successful at all.
As I said, and as you’ve just confirmed, you trust your state legislators less than you do this current Congress. You’ve set a remarkably low bar, and frankly cause me to question your motivation. The only other folks I’ve seen resist the COS this blindly are those who are members of the establishment elite with a vested self-interest in maintaining the unsustainable, which is clearly not in the best interests of the people or the nation. But we’ll leave that for another time.
As to your actual response, I’m afraid I can’t even begin to address your broad, sweeping (and baseless, I might add) generalizations that attempt to paint all 7,000-plus state legislators across this great nation with the same tawdry brush, other than to say again that you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how irrational it may seem.
If and when you decide that you want to discuss the facts, I’ll be here, but please… keep your indefensible ad hominem attacks to yourself.
Yeah, that’s me.
Your lack of response and logic has made your argument quite sufficiently.
The rest of us choose not to join you at Marie Callender’s before you board your comet.
Have fun at your ‘die-in’ this weekend.
LOL! Afraid to ask a serious question without the condescension and the snark? Afraid to have an adult conversation?
Asked and answered. You should be grateful I spare my endless stock of condescension and snark for your COS amateur hour.
You guys clearly cannot demonstrate the level of statesmanship necessary that would prevent our dumbass electeds from screwing the puppy, and for that reason, you are out!
LOL! You have a nice day.
It appears you have adopted the U.S. Constitution as your Bible, the rights of the people are not designated within the Constitution…which is another one of my arguments against a Convention.
As a body, the right of a convention to abolish their government and institute a new government is not dictated by the U.S. Constitution. Just like being a parent, they are not instilled by a written Constitution, sermons are not conducted in university law schools and lawyers are not clergy.
Once the convention is triggered by state applications, the convention is a creatures upon its own and has enormous power to include institute a new government. Evident by conventions of the 192 nations of the United Nations.
Please refer me to any literature or law, besides the COS website, that provides justification that the founders (as a collective) intended for states (whether legislatures or the people) to propose amendments.
At the time of writing the U.S. Constitution, slave states were of concern to the founders. George Mason is used as a interpreter of the U.S. Constitution even though he didn’t even sign it out of protest.
Before I respond to your request for a citation that justifies our interpretation of the Founders’ intent with regard to Article V, let me just say that I acknowledge your right to have opinions that differ from ours. It’s a free country.
I do take issue, however, with your exclusion of the vast amount of material aggregated on the COS website. The data there contains volumes of information gathered over a four-year period taken from numerous sources, all duly accredited, including but not limited to the minutes of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, plus personal handwritten notes of a number of attendees and authors of the Constitution itself. Asking for “proof” from anywhere other than the COS website can be likened to asking for “gospel” from anywhere other than The Bible.
Having said that, I will simply refer you to the 2014 Congressional Research Service report that you defended earlier. In its conclusion, the author writes (Capital emphasis mine):
“The Article V Convention for proposing amendments was the subject of considerable debate and forethought in the Philadelphia Convention of 1787.
CLEARLY INTENDED AS A BALANCE TO PROPOSAL OF AMENDMENTS BY CONGRESS, IT SOUGHT TO PROVIDE THE PEOPLE, THROUGH THEIR STATE LEGISLATURES, WITH AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF OFFERING AMENDMENTS TO THE NATION’S FUNDAMENTAL CHARTER, PARTICULARLY IF CONGRESS PROVED INCAPABLE OF, OR UNWILLING TO, INITIATE AMENDMENTS ON ITS OWN.
It also enjoys distinction as one of the few provisions of the U.S. Constitution that has never been implemented. Under these circumstances, the Article V Convention presents many questions that Congress would be called on to consider, and perhaps answer, in the event a convention became a serious possibility. If so, Congress would not be without resources. It is perhaps fortunate that guideposts, if not simple answers, exist in the broad range of sources cited in this report: the original intent of the founders as preserved in the record; historical examples and precedents, particularly those of the last decades of the 20th century; a large body of scholarly writing on the subject; and not least, the work and products of two decades of serious congressional consideration, from the 1970s to the 1990s, of the question of an Article V Convention.” *
I should point out that, even though you ruled out the COS website as a credible source of legitimate reference, this very report is also cited in their catalog of references, as are the 143 words of Article V of our Constitution. I hope that, in your eyes, this doesn’t disqualify either the CRS Report or the Constitution… otherwise all we’re left with is your opinion, and I’ve already informed you that you are welcome to it.
* Source: https://ia801307.us.archive.org/17/items/R42589TheArticleVConventiontoProposeConstitutionalAmendmentsContemporaryIssuesforCongress-crs/R42589%20The%20Article%20V%20Convention%20to%20Propose%20Constitutional%20Amendments_%20Contemporary%20Issues%20for%20Congress.pdf
Article V has only 143 words so please refer to it.
1) It states that Congress calls the convention upon the application of state legislatures.
2) Article V also distinguishes two ratifying paths, state ratifying conventions (the people of the state) and state legislatures.
3) The convention will be determined by Congress and could be organized by population rather than states, it definitely isn’t designed around state legislatures.
4) The ratification method will also be determined by Congress.
No where does it state that state legislatures are a part of the convention.
The COSP is a lobbyist group and the information is extremely biased or they’d mention that state legislatures cannot control a national convention.
Now you’re counting angels on the head of a pin…
State legislatures have ALWAYS been a part of the amendment ratification process, except for the one time when Congress chose state ratifying conventions, as provided for in Article V.
Article V gives the states powers and authority EQUAL to those of Congress… the process for a state-led initiative will be no different, otherwise it wouldn’t be equal.
You use the word “state” loosely. State ratifying conventions were used to bypass state legislatures. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZrJeaEZfF8
It’s been done once, and if Congress is as “smart” as they were with regard to repealing Prohibition, they will once again select to hear from The People through state ratifying conventions rather than politically polarized legislatures… but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Mr. Meckler wouldn’t speculate on why Congress chose as they did on the 22nd, but I will… they WANTED their amendment to pass muster in the states, because if it didn’t, their thirsty constituents would have thrown them all out in the upcoming election, and that Montana Bircher knew the answer before he asked the question.
But don’t worry too much, Brian… that won’t be the case this time. When the Convention of States reports out a slate of proposals to reduce the size, scope and jurisdiction of the federal government, and return power to the people in the states, Congress will choose the most difficult, most derisive and least likely method of ratification to ensure that the amendments fail and that they keep their grip on centralized power.
So, do we now find you huddled somewhere in the camp of those who also fear the Voice of the People?
There is no such thing as a “Convention of States”, it’s only a project. When the Convention comes about, it is a federal function.
It’s important to see the true issues where more federal mandates will not fix.
Right… what’s important is to keep dodging the issue, changing the subject and hoping that something sticks.
Like I said earlier, Brian… I really think we’re done here. Thanks for the discussion.
This is exciting to see. The Convention of States is the only idea I’ve heard recently that gives me hope for the preservation of liberty and self-governance in this country. I’m sure the organizers will learn a lot from this simulation.
Sorry about that.
The organizers will learn that it only seems like there an infinite number of low information voters.
And if they don’t, you’ll go on telling them they’re not paying attention to the proper authority. http://www.conventionofstates.com
The devil is in the details. The Article V was a fine notion at the time, but it is based upon an informed and virtuous electorate and representatives.
The times have changed and we have a different political dynamic.
Let me inform you of at least one dynamic of which you seem to be sorely unaware… for just over three years, the Citizens for Self-Governance Convention of States Project has been embarked on a 50-state campaign to inform and educate both the electorate and our elected officials with regard to the text of Article V, its purpose, its meaning and its history, along with its associated rights, responsibilities and prerogatives.
Welcome to 2016.
Ok then, by whom and how are the delegates selected?
Once again, asked and answered. Please refer to your InBox.
That’s nice. It’s good to have a hobby. Mr. Soros and the left share your viewpoint and will help you realize your objective. I’m sure you’ve informed and educated them as well.
The Simulation Convention, under the direction of Michael Farris, is designed to give you the impression that this is the way the real one would be.
But, the real thing is called by Congress, and although Farris may have some influence so will George Soros who has been wanting that opportunity in order to devastate our Constitution.
You’re misunderstanding how this works. Congress only calls it into existence (meaning, Congress recognizes its legitimacy) when 34 states pass the resolution, and then the states take over. George Soros isn’t in any way in charge of what happens with the resolution of COS Project. He and other COS opponents are not yet king of the mountain. http://www.conventionofstates.com
Who would Virginia send? Dr. Ferris or Tim Kaine?
Calling a convention and recognizing one are worlds apart. But the Constitution clearly states that the states apply to Congress and Congress makes the call. Furthermore, irrespective of what you or Michael Farris may think, Congress is of the opinion that THEY make the call. They have already passed legislation as to how they will proceed.
The Congressional Research Service states equivalently that only Congress makes all the decisions regarding who would be the delegates, what can be voted on, and what the process would be.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42589.pdf /
Mike Farris is only one of the experts on this. Several nationally recognized experts on Constitutional law have stated their opinions in line with what Mike Farris says. Congress makes “the call” once the states do their own calling by passing the proposal. Words often have more than one simplistic meaning. The sovereign states are not above the states, although they may act like it. The Congressional Research Service is mostly a group of young attorneys getting paid while doing research for Congress; they’re not yet anything near to constitutional experts. Congress uses their service. That doesn’t make the Service right. In this case–if they say Congress chooses the delegates–they’re absolutely wrong. The US Constitution doesn’t give Congress that authority. Congress calls the process into being and then the states take over. http://www.conventionofstates.com
It doesn’t really matter what you or me or anyone else thinks, it is what Congress thinks that matters. And Congress thinks that they will decide how the delegates are chosen etc. Then once convened , the delegates will decide what they will do. That is where the influence of Soros comes in. Would we get a new constitution? http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/7833-revolutionary-communist-party-proposes-new-continental-constitution/
Or perhaps one of the amendments that Mark Levin advocates that would legalize tyranny ? https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/mark-levins-liberty-amendments-legalizing-tyranny/
Or perhaps Mike Farris’s Parental Rights Amendment that
would open up federal control over parenting?
.
You may wish to reread Article V, how do you get that they’d be wrong in this case? The states only apply for a convention and if the convention is designated by population, then states would only be an administrative function.
I’m still trying to find the language (law) where Mike Farris and company is right, other than their own website. Even history proves Farris & company wrong.
I’ve read that CRS report, too, Ms. Long… it was written by Thomas Neal, a recent law school graduate working as an intern. I am advised that this is not unusual, that many singularly-written reports issued under the auspices of the Congressional Research Service are researched and prepared for Members of Congress by unpaid interns.
This particular report is nothing more than an overview of the history of political conventions, discussing both pro and con positions and suggested issues of concern… concerns for Congress, that is, not for amendment convention advocates. I believe others will find the conclusion of that report to be considerably more measured than your apocalyptic analysis:
“The Article V Convention for proposing amendments was the subject of considerable debate and forethought in the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. Clearly intended as a balance to proposal of amendments by Congress, it sought to provide the people, through their state legislatures, with an alternative method of offering amendments to the nation’s fundamental charter, particularly if Congress proved incapable of, or unwilling to, initiate amendments on its own. It also enjoys distinction as one of the few provisions of the U.S. Constitution that has never been implemented. Under these circumstances, the Article V Convention presents many questions that Congress would be called on to consider, and perhaps answer, in the event a convention became a serious possibility. If so, Congress would not be without resources. It is perhaps fortunate that guideposts, if not simple answers, exist in the broad range of sources cited in this report: the original intent of the founders as preserved in the record; historical examples and precedents, particularly those of the last decades of the 20th century; a large body of scholarly writing on the subject; and not least, the work and products of two decades of serious congressional consideration, from the 1970s to the 1990s, of the question of an Article V Convention.”
There you have it.
The entire report is, in fact, an amassed conglomeration of opinion pieces gathered for a Congress too busy to formulate their own in response to their request for information on what their options might be when the 34-state application threshold is met. As such, the report itself claims no legal standing and carries absolutely zero weight when used as a citation, especially when compared against the centuries of procedural precedent that the report itself chronicles.
PS: There is no question that the Founders intended for the states to be able to propose amendments to the constitution independent of Congress – that means without their interference. To suggest that Congress should be permitted to control any of the details of the convention would not only fly in the face of original intent, but would strain all logic… why in the world would the regulated party be allowed to control the determination of its own regulations?
Once again, you’re the one who’s worried… we’re not. The Founders were not fools.
“There is no question that the Founders intended for the states to be
able to propose amendments to the constitution independent of Congress –
that means without their interference.”
Really? There was no such thing intended by the founders, as a collective. Actually, the U.S. Constitution reads that no state could form an alliance with other states without permission from Congress. Article I, Sec 10, para 3.
We’re not worried, just attempting warn people of doing something stupid.
Besides…there is no such thing as a “Convention of States” under the current U.S. Constitution. (reference provided).
Art I, Sec 10, Cl 3 refers to interstate compacts, not an Article V convention. Compacts require not only the consent of Congress, implicit or explicit, but some would argue presidential approval, as well.
On the other hand, an Article V Convention of the States for Proposing Amendments is covered in Article V, wherein it states that Congress “SHALL CALL A CONVENTION FOR PROPOSING AMENDMENTS…”
See the text.
Not a lot of “consent” talk, now is there?
Can’t wait for this! A convention of states is the original anti-Establishment solution.
Read up on it at http://www.conventionofstates.com/?recruiter_id=12476
It’s like a Constitution-themed Civil War Re-Enactment and a Renaissance Festival combo where the naive can dress up and play liberty. There can be booths to buy Levin’s book and Freedom Fries. Maybe somebody can do a ‘forum’ as to how and why a Cubanadian is a natural born citizen.
Looks like some “conservatives’ will go to incredible lengths just to avoid rolling up their sleeves and actually working for something that matters.
Repealing the 17th Amendment is a better use of one so inclined rather than tilting at the COS windmill.
Lots of work is being done by freedom loving people who also are participating in this. You don’t see everybody’s efforts, but you toss grenades at those who don’t fall into lockstep with your proposals. Short sighted to the ‘nth degree. http://www.conventionofstates.com
Yes lots of work, by freedom loving people being misled and fooled by an effort that A) should never succeed and if it did B) would have disastrous consequences.
Exactly how would the delegates be elected and by whom?
Your comments show this to be another pointless crusade, probably inline with Dominion Theology and serving as a litmus test for the Cuccinelli-Cruz-Correll faction of the Party.
Repealing the 17th Amendment, Amending the Constitution to make Ted Cruz and more Republicans eligible to be President would be a more productive and practical effort.
You are advocating changing the Constitution by a complex untested method, favored by our adversaries, with no practical understanding of the politics involved.
Lt. Gov. Farris should know better.
You advocate the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment… the only way to do that is by amending the Constitution. Congress will NEVER call for such an amendment, so it’s up to the people in the states.
You also expressed your concerns about delegate selection. Given that the very purpose of the convention, and the ONLY reason that these states are signing on to the movement, is to REDUCE the size, scope and jurisdiction of the federal government, it’s a logical conclusion that the 34 states needed to convene the assembly will ensure that only good, strong, constitutional conservatives well-versed in Originalism, either duly-elected or democratically appointed, will make up the vast majority of delegates in attendance.
Additionally, according to the bills that I have seen discussed in several of the current applicant states, each delegate or commissioner will attend under the exclusive authority and strict limitations of a specifically directed sworn mandate from their state legislature, and will be closely monitored throughout the entire proceeding, remaining subject to immediate recall, replacement and imposition of heavy legal penalties for failure to perform.
This ain’t bean-ball, and believe it or not, there are a lot of highly qualified, very intelligent and well-informed people in this movement who are dedicating their time and treasure to making certain that every conceivable contingency is covered.
Please… before making ill-informed, disparaging remarks about the Citizens for Self-Governance Convention of States Project, take the time to examine the details.
Finally… a solution as big as the problem! http://ConventionOfStates.com
Right, Congress only jumps in once it looks like the people will do it themselves.
As far as “it’s a logical conclusion that the 34 states needed to convene the assembly will ensure that only good, strong, constitutional conservatives well-versed in Originalism, either duly-elected or democratically appointed, will make up the vast majority of delegates in attendance.”…. You must be joking.
So how do they get elected? Seriously! The VA house and Senate will pick who? Barbara Comstock, Shak Hill, and Terry McAuliffe???
And surely we can trust everyone who will attend. Have you taken a look at the caliber of politicians we have? Founder-level all!
I would like to examine more details than the opium dream CSGCSPCOS-whatever, but until I know how and who would represent and attend, it’s not worth the effort.
I’m not joking at all, and neither are the 3 million or so (and counting) advocate / volunteers across the country.
As for the number and election / selection of delegate commissioners to the COS, that’s up to each state to decide, but regardless of the number of delegates sent, no committee will have more than one representative from any state, and the entire convention will operate on a one-state, one vote basis.
The most popular method of selection that I’ve heard discussed is that candidates for the positions will declare and run for popular election. States may also elect to appoint delegates by a vote of the legislature. There may be other methods I’m not aware of, but these are the two most mentioned.
As for your lack of trust in your fellow citizens, I can’t help but feel sorry for you… and for your lack of motivation to exert the effort to inform yourself before making ill-informed, counter-productive and generally insulting assumptions.
Get informed, get involved: http://ConventionOfStates.com
So each state decides how many delegates they can send but the state will only get one vote — so if Virginia sends 11, only 1 gets to be on each committee and only 1 gets to cast the final vote.
So how many committees? Only one Grand Commissar, and ten lesser Commissars?
How do they get paid? How much do they get paid? Who pays? How long do they meet? Where do they meet? Who protects them?
If they get elected statewide, or congressionally-wide, who sets the criteria? You’re going to get several thousand filing. Campaign fees? Debates? Runoffs? What if one was killed or incapacitated? Appointed by McAuliffe??
Statewide and congressional campaigns are expensive, just like Senators (super-congressmen who only have to campaign in populated areas-thanks 17th amendment) so only the rich folk (or former LG candidates or big shot talk show hosts) can afford it. I bet we’ll get a Kardashian and a Clinton in there.
Or perhaps our legislatures can elect the best and the brightest — in the same way we got the legislature-elected Boehner, Ryan, McConnell. I’m sure that in Virginia our legislature will pick fine negotiators and top legal minds like Cuccinelli, Correll, and Shak.
Can you imagine how much money you could make as a delegate, or how much power you’d have, or how vulnerable to biographical leverage you’d be?
If I wanted to buy influence, I’d only have to persuade 51, helluva lot cheaper than 435.
My fellow citizens just ripped off the taxpayers for $4 million for a primary — there are still people on this forum who think Ted is eligible to be President — the top 2 people who are running for President are Clinton and Trump — Barbara Comstock is running for re-election and probably winning. I’m a Republican hack in the 10th, don’t preach to me about the “wisdom” of my fellow citizens.
Pssst… you forgot to ask what their shoe-size will be.
If and when you decide that you would like to seriously discuss the issue, I will gladly (and politely) engage. Until such time, I will no longer respond to such posts.
Yes, but I did bring up valid questions to which you misdirect and avoid.
But I do not wish to burden you with responding (or non-responding,) please let the absence of your reasoned argument be the answer.
If you have a serious question, then pose it seriously.
Do so in a conversational format, and I’ll respond accordingly… don’t try to bury me in bullshit.
Repealing the 17th amendment can only be done by (gasp) AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION!
Right, the usual tried and true approaching to fixing things.
We should also consider amending the Constitution so that guys like Ted Cruz, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, (maybe Rick Santorum,) Albert Gallatin, and Arnold Schwarzenegger would be eligible to become President.
I’m not sure who WE is, but YOU sure could suggest proposing it. It’s a free country. Article V is part of OUR Constitution, and as such, applies to everyone.
No one is saying it’s not, or that it can’t be done — we’re saying it shouldn’t be done.
‘We’ being the presupposition that you’re not actually trying to dismember the Constitution on purpose.
“You” suppose correctly, and you are entitled to your opinion. It’s a free country, remember…?
Unless/until it succeeds, then Obama’s work is done.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1998996
Hey, let’s go sit around and watch someone smack a MOAB with a sledge hammer.
COS is a good tool to identify the party simple and political targets for demotion.
who were the 2 republican senators?– don’t the people have a right to know?
can I go to this,?
or only watch it on line?
being there is more impressive– more fulfilling–giving the impression that I’m part of something important, even if I can only watch
Sign up for live streaming of Friday, Sept. 23rd’s plenary sessions: http://www.conventionofstates.com/livestreamrsvp . All meetings will be recorded for online viewing at your convenience.
Awesome, could you publish a list of Republican supporters so that I can check it twice?
http://www.conventionofstates.com/cossim
On the right side are five blue buttons. Click on the one “WHO WILL ATTEND THE SIMULATION?” Per each state, the names are there with a notice as to which person will be the head of the delegation (emboldened), and the specific committees they each will attend before the plenary sessions. As far as which party they belong to, COS Project doesn’t care because liberty is or should be a nonpartisan issue. You’ll have to look up the commissioners of your choice to find out about their party affiliations.
Mike Farris will be in control of the Simulation
Convention. But who knows who will be at the real thing.
The Simulation is designed to convince
people of what will transpire. But there
is no way of knowing what the actual delegates at the real thing would do.
It’s his money, If he wants to LARP around playing Dungeons and Delegates, and think that will persuade anyone not already broken, he can have at it.
Partially true, to a point; especially if a lot of opposition show up merely to sabotage a Constitutional process. How successful a COS is depends on whether we have residual vestiges of a civil society, and if liberty and small government per the original Constitution matters enough anymore. God help us if it doesn’t. http://www.conventionofstates.com
Im not ready to roll the dice on that quite yet.
That’s the trouble with this radical change, we didn’t get here overnight, and there is no magic jubilee meeting that will fix it.
Those of us with experience in the messy, slow slog through constitutional issues are not looking for magic. We’re looking for patriots to help us take back our culture and to coalesce together for freedom, one step at a time. If we each do our part, much good can come to pass.
Those are the pretend delegates, no way in heck would any of them be tapped.
No way in heck…? Gosh… my crystal ball is broken, can I borrow yours?
Get informed, get involved: http://ConventionOfStates.com
Because you cannot explain how the actual delegates would be chosen, any method of divination will suffice.
Actually, it HAS been explained to you. To conserve bandwidth, I refer you to my previous response.
The list of legislators who support this Convention from around the country (Assembly of State Legislatures) is a closely guarded secret because I was unable to obtain such a list, nor could I obtain minutes of their meetings! Further, the co-chair of the group is a Democrat, Senator Jason Holsman from Missouri who has an Article V convention resolution designed by Wolf PAC to overturn Citizens United. He was quoted in the newspaper that there will be a “grand bargain” at the Article V Convention. I don’t want to bargain with our Constitution!
I just want to know which 3 Virginia will send and how do we get there? McAuliffe, Kaine, and Warner? Or maybe AG Herring?
Supporters of this crap are in an equally matched race between stupid and naive.
I do not know who was selected to attend from Virginia but you will notice that there is little transparency because the exact location of the event has not been revealed and citizens are not allowed to observe in person. This has been the MO of this select group of legislators from the start! If it is such a great idea, let the people know the identity of those legislators who want our Constitution changed! Publish the minutes of the prior meetings! This is OUR Constitution they are messing with!
They were selected by their high dollar donors.
I want to know how the actual delegates would be selected — knowing this crowd, I’d suspect making the taxpayers pay for another election. The real answer is ‘whatever method that would let Ferris rewrite the Constitution.
This is another way for conservatives to be sucked into an endeavor that will not result in success.
Exactly! We have no idea how delegates will be selected but we know the elites in power will ensure their buddies will be chosen. Forget “we the people.” I cannot understand how many are falling for this! Keep in mind that the “Right” became involved when Leftist College Professor Lawrence Lessig (father of the Second Constitutional Convention) invited Mark Meckler, then head of the Tea Party, to co-chair the Conference on a new Constitutional Convention https://www.yahoo.com/news/harvard-law-program-discusses-us-constitutional-convention-163604517.html and since then money bags from both persuasions have been funding this effort to change our Constitution! Everyone needs to contact their state delegate and state senator NOW to urge them to oppose all efforts to apply to Congress to hold an Article V Convention before we lose our beloved Constitution! Two Article V applications passed the House of Delegates in 2016 and narrowly failed in the Senate. I believe they only need one more vote in the Senate and Virginia will join the infamous ranks of states that want our Constitution changed. PLEASE GET INVOLVED NOW!
When one is afraid to examine the facts, one resorts to speculation and innuendo.
Get informed, get involved: http://ConventionOfStates.com
Fear is a terrible thing… second only to ignorance.
Get informed, get involved: http://ConventionOfStates.com
I’d argue that the most terrible thing is arrogance. They only serve as “useful idiots” in ushering in communism.
Argument noted.
Equally matched between stupid and naive…? How nice it must be to rub shoulders with the Elite.
“When one is afraid (or too lazy) to discover the facts, one resorts to speculation and innuendo…”
The delegates (commissioners) from Virginia are Senator Amanda Chase, Former Speaker of the House Vance Wilkins, Jim LeMunyon, and Scott Lingamfelter.
You’re welcome.
Not to the pretend re-enactment, but to the actual abomination. Did Lt. Gov. Farris choose them by Duck-Duck-Goose or was it extracted by Middle Resolution?
This is not a serious question, and I will not dignify it with an answer. If you wish to discuss the issues, I will gladly oblige. Otherwise, you have a nice day.
It is a serious question that you and others continue to duck, hence the reference to the child’s game of Duck-Duck-Goose where the participant is anointed by rhythmically tapping on the head and announcing the next player.
For your pretend event you have Republicans that were selected somehow and you did not deign to simulate an actual viable selection process.
This means that someone picked the Virginia crew and if it wasn’t one of your puppet masters (COS delegate in waiting), I suggested to look toward a key political funder of Article V-loving representatives, Middle Resolution.
Once again, if you are able to frame a question without resorting to condescension and insult, I will be happy to respond.
No need, you don’t have the answer and your response speaks volumes. You forgot the patronizing ‘niceties’ and the link to the fantasy site.
ASL has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the planning or management of this COS simulation… although they do advocate for a COS, they are a totally separate and independent group dedicated to educating state legislators on their constitutional rights, responsibilities and prerogatives relative to Article V so that they can each make an informed decision on the matter when COS legislation is presented in their state house.
I can’t think of any reason why any open-minded, intellectually honest, constitutionally conservative patriot would resist educating our elected officials on the actual text of the Constitution… oh, wait…
If we can’t ‘splain it to Ted Cruz, and Mark Levin, good luck getting through to the general electorate.
Actually, both Senator Cruz and Mr. Levin are supporters of a state-led Article V convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. Mr. Levin, in particular, has been very instrumental in helping to educate the general public. His written works on the subject are frequently cited, but I thank you, nonetheless, for your kind wishes.
And they both think that the Constitution makes Cubanadian Ted Cruz eligible to be president?
Mark Levin has done quite nicely with Article 5 merch. And current Senator Cruz has profited from his example.
There’s a difference in “educating” and amending or abolishing the Constitution. The intentions here isn’t to educate but to change, taking on a Humanist religion form where government provides rights.
As a three-year participant in the effort, I can tell you that no one has mentioned this “intention” that you describe. No one. Nor has anyone ever used the word “abolish” with regard to the Constitution.
When calling for a “no holds bar” convention as Sandy Levinson mentioned or Michael Farris and his Parental Rights and a restructure of the court system to resemble the European Courts on Human Rights.
How can anyone say that any part of the Constitution will remain?
Sorry, Brian… I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Here’s what I’m talking about. Michael Farris recommends that the Supreme Court be restructured to resemble the European Courts on Human Rights.
He also recommends that the government grants parental rights.
For one thing, Brian, in America, everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Secondly, as far as I know, with regard to the Convention of States Project, no one has even suggested such proposals… not with regard to the Court nor the parental rights issue… not at any of the several state-level simulations that I’ve either participated in or been aware of, and certainly not at this national event.
And lastly, not only is Michael Ferris not now nor ever will be running the convention, he isn’t even a delegate, when he certainly could have been had he so chosen. He has dedicated his time and treasure to bring these legislators together, and now has stepped out of the way, much like another Virginian who could have been President for Life.
Ferris is a good, strong, Christian conservative, and a patriot above all. If groundless innuendo and character assassination is all you have to contribute to this discussion, then I’m afraid it’s over.
I simply stated that the “founder” of the COSP believes a total restructure of the Supreme Court. I also provided proof of the COSP stance.
Don’t make this into character assassination, not just feel good slogans.
Thomas Jefferson, a Founding Father and author of the Declaration of Independence, believed in having sexual relations with slaves… we can see today exactly how much influence that had on his work product.
Our words speak for themselves.
You’re argument seems to be a refutation in semantics rather than concepts. If you are arguing for an “amendments convention”, this cannot be an educational adventure.
Once again, Brian… I’m simply not certain what it is that you’re trying to say here. I’m sorry… I don’t mean to be obtuse, but you’re going to have to be more clear in framing your question… if it is, indeed, a question at all.
“…being there is more impressive– more fulfilling–giving the impression that I’m part of something important, even if I can only watch”
You hit the nail right on the head and powered it through the cement foundation below!