Constitutional Convention Being Called Right Now!!!

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

There is no case law I can find, nor is there any precedent to cite beyond Article V of the US Constitution. The best reading of the constitution to date is that there is no requirement for concurrency, and there is no expiration date on a vote for a convention unless the state includes one when it passes the legislation. But that is just the opinion of the legal community based on readinh theplain language of Article V.

In order to actually do a tally, you have to go to each state and find out of they have even passed a convention call, and if they included an expiration data. This is why it is very difficult to provide cites as they are not all in one place.

While I cannot provide you the direct cites a number of states have already voted for a convention and those votes stand to this date. There are a number of organizations that have done the research on this, weather they would be considered credible here, who knows. Each year a number of states consider convention call legislation, and they almost always vote them down. Ohio has done this before.

Regards

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

mkl wrote:

hsmith wrote:

Well, since you prefer to be an ass to everyone in this thread instead of acting polite , I'll just watch from the sidelines.

Seconded.

So you two guys come to the discussion without the least bit of familiarity with the documents we are discussing, and you think I am an ass because I point out your ignorance? Well at least that is a fresh approach, but it still does not make you correct.

I apologize if I have hurt your feelings that was not my intent.


Regards

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

AllAmerican wrote:

I heard SC passed it twice Doug

That seems to militate against Hawkflier and RedKnight's assertion of no requirement of timeliness. I would guess that if SC has passed two such amendments then the purposes were different.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

AllAmerican wrote:

I heard SC passed it twice Doug

That seems to militate against Hawkflier and RedKnight's assertion of no requirement of timeliness. I would guess that if SC has passed two such amendments then the purposes were different.

You are probably correct as to purpose. However there is nothing to prevent a state having a sunset clause in a call for a convention. Timeliness is not required. If you have information to the contrary please provide a citation. The Constitution does not have such a requirement.

(posted this earlier in the thread you must have missed it)

So SC could very well have two calls.

Regards

 

[skidmark]

imported post

Glock27Bill wrote:

skidmark wrote:

I followed the link and read what was there. There was nothing that I saw that even remotely looked like something that resembled a fascimile of an initation of verification of what was being alleged.

In other words - all tinfoil-hat rambling.

Will anyone please show me where any state has actually voted on a motion to hold a constitutional convention. After that, show me, please, where all the other states have done that. It is possible that I just missed that bit of news.

stay safe.

skidmark

some snipping to focus on


Here's a list of states that have a standing call for a Constitution Convention:

http://www.sweetliberty.org/standing_calls.htm


http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/res.cfm?ID=127_HJR_8

RESOLVED, That the General Assembly of the State of Ohio, pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution, hereby applies to the Congress to call a constitutional convention for the purpose of proposing to the states for ratification, an amendment to the United States Constitution containing the following provisions:

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f8f8f8"

eta: Virginia called for a Constitutional Convention last January, ostensibly to fix illegal immigration. This was referred to the Committee on Rules.

02/13/08 Senate: Left in Rules

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+ful+SJ131

Again, once a Convention is called, everything is on the table.

Please tell me that this is nothing, and that I'm just perpetuating rumors. I would like nothing better, and would be glad to cease and desist.

I've done a lot of searching, and some fair amount of reading of both calls for constitutional conventions and sidebar issues related to the various calls. I am not a constitutional expert, nor am I a lawyer, so none of this should be taken as anything but the ramblings of one old mind.

Each of the calls (to coin a phrase) by the various states were related to one specific issue identified by each of the several states. None of the calls are unanimous in terms of the identified issue, although there are several that share a common issue or - stretching as much in their favor as possible - a common theme. However, I want to return to the first sentence again - each call was made based on a specific issue, but the various calls were not unanimous in stating that an Article or Amendment was in need of change, as differentiated from stating that a "new" amendment was needed to address an issue not yet covered by the Constitution.

As I see it, the majority needs to be a majority of states calling for one specific act that is identified by one specific "issue." In other words, the call forthe purpose of introducing a new amendment that would address "X" would not be a call for a convention for the purpose of addressing "anything except "X." If 37+ states wanted to amendArticle 2, Section 1, then the call for a convention would be valid. However, if 30 states wanted to amend Article 2, Section 1and7 states wanted to amend Article 1, Section 8, there would not be the minimum of 37 states needed to call for a convention. Likewise, if 29 states wanted to add an amendment prohibiting the expenditure of federal tax funds for the education of persons not legally admitted to the United States, and8 wanted to prohibit the expenditure of federal funds for health care of that same cohort, there would not be the required majority.

On the other hand, if those 37 states had called for an amendment prohibitting the expenditure of federal funds in order to provide any service to that cohort, without specifying what services in particular they were opposed to funding, then it is my opinion that a legitimate call would have been made.

Getting 37 states to agree to anything with that level of specificity is going to be difficult at best.

That all being said, I am in agreement that once a constitutional convention is convened there is no way to limit the scope and breadth of whatever they want to address. Again, my calm is founded on the belief that getting representatives of37 states to agree on the wording of any document is going to be difficult at best. My point of reference is the first constitutional convention and the problems encountered getting that document agreed to. Imagine the chaos today.:shock:

In closing, I still do not see where any state has voted to hold a constitutional convention. All I have seen are proposals that Article/Amendment "x" needs to be changed or added - an individual action by an individual state. No group of states having said the same thing in numbers sufficient to cause the Congress to take the steps necessary to convene a convention. But I'm a stickler for following the rule, and we all know that following the rule is the last thing anyone would want to do regarding a constitutional convention.

stay safe.

skidmark

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

skidmark wrote:

...SNIP

I've done a lot of searching, and some fair amount of reading of both calls for constitutional conventions and sidebar issues related to the various calls. I am not a constitutional expert, nor am I a lawyer, so none of this should be taken as anything but the ramblings of one old mind.

...SNIP...

skidmark

Good work and nice post skid -

HERE is some interesting reading from WIKI that is also part of the story.

It is article V of the constitution that is the guiding authority on all of this, so I have quoted it below.

Article V

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. "

I will have to respectfully disagree with skid primary premise that all of the proposals from all of the states would have to agree as to the specific reason for the "call for convention" (CFC). I see nothing in the language of Article V that would require alignment of the purposes for a CFC, beyond a requirement that the CFC be asking for a convention for amending the constitution.

The discussion in the link I provided includes some mention of the possible application of a Dillion type rule for adding deadlines to CFCs, but it is clear that under the terms of Article V there is no "freshness" test for CFCs.

So what we are left with is this. If you tally up all of the states that have passed CFCs that have not been rescinded, that is the standing count in favor of a convention. By the way it is by no means clear that a state can recend a CFC once they have passed one. THere are no legal precidents on that point. Baring any other action by congress, when that number hits 2/3 of the number of states, we will have hit the trigger for a convention.

Regards

 

[canadian]

imported post

hsmith wrote:

Oh please, the states are clearly in favor of the 2nd amendment, look how many have favorable concealed handgun laws.

For a lesson in how deeply the federal government values the states' rights, see history: 1861.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

SNIP We are NOT going to get a better Constitution with more rights guaranteed from people 6 generations removed from the people who actually fought off the tyrant in the late 1700's...

Especially considering that even the one we got from the tyrant fighters didn't have any rights guaranteed in it.

It was a fell of a huss getting the Bill of Rights added.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

SNIP We are NOT going to get a better Constitution with more rights guaranteed from people 6 generations removed from the people who actually fought off the tyrant in the late 1700's...

Especially considering that even the one we got from the tyrant fighters didn't have any rights guaranteed in it.

It was a fell of a huss getting the Bill of Rights added.

Correction taken

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

SNIP We are NOT going to get a better Constitution with more rights guaranteed from people 6 generations removed from the people who actually fought off the tyrant in the late 1700's...

Especially considering that even the one we got from the tyrant fighters didn't have any rights guaranteed in it.

It was a fell of a huss getting the Bill of Rights added.

Correction taken

Whatfor? It was an elaboration.

Grasshopper knows better than to correct a master. Only when he can catch the fly with the chopsticks, take the pebble from his hand,and then run like hell will Grasshopper consider it worthwhile toeven consider correcting a master.

Oops. Did Grasshopper correct the master in the first sentence of this post?

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

ROTF,:lol:LMAO

 

[Glock27Bill]

imported post

GWRedDragon wrote:

Article. V. - Amendment

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress

If you think 3/4 of the states would sign on to anything remotely bad, think again. That's 13 states required to keep it from passing.

For instance, if the only states that refused to sign were Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and Alaska, it would not be ratified. In this latest election 22 states went for McCain despite the abundance of 'hope'...

You're safe for awhile.

Excepting that Congress can decide whether whether ratification is done by 3/4 of state legislatures, or by 3/4 of the delegates to the con con, but I didn't see anything about congress having any say about how delegates are selected.

I recall reading somewhere that Congress mayreserve the rightto choose the delegates, but after having been on so many sites trying to vet this thing, I don't recall the reference.

 

[skidmark]

imported post

Article V

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. "

I will have to respectfully disagree with skid primary premise that all of the proposals from all of the states would have to agree as to the specific reason for the "call for convention" (CFC). I see nothing in the language of Article V that would require alignment of the purposes for a CFC, beyond a requirement that the CFC be asking for a convention for amending the constitution.

"The Congress ... shall propose Amendments" Maybe I'm off target, but it sure sounds like Congress has to have specific amendments in mindthat they want to send to the States for ratificaton.

"... or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments" Again, I might be off target, but it seems to me that the Framers would hold the States to the same restrictions as they imposed on Congress -- that the States had to have the amendments to be proposed in hand when applying to Congress for a convention.

Otherwise, Congress must make its proposals for amendment while following parlimentary procedure rules while the several States can act like a mob saying "We want change" without saying what change it is they want until after they are granted their convention.

Something like that just happened, and a bunch of folks here seemed to be really upset about that. But it's OK if the mob says it's all for the Constitution and the children.

stay safe.

skidmark

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

skidmark wrote:

Article V

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. "

I will have to respectfully disagree with skid primary premise that all of the proposals from all of the states would have to agree as to the specific reason for the "call for convention" (CFC). I see nothing in the language of Article V that would require alignment of the purposes for a CFC, beyond a requirement that the CFC be asking for a convention for amending the constitution.

"The Congress ... shall propose Amendments" Maybe I'm off target, but it sure sounds like Congress has to have specific amendments in mindthat they want to send to the States for ratificaton.

"... or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments" Again, I might be off target, but it seems to me that the Framers would hold the States to the same restrictions as they imposed on Congress -- that the States had to have the amendments to be proposed in hand when applying to Congress for a convention.

Otherwise, Congress must make its proposals for amendment while following parlimentary procedure rules while the several States can act like a mob saying "We want change" without saying what change it is they want until after they are granted their convention.

Something like that just happened, and a bunch of folks here seemed to be really upset about that. But it's OK if the mob says it's all for the Constitution and the children.

stay safe.

skidmark

The point is that there is not requirement that the states all agree on the same specific changes. You also jumped right over the "OR". The congress may vote to call for a convention "OR" 2/3 of the states may vote which causes congress to convene a convention.

But the point I was making is that there is no requirement that all states be asking for the same change. One state might want a seat belt amendment, another might want to repeal TSA. Each votes for a convention to make their change. That then is two of the required 33 states to trigger a convention. Clearly when the the congress acts they will list all the different things the states are asking for. But once the convention convenes they may do what ever they want.

Regards

 

[Slayer of Paper]

imported post

I don't see anything in Article 5 that could be construed as allowing congress to select the states' delegates to a con con.

If there is anything anywhere that might point to any power except the state governments themselves choosing who represents that state in a constitutional convention, please cite.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

SNIP But once the convention convenes they may do what ever they want.

Not crontradicting, just picking up where the quote ends.

The convention is just the first part of the game.

The next isratification. Watch forthe mode of ratification to be ratification conventions in each state, as opposed to ratification by each state legislature. You can have fewer delegates to a ratification convention than the members of an entire legislature. Influence who and how delegates for the state ratifying convention are selected and you've won half that battle before it even starts.

The Federalistsdid just thiswith the constitution.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

Slayer of Paper wrote:

I don't see anything in Article 5 that could be construed as allowing congress to select the states' delegates to a con con.

If there is anything anywhere that might point to any power except the state governments themselves choosing who represents that state in a constitutional convention, please cite.

I am not sure of the source of your question. I never said that the states did not select the delegates to a Con Con. All I am saying is that there is not requirement that all of the states agree as to a single identical purpose in order for a Call for convention to occur.

Citizen's post above is also correct as to what happens after the call to convene. In fact the Con Con, can change the rules of the game such that only the governors of a percentage of states have to sign to ratify the now constitution.

This is the thing people do not seem to understand. The original purpose for a call to convention is irrelevantonce the Con Con is called. At that pointthe entire government can be thrown out. The constitution, the bill of rights, all of the amendments from 11 on up. All of it is right out the window unless the Con Con decided to keep it in. And once that happens, the case law based on the old system becomes invalid and the courts (whatever the new system is) start from scratch.

People who keep pounding the table for a Con Con, just do not realize the Pandora's box they are opening. They seem to think they can control the process to a good conclusion, and that is just not the case. Oh yea. States can decide to opt out too. Remember the United States is just that. A group of states with limited sovereignty who have agreed to band together for a common purpose. After a Con Con some of those states may decide to leave that union and go out on their own. Some may decide to join Mexico or Canada. Some may decide to become sovereign nations.

Regards

 

[Slayer of Paper]

imported post

The reason it makes such a huge difference in who selects the delegates is that most state governments are far more liberty minded than even a republican congress, and certainly more than the one about to start.

A state that cares about things like rights is not going to appoint a delegate that will allow those things to come into jeopardy. Most of the states that have called for the convention are states that I trust FAR more than the federal government.

If on the other hand, there is something out there that allows congress to choose the delegates, then they can do whatever their evil little liberal hearts desire.

See why it makes a pretty significant difference now?

Besides, what difference does it really make if the Bill of Rights is repealed, when the government already just ignores it at its convenience, anyway? They've figured out a new way to deny you your rights- instead of the difficult, career-ending process of trying to get the laws overturned, they have figured out that if they just ignore laws they don't like, they can actually get away with it, because no one will do anything about it.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

Slayer of Paper wrote:

...SNIP

Besides, what difference does it really make if the Bill of Rights is repealed, when the government already just ignores it at its convenience, anyway? They've figured out a new way to deny you your rights- instead of the difficult, career-ending process of trying to get the laws overturned, they have figured out that if they just ignore laws they don't like, they can actually get away with it, because no one will do anything about it.

I see now what you were getting at.

As to ignoring the law, I fight that battle everyday, so I hear you LOUD and clear on that point too.

Regards

 

[Carnivore]

imported post

I'm too tired to try to make any sense of this right now, is there any factual info in here..

http://www.thefalseoswalds.com/2008/12/12/danger-2-states-from-constitutional-convention/



http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20081211/NEWS02/812110333/1009/rss04



http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=172628



these constitution convention search results are endless on ASK JEEVES