[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Constitutional Convention (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 12/2/2014 4:09:00 AM EDT
|
Article V of the US Constitution states:
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. If there were a 2/3 vote to hold a Constitutional Convention, what would it mean to us as gun owners? Can they create an entirely new Constitution? Do they have the votes to overturn the 2nd Amendment, or to substantially modify it? Would the convention delegates be elected officials, or would they be appointees who wouldn't need to worry about their political careers? |
|
Quoted:
Read The Liberty Amendments by Mark levin. As it is, his plan is our only real hope. To do nothing well.. It will get very ugly adventually. http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/medium/images/MARK%20LEVIN-LIBERTY%20AMENDMENTS-IMAGE.png Came to post this. |
|
Quoted:
Article V of the US Constitution states: 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. If there were a 2/3 vote to hold a Constitutional Convention, what would it mean to us as gun owners? Can they create an entirely new Constitution? Do they have the votes to overturn the 2nd Amendment, or to substantially modify it? Would the convention delegates be elected officials, or would they be appointees who wouldn't need to worry about their political careers? Millions of armed citizens and vets will make sure that never happens.. |
|
I very much respect Levin and his commentary. However, the question I have is if the current rule of law {i.e. the Constitution as well as thousand upon thousands of pages of statute} is ignored now, how can it be assumed any written law will be adhered? In my estimation, it is not the Constitution which is flawed. The problem is the elected officials intended to over see adherence to the law. It is the states not utilizing the authority they now possess to reign in the fed. It is the citizens that elect officials of dubious moral character with no intention of adhering to law. And that can not be changed by Con Con. The key is the people. Unless and until the population in general is ready to re-assume the freedom recognized and acknowledged by our great founders and insist same in elected officials the rest is merely a cerebal excercise and I just can't see it happening. None of the FSA willingly will give up their free ride and they are very very close if not indeed now the majority......... |
|
Quoted: Millions of armed citizens and vets will make sure that never happens.. Quoted: Quoted: Article V of the US Constitution states: 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. If there were a 2/3 vote to hold a Constitutional Convention, what would it mean to us as gun owners? Can they create an entirely new Constitution? Do they have the votes to overturn the 2nd Amendment, or to substantially modify it? Would the convention delegates be elected officials, or would they be appointees who wouldn't need to worry about their political careers? Millions of armed citizens and vets will make sure that never happens.. You can shit in one hand and hope in the other... This ain't 1776. |
|
Quoted:
I very much respect Levin and his commentary. However, the question I have is if the current rule of law {i.e. the Constitution as well as thousand upon thousands of pages of statute} is ignored now, how can it be assumed any written law will be adhered? In my estimation, it is not the Constitution which is flawed. The problem is the elected officials intended to over see adherence to the law. It is the states not utilizing the authority they now possess to reign in the fed. It is the citizens that elect officials of dubious moral character with no intention of adhering to law. And that can not be changed by Con Con. The key is the people. Unless and until the population in general is ready to re-assume the freedom recognized and acknowledged by our great founders and insist same in elected officials the rest is merely a cerebal excercise and I just can't see it happening. None of the FSA willingly will give up their free ride and they are very very close if not indeed now the majority......... Well their choice does not matter, we can not afford it. Leftist fail to understand that math and basic economic always win, always have and always will. We can not afford to continue the FSA lifestyle and when we can not it will not matter how many will kick and scream and riot and how the leftist will scream every insult and cuss word in exist. You can ignore reality but you can not ignore the consequence of ignoring reality. It is a ticking clock, this ends with us stopping the failed War On Poverty and its voter buying programs or we let them bankrupts either way they are coming to an end. In short this ends with a nice controlled emergency landing or it ends with a nose dive into the ground. And to be honest if a "hard reboot" is need to restore Minimum Government and Maximum Liberty, I am fine with that. |
|
Quoted:
Well their choice does not matter, we can not afford it. Leftist fail to understand that math and basic economic always win, always have and always will. We can not afford to continue the FSA lifestyle and when we can not it will not matter how many will kick and scream and riot and how the leftist will scream every insult and cuss word in exist. You can ignore reality but you can not ignore the consequence of ignoring reality. It is a ticking clock, this ends with us stopping the failed War On Poverty and its voter buying programs or we let them bankrupts either way they are coming to an end. In short this ends with a nice controlled emergency landing or it ends with a nose dive into the ground. And to be honest if a "hard reboot" is need to restore Minimum Government and Maximum Liberty, I am fine with that. Quoted:
Quoted:
I very much respect Levin and his commentary. However, the question I have is if the current rule of law {i.e. the Constitution as well as thousand upon thousands of pages of statute} is ignored now, how can it be assumed any written law will be adhered? In my estimation, it is not the Constitution which is flawed. The problem is the elected officials intended to over see adherence to the law. It is the states not utilizing the authority they now possess to reign in the fed. It is the citizens that elect officials of dubious moral character with no intention of adhering to law. And that can not be changed by Con Con. The key is the people. Unless and until the population in general is ready to re-assume the freedom recognized and acknowledged by our great founders and insist same in elected officials the rest is merely a cerebal excercise and I just can't see it happening. None of the FSA willingly will give up their free ride and they are very very close if not indeed now the majority......... Well their choice does not matter, we can not afford it. Leftist fail to understand that math and basic economic always win, always have and always will. We can not afford to continue the FSA lifestyle and when we can not it will not matter how many will kick and scream and riot and how the leftist will scream every insult and cuss word in exist. You can ignore reality but you can not ignore the consequence of ignoring reality. It is a ticking clock, this ends with us stopping the failed War On Poverty and its voter buying programs or we let them bankrupts either way they are coming to an end. In short this ends with a nice controlled emergency landing or it ends with a nose dive into the ground. And to be honest if a "hard reboot" is need to restore Minimum Government and Maximum Liberty, I am fine with that. And therein lies the problem....You mentioned the math will win in the end and I agree, however the math of the FSA cannot be ignored. As a previous poster pointed out they are rapidly approaching majority and with that they will have more numbers than non-FSA, And we know how that works... |
|
Quoted:
Have armed men in the room with a very low tolerance of stupidity or treason.. Quoted:
Quoted:
We'd get a 10000 page abomination guaranteeing everyone health care and a pony. Have armed men in the room with a very low tolerance of stupidity or treason.. lol |
|
Quoted:
And therein lies the problem....You mentioned the math will win in the end and I agree, however the math of the FSA cannot be ignored. As a previous poster pointed out they are rapidly approaching majority and with that they will have more numbers than non-FSA, And we know how that works... Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I very much respect Levin and his commentary. However, the question I have is if the current rule of law {i.e. the Constitution as well as thousand upon thousands of pages of statute} is ignored now, how can it be assumed any written law will be adhered? In my estimation, it is not the Constitution which is flawed. The problem is the elected officials intended to over see adherence to the law. It is the states not utilizing the authority they now possess to reign in the fed. It is the citizens that elect officials of dubious moral character with no intention of adhering to law. And that can not be changed by Con Con. The key is the people. Unless and until the population in general is ready to re-assume the freedom recognized and acknowledged by our great founders and insist same in elected officials the rest is merely a cerebal excercise and I just can't see it happening. None of the FSA willingly will give up their free ride and they are very very close if not indeed now the majority......... Well their choice does not matter, we can not afford it. Leftist fail to understand that math and basic economic always win, always have and always will. We can not afford to continue the FSA lifestyle and when we can not it will not matter how many will kick and scream and riot and how the leftist will scream every insult and cuss word in exist. You can ignore reality but you can not ignore the consequence of ignoring reality. It is a ticking clock, this ends with us stopping the failed War On Poverty and its voter buying programs or we let them bankrupts either way they are coming to an end. In short this ends with a nice controlled emergency landing or it ends with a nose dive into the ground. And to be honest if a "hard reboot" is need to restore Minimum Government and Maximum Liberty, I am fine with that. And therein lies the problem....You mentioned the math will win in the end and I agree, however the math of the FSA cannot be ignored. As a previous poster pointed out they are rapidly approaching majority and with that they will have more numbers than non-FSA, And we know how that works... Well the FSA are like the dinosaurs. they as a voter block are big, and loud and dumb animals who are nearing their end..The majority status and its arrives will be just like the Asteroid and its arrival. If that means some groups have to starve to understand Marxism does not work, fine, and if they want to double down on their stupidity the gloves will come off and they will be destroyed. Liberty will reign supreme , Prosperity will flow. Its only a matter of how much we want it, and what we are willing to do to obtain it. |
|
Quoted:
lol Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We'd get a 10000 page abomination guaranteeing everyone health care and a pony. Have armed men in the room with a very low tolerance of stupidity or treason.. lol I am not joking, when some leftist tries that, unholster his pistol, cock the hammer back and politely whisper in his hear "maybe you should rethink the idea and reread the Constitution and the Federalist papers" And after a one or two are offed they might understand what they are in for and how little tolerance we have left for their mental illness. |
|
An Article 5 convention to propose amendments to the constitution is the only avenue the states have to put the federal government in check. All they can do is propose amendments, if 3/4 of the states don’t ratify then the proposals go nowhere. Congress has no say in an Article 5, Nancy Pelosi cant hijack it, delegates from the several states would get together to propose amendments and send them to the states for consideration. |
|
Quoted: I am not joking, when some leftist tries that, unholster his pistol, cock the hammer back and politely whisper in his hear "maybe you should rethink the idea and reread the Constitution and the Federalist papers" And after a one or two are offed they might understand what they are in for and how little tolerance we have left for their mental illness. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: We'd get a 10000 page abomination guaranteeing everyone health care and a pony. Have armed men in the room with a very low tolerance of stupidity or treason.. lol I am not joking, when some leftist tries that, unholster his pistol, cock the hammer back and politely whisper in his hear "maybe you should rethink the idea and reread the Constitution and the Federalist papers" And after a one or two are offed they might understand what they are in for and how little tolerance we have left for their mental illness. If they were afraid do you think we would have gotten this far off of the path? |
|
Quoted: It's a dangerous path to tread. AGREED. Yes, it could turn out very badly. AGREE VERY MUCH. Amendments are the way to pursue changing the thing. * *Since our leaders in government will not uphold the existing constitution with it's existing mechanisms in place now, what makes anyone believe it would be any different follow a ConCon? |
|
Quoted:
Well their choice does not matter, we can not afford it. Leftist fail to understand that math and basic economic always win, always have and always will. We can not afford to continue the FSA lifestyle and when we can not it will not matter how many will kick and scream and riot and how the leftist will scream every insult and cuss word in exist. You can ignore reality but you can not ignore the consequence of ignoring reality. It is a ticking clock, this ends with us stopping the failed War On Poverty and its voter buying programs or we let them bankrupts either way they are coming to an end. In short this ends with a nice controlled emergency landing or it ends with a nose dive into the ground. And to be honest if a "hard reboot" is need to restore Minimum Government and Maximum Liberty, I am fine with that. Quoted:
Quoted:
I very much respect Levin and his commentary. However, the question I have is if the current rule of law {i.e. the Constitution as well as thousand upon thousands of pages of statute} is ignored now, how can it be assumed any written law will be adhered? In my estimation, it is not the Constitution which is flawed. The problem is the elected officials intended to over see adherence to the law. It is the states not utilizing the authority they now possess to reign in the fed. It is the citizens that elect officials of dubious moral character with no intention of adhering to law. And that can not be changed by Con Con. The key is the people. Unless and until the population in general is ready to re-assume the freedom recognized and acknowledged by our great founders and insist same in elected officials the rest is merely a cerebal excercise and I just can't see it happening. None of the FSA willingly will give up their free ride and they are very very close if not indeed now the majority......... Well their choice does not matter, we can not afford it. Leftist fail to understand that math and basic economic always win, always have and always will. We can not afford to continue the FSA lifestyle and when we can not it will not matter how many will kick and scream and riot and how the leftist will scream every insult and cuss word in exist. You can ignore reality but you can not ignore the consequence of ignoring reality. It is a ticking clock, this ends with us stopping the failed War On Poverty and its voter buying programs or we let them bankrupts either way they are coming to an end. In short this ends with a nice controlled emergency landing or it ends with a nose dive into the ground. And to be honest if a "hard reboot" is need to restore Minimum Government and Maximum Liberty, I am fine with that. What about the failed War on Drugs? Or do you think we should keep wasting money on that boondoggle? |
|
Quoted:
An Article 5 convention to propose amendments to theconstitution is the only avenue the states have to put the federal governmentin check. All they can do is propose amendments, if 3/4 of the states don’tratify then the proposals go nowhere. Congress has no say in an Article 5, Nancy Pelosi canthijack it, delegates from the several states would get together to proposeamendments and send them to the states for consideration. Who decides who those delegates are? California would send Pelosi as a delegate. |
|
Quoted:
Article V of the US Constitution states: 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. If there were a 2/3 vote to hold a Constitutional Convention, what would it mean to us as gun owners? Can they create an entirely new Constitution? Do they have the votes to overturn the 2nd Amendment, or to substantially modify it? Would the convention delegates be elected officials, or would they be appointees who wouldn't need to worry about their political careers? Did you even read the part of the Constitution you just quoted? A convention of states can only propose amendments. They cannot just re-write the Constitution or tear it up entirely. Any proposed amendments would still have to be ratified by 3/4ths of the state legislatures to be valid. |
|
*Since our leaders in government will not uphold the existing constitution with it's existing mechanisms in place now, what makes anyone believe it would be any different follow a ConCon? Ding, Ding, Ding winner!! Unless and until the majority of the population decide the rule of law will be followed and back that conviction with action i.e. literally take back the reigns and place men of high moral character that also follow the same conviction in elected office nothing will change. Con Con will only result in more ink on paper to be ignored. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams |
|
Quoted:
Millions of armed citizens and vets will make sure that never happens.. Quoted:
Quoted:
Article V of the US Constitution states: 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. If there were a 2/3 vote to hold a Constitutional Convention, what would it mean to us as gun owners? Can they create an entirely new Constitution? Do they have the votes to overturn the 2nd Amendment, or to substantially modify it? Would the convention delegates be elected officials, or would they be appointees who wouldn't need to worry about their political careers? Millions of armed citizens and vets will make sure that never happens.. Some would say we are past that time and that we have become a blind nation... |
|
Quoted:
Can they create an entirely new Constitution? The Articles of Confederation made provision for calling a convention to propose amendment to the Articles. Such a convention was called. The result was not amendments to the Articles. The result was a proposed new Constitution. The historical precedent informs us that once such a convention is convened there is no way to control the result. While it worked out the last time, no rational person can believe that the collection of professional politicians who would end up at such a convention today would produce anything which would increase the freedom of the American people. |
|
Quoted:
Have armed men in the room with a very low tolerance of stupidity or treason.. Quoted:
Quoted:
We'd get a 10000 page abomination guaranteeing everyone health care and a pony. Have armed men in the room with a very low tolerance of stupidity or treason.. If such a convention was convened it would be surrounded by thousands of very heavily armed men. Each and every one of them would be a government agent, providing "security". Care to speculate on the effect their presence might have on some of the delegates? |
|
Quoted:
Millions of armed citizens and vets will make sure that never happens.. Quoted:
Quoted:
Article V of the US Constitution states: 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. If there were a 2/3 vote to hold a Constitutional Convention, what would it mean to us as gun owners? Can they create an entirely new Constitution? Do they have the votes to overturn the 2nd Amendment, or to substantially modify it? Would the convention delegates be elected officials, or would they be appointees who wouldn't need to worry about their political careers? Millions of armed citizens and vets will make sure that never happens.. 
|
|
Quoted:
Millions of armed citizens and vets will make sure that never happens.. Quoted:
Quoted:
Article V of the US Constitution states: 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. If there were a 2/3 vote to hold a Constitutional Convention, what would it mean to us as gun owners? Can they create an entirely new Constitution? Do they have the votes to overturn the 2nd Amendment, or to substantially modify it? Would the convention delegates be elected officials, or would they be appointees who wouldn't need to worry about their political careers? Millions of armed citizens and vets will make sure that never happens.. Yea....keep dreaming that. |
|
Quoted:
An Article 5 convention to propose amendments to theconstitution is the only avenue the states have to put the federal governmentin check. All they can do is propose amendments, if 3/4 of the states don’tratify then the proposals go nowhere. Congress has no say in an Article 5, Nancy Pelosi canthijack it, delegates from the several states would get together to proposeamendments and send them to the states for consideration. The Articles of Confederation required a unanimous vote to approve amendments. When the delegates proposed a new Constitution they also proposed a different standard for ratification. Nothing could stop the delegates to a new convention from doing the same. Would you like to see your new founding document adopted by 50%=1 % of a popular vote? By a vote by states with 50.1% of the population? |
|
Quoted:
Some would say we are past that time and that we have become a blind nation... Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Article V of the US Constitution states: 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. If there were a 2/3 vote to hold a Constitutional Convention, what would it mean to us as gun owners? Can they create an entirely new Constitution? Do they have the votes to overturn the 2nd Amendment, or to substantially modify it? Would the convention delegates be elected officials, or would they be appointees who wouldn't need to worry about their political careers? Millions of armed citizens and vets will make sure that never happens.. Some would say we are past that time and that we have become a blind nation... Yep. All the more reason to call the convention. The people that want to change the progressive course our government need to use all peaceful and legal recourse available. It is what the founding fathers did. I think they did it to ensure they had support from the fence sitters in the event that things got violent. This way we can later say "see we tried to do everything we could." I am not calling for action, simply pointing out that there are two ways to change a government: peacefully and forcibly. It is not wise to jump to force. |
|
The following is my research into a con-con for those wish understand the position Congress will take.
In an Article 5 convention Congress will call the shots not the states. In a recent (March 2014) report to Congress by the CRS entitled The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Contemporary Issues for Congress the powers Congress will exercise during an Article 5 convention are spelled out plainly... Second, while the Constitution is silent on the mechanics of an Article V convention, Congress has traditionally laid claim to broad responsibilities in connection with a convention, including (1) receiving, judging, and recording state applications; (2) establishing procedures to summon a convention; (3) setting the amount of time allotted to its deliberations; (4) determining the number and selection process for its delegates; (5) setting internal convention procedures, including formulae for allocation of votes among the states;and (6) arranging for the formal transmission of any proposed amendments to the states. Here's another report by the CRS/CRO. The Article V Convention for Proposing Constitutional Amendments: Historical Perspectives for Congress From the above report, Congress gets to decide how the proposed amendments get ratified... "Congress may provide for consideration of such amendment either by state legislatures or ad hoc state ratification conventions, at its discretion." This includes using the existing state delegates of the Article 5 convention as an "ad hoc state ratification convention." If you think the SCOTUS will have the final say on ANY of these procedural arguments once the convention is called, think again. From the same report... It should be noted, however, that in the past, Congress refused to accept rescissions of state ratifications of the 14th Amendment, apparently reflecting the viewpoint cited above. These refusals were ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court, which determined in Coleman v. Miller that rescission fell under the “political question” rule, and that Congress, therefore, possessed “the ultimate authority” to set rules for “the promulgation of the adoption of the amendment.”88 Additionally, the section "The Role of States in An Article 5 Convention" does don't mention states having any further roll in the process once it has begun which includes monitoring the process, recalling delegates, or any other state controls the supporters of this dream up the states have. Laying aside the fear that a new ratification process could be implemented during a con-con, Congress will decide how delegates are chosen and how their votes will count, and they can give those same delegates authority to ratify the amendments the con-con delegates propose. Once the con-con is called there will be no backing out when the states (you) don't like the procedure Congress chooses to implement the process, and SCOTUS will not decide the constitutionality of a "political question." This is documented in the Congressional reports above. I suggest further research into the dangers of a con-con here: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/ |
|
Quoted: The following is my research into a con-con for those wish understand the position Congress will take. In an Article 5 convention Congress will call the shots not the states. In a recent (March 2014) report to Congress by the CRS entitled The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Contemporary Issues for Congress the powers Congress will exercise during an Article 5 convention are spelled out plainly... Here's another report by the CRS/CRO. The Article V Convention for Proposing Constitutional Amendments: Historical Perspectives for Congress From the above report, Congress gets to decide how the proposed amendments get ratified... "Congress may provide for consideration of such amendment either by state legislatures or ad hoc state ratification conventions, at its discretion." This includes using the existing state delegates of the Article 5 convention as an "ad hoc state ratification convention." If you think the SCOTUS will have the final say on ANY of these procedural arguments once the convention is called, think again. From the same report... Additionally, the section "The Role of States in An Article 5 Convention" does don't mention states having any further roll in the process once it has begun which includes monitoring the process, recalling delegates, or any other state controls the supporters of this dream up the states have. Laying aside the fear that a new ratification process could be implemented during a con-con, Congress will decide how delegates are chosen and how their votes will count, and they can give those same delegates authority to ratify the amendments the con-con delegates propose. Once the con-con is called there will be no backing out when the states (you) don't like the procedure Congress chooses to implement the process, and SCOTUS will not decide the constitutionality of a "political question." This is documented in the Congressional reports above. I suggest further research into the dangers of a con-con here: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/ Quoted: The following is my research into a con-con for those wish understand the position Congress will take. In an Article 5 convention Congress will call the shots not the states. In a recent (March 2014) report to Congress by the CRS entitled The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Contemporary Issues for Congress the powers Congress will exercise during an Article 5 convention are spelled out plainly... Second, while the Constitution is silent on the mechanics of an Article V convention, Congress has traditionally laid claim to broad responsibilities in connection with a convention, including (1) receiving, judging, and recording state applications; (2) establishing procedures to summon a convention; (3) setting the amount of time allotted to its deliberations; (4) determining the number and selection process for its delegates; (5) setting internal convention procedures, including formulae for allocation of votes among the states;and (6) arranging for the formal transmission of any proposed amendments to the states. Here's another report by the CRS/CRO. The Article V Convention for Proposing Constitutional Amendments: Historical Perspectives for Congress From the above report, Congress gets to decide how the proposed amendments get ratified... "Congress may provide for consideration of such amendment either by state legislatures or ad hoc state ratification conventions, at its discretion." This includes using the existing state delegates of the Article 5 convention as an "ad hoc state ratification convention." If you think the SCOTUS will have the final say on ANY of these procedural arguments once the convention is called, think again. From the same report... It should be noted, however, that in the past, Congress refused to accept rescissions of state ratifications of the 14th Amendment, apparently reflecting the viewpoint cited above. These refusals were ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court, which determined in Coleman v. Miller that rescission fell under the "political question” rule, and that Congress, therefore, possessed "the ultimate authority” to set rules for "the promulgation of the adoption of the amendment.”88 Additionally, the section "The Role of States in An Article 5 Convention" does don't mention states having any further roll in the process once it has begun which includes monitoring the process, recalling delegates, or any other state controls the supporters of this dream up the states have. Laying aside the fear that a new ratification process could be implemented during a con-con, Congress will decide how delegates are chosen and how their votes will count, and they can give those same delegates authority to ratify the amendments the con-con delegates propose. Once the con-con is called there will be no backing out when the states (you) don't like the procedure Congress chooses to implement the process, and SCOTUS will not decide the constitutionality of a "political question." This is documented in the Congressional reports above. I suggest further research into the dangers of a con-con here: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/ |
|
An article 5 convention is NOT a Constitutional convention; it is a convention where the states (as opposed to the congress) can propose amendments. Currently the make-up of the state legislatures is: 26 held by republican majorities 20 held by democrat majorities And 4 split / unicameral It takes a 3/4 majority to ratify an amendment, so 38 states would have to vote in the affirmative for any proposed amendment to become a part of our constitution. That means all of the red states, all of the split states and 8 of the blue states would have to agree… Even if the states held an Article 5 convention, I seriously can’t see any amendment passing with the current political makeup of the states. |
|
Quoted:
I prefer to get my knowledge of the Constitution from the document itself... not some drunk-with-power bureaucrats in Congress writing stupid reports and laying claim to authority they don't have. Quoted:
Quoted:
SNIP I suggest further research into the dangers of a con-con here: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com I prefer to get my knowledge of the Constitution from the document itself... not some drunk-with-power bureaucrats in Congress writing stupid reports and laying claim to authority they don't have. Will you listen to a Constitutional Scholar? http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/straight-talk-about-an-article-v-convention/ |
|
Quoted:
I prefer to get my knowledge of the Constitution from the document itself... not some drunk-with-power bureaucrats in Congress writing stupid reports and laying claim to authority they don't have. I have bad news: Those drunk with power bureaucrats, members of Congress and (perhaps) Federal court judges will control the process and influence the results very heavily. Based on the only precedent (the delegates to the convention to propose amendments to the Articles voted to keep their proceedings secret until the convention ended) the rest of us will find out what happened only after the fact. |
|
That is what I was taught in school too. I now realize it was propaganda by the people who want congress, not the states, to have power to change the constitution. After reading the Liberty Amendments and listing to Mark Levin, I realized my thinking was wrong and I had been bamboozled by the education system. Consitutional Convention = Return to Federalism which is what the Progressives do NOT want and why it is taught as "bad" in academia. Quoted: It's a dangerous path to tread. Yes, it could turn out very badly. Amendments are the way to pursue changing the thing. |
|
If there were a 2/3 vote to hold a Constitutional Convention, what would it mean to us as gun owners?
Say goodbye to the Second Amendment. Can they create an entirely new Constitution?
Absolutely. The only precedent we have for this is the original constitutional convention, which, as you recall, was called for the purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. Once a convention is seated, you have an open Pandora's Box. Do they have the votes to overturn the 2nd Amendment, or to substantially modify it? Once you start with a blank constitutional slate, do you really think the political powers would include a right to keep and bear arms? Very unlikely. Would the convention delegates be elected officials, or would they be appointees who wouldn't need to worry about their political careers? It would depend on how the states selected their delegates. But there's no question that the bulk of the delegates would be politicians. As for the idea that it would take 3/4 of the states to ratify the product of this convention, don't be so sure. That's the procedure under the existing constitution, which wouldn't apply if a completely new document were drafted. The new constitution would be ratified under its own terms, which (most likely) could be a majority vote of the entire national population. Bottom line: We, as gun owners, would be screwed. Not the slightest doubt in my mind about it. |
|
Quoted:
Article V of the US Constitution states: 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. If there were a 2/3 vote to hold a Constitutional Convention, what would it mean to us as gun owners? Can they create an entirely new Constitution? Do they have the votes to overturn the 2nd Amendment, or to substantially modify it? Would the convention delegates be elected officials, or would they be appointees who wouldn't need to worry about their political careers? OP, I want you to re-read the part in red. A convention of the states, to propose amendment(s). If/once, they come up with something 3/4ths have to approve it. 45 states (maybe more) have a state RKBA amendment, your RKBA does not come from the constitution, it comes from your humanity. Start reading and learning...not trying to offend, but reading some John Locke. Then go read the federalist papers. All of this is online. |
| OP...do you see that we have 21 states in court protecting on our side: https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1692367_21_states_push_to_overturn_Md__gun_control_law.html |
|
Quoted: Will you listen to a Constitutional Scholar? http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/straight-talk-about-an-article-v-convention/ Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: SNIP I suggest further research into the dangers of a con-con here: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com I prefer to get my knowledge of the Constitution from the document itself... not some drunk-with-power bureaucrats in Congress writing stupid reports and laying claim to authority they don't have. Will you listen to a Constitutional Scholar? http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/straight-talk-about-an-article-v-convention/  Read the Liberty Amendments... Levin spells out the process pretty clearly. You are wrong, and so are these self-proclaimed "Constitutional scholars".
|
|
Quoted: I have bad news: Those drunk with power bureaucrats, members of Congress and (perhaps) Federal court judges will control the process and influence the results very heavily. Based on the only precedent (the delegates to the convention to propose amendments to the Articles voted to keep their proceedings secret until the convention ended) the rest of us will find out what happened only after the fact. Quoted: Quoted: I prefer to get my knowledge of the Constitution from the document itself... not some drunk-with-power bureaucrats in Congress writing stupid reports and laying claim to authority they don't have. I have bad news: Those drunk with power bureaucrats, members of Congress and (perhaps) Federal court judges will control the process and influence the results very heavily. Based on the only precedent (the delegates to the convention to propose amendments to the Articles voted to keep their proceedings secret until the convention ended) the rest of us will find out what happened only after the fact.  The Article V process is the last non-violent solution we have to cleaning up this mess.
|
|
Quoted: Neither was the convention to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation. The delegates drafted the Constitution instead of proposing amendments. Quoted: Quoted: An article 5 convention is NOT a Constitutional convention; Neither was the convention to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation. The delegates drafted the Constitution instead of proposing amendments. |
|
I think the potential for good outweighs the potential for bad by far.
Need re-emphasis on the 10th Amendment Need to force loser-pay tort and liability lawsuits Need to return to legislature appointment of Senators instead of direct election Need to clarify and abolish minority and women affirmative action, including in sports Need to remove double citizenship of Indians many more such items |
|
I am now and forever shall be opposed to the plan to give the politicians of this era the opportunity to fuck US over by enacting a new Constitution. We have a Constitution, we have laws, we have traditions and they are being ignored, twisted, or unevenly enforced. Now imagine the fucks who are doing that getting a chance to rewrite the basics, either it would be a train wreck of stupidity, or if somehow beyond rationality/hope/reality wrote a better Constitution that actually fixed things on paper, they would promptly ignore it as they do with the current one.
ENFORCE THE LAW, RESPECT THE CONSTITUTION, those are the answers. |
|
Quoted: I think the potential for good outweighs the potential for bad by far. Need re-emphasis on the 10th Amendment Need to force loser-pay tort and liability lawsuits Need to return to legislature appointment of Senators instead of direct election Need to clarify and abolish minority and women affirmative action, including in sports Need to remove double citizenship of Indians many more such items What is needed is not a re-writing, but a RE-AWAKING of the people to the value of the original intent. If the people WANT the Constitution held to the letter of the law, it will be. If they do not, NOTHING can be done to correct it! |