Article V Conventions
Congressional Research Service - Contemporary Prospective
Congressional Research Service - Historical Prospective
Congressional Research Service - Historical Prospective
You need to be a member of Constitution Club - 2020 Vision 4 America to add comments!
Replies
We do not, and must avoid one at all costs. The reason is that, once convened, they can make their own rules as did the original one that was merely instructed to improve the Articles of Confederation. We have amended our Constitution numerous times using the same alternative method, and a Con-Con was not necessary. Why would a reasonable person want to take a gamble on it with even the slightest possibility of a runaway convention? Please oppose any calls in your state for a Constitutional Convention, and also urge your legislatures to rescind any existing calls on the record there, as well.
HAPPY EASTER!
Wayne an Article V Convention only has the authority to propose amendments. Why are you concerned that Congress has the currently has the power to propose any amendment they want. Why shouldn't the delegates of the states have the same power. Congress amends the Constitution every time they pass an unconstitutional law. The President amends the Constitution with each Executive Order that he writes and the Supreme Court amends the Constitution when they misinterpret the Constitution. The Article V Convention takes the power away from Congress and gives it to back to the people that created Congress in the first place.
Congress only has the lawful authority to propose amendments to the Constitution. The states have the power to accept or reject their suggestions. The Convention has the same power as Congress and could not amend the Constitution without the consent of three fourths of the states. Can explain the risk associated with having an Article V Convention.
There is nothing in Article V that permits states to rescind an application once it has been submitted. You are suggesting that it is alright to twist the meaning of the Constitution to justify your position. To add or subtract words to the provision of the Constitution is exactly what Congress has been doing for the past 200 years.
Wayne Leach said:
The Constitution, in Article V, says nothing about how delegates will be selected, how many, or what rules they must follow after seated. You can tell them to follow the only instruction mentioned "to propose amendments" (according to the Constitution that they already "trash" - on that we agree). That does not mean that they will abide by those instructions any more than they follow the rest of it now. I agree with almost all of what you say in your audio/video, "T\he Remedy is Hidden...", but have to disagree with your position on this one issue. Where in the Constitution does it say that the Articles of Confederation are still applicable? I don't believe that "Engagements" in Article VI refers to the Articles, but only to any agreements or compacts with foreign powers, because in the very next paragraph, it states that "This Constitution, and the Laws ... made in pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made...," shall be the supreme Law of the Land;...." No mention there of the Articles, but only in the 1st paragraph that seems to replace the Article's validity with that of the Constitution.
Respectfully,
Wayne
The 14th Amendment states that people in the same class must be treated equally under the law. The members of Congress and the Delegates to an Article V Convention both have the authority to propose amendments to the Constitution. They are the only members or class of citizens that have that authority and therefore they must be treated the equally under the law. The age requirement, citizenship requirements and the method of their selection must be the same. If the members of Congress are elected by the voters in their Congressional Districts, the delegates to an Article V Convention must be selected in the same manner. If Congress is not limited to the subjects considered for proposed amendments, the same rights need to be applied to the delegates of an Article V Convention.
If you read Article VI it states "All debts, contracted and Engagements entered into before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be valid against the United States under the Constitution, as under the Confederation".
The Northwest Ordinance adopted in the summer of 1787 was an engagement that Article VI proclaimed was still valid under the Constitution as it had been under the Articles of Confederation. Among other things the Northwest Ordinance described how new states would be admitted to the Union. The provisions and procedures for the creation of new states found in the Northwest Ordinance have been followed since the adoption of the Constitution. The statement above says "All Engagement" and if the Northwest Ordinance was an engagement then the Articles of Confederation would also be an engagement.
The 14th Amendment is a part of the current Constitution which is disobeyed, ignored, and reinterpreted constantly, so why utilize this portion to insist on obeying the rest? If a Con Con is convened, they will abide by whatever rules they want, enact whatever those 'new' rules allow, be it an Amendment, phrase, clause, new Constitution, or the Communist Manifesto! Again, it is up to the People, not the 3 branches of criminals recently elected and appointed by the ignorant, or the criminals themselves.
If, as you say, the Northwest Ordinance is a binding 'engagement', and therefore it is implied that the Articles of Confederation are as well (which I question, but see little being accomplished by debating further here), how well are those pieces of history being obeyed today? I'd say about as well as the rest of the document you desire to 'put up for grabs' in a convention of the people who arrived at the government we now have. I wonder how devoted an assembly of like-minded "patriots" will be to make improvements to what the Founders created.
Until we awaken the masses to what is happening to this great union of free nation states, get them educated properly, then involved and diligent, it is fruitless to keep writing documents, or changing the nearly perfect ones we now have. I admit this is my opinion, but it also my solid belief.
I shall not reiterate this.
It did authorize the one we have had, but not the one we now have - the apathetic, ignorant people did, by and through complacency and neglect. The Constitution is powerless only in its inability to preserve itself. The Constitution reserved and provided that power to the People through the wisdom of the Founders It gave the opportunity to them, and with that opportunity came the duty and responsibility of the People - who failed miserably in their obligation. The Constitution is fine, but the defense of it is meager, insignificant, and insufficient.
This union of nation states belongs to the People, and they need to stand in defense of the individual States - and the union for a common defense against their enemies, foreign AND domestic.
I recommend people go to this link, and watch the 2nd video, Overview.
I completely agree with your assessment. Only a righteous and virtuous people can remain free. To preserve our Constitutional Republic it is the responsibility of the people to be well educated and ever vigilant. The Constitution has not failed us, we as a people have failed to protect it. If we don't defend the Constitution it is powerless to protect us from the abuse of governmental power.
We need an Article V convention to;
Establish justice
End war
End fiat money
End individual rights for corporations
Rescind GATT
Rescind NAFTA
Stabilize the economy and create realistic regulation
Realistically protect the environment
Develop increasing sustainable communities
Create realistic health care
In order to assure that all amendments have constitutional intent we need 3 amendments in preparation. And only 3.
1)End the abridging of free speech
2)Secure the vote
3)Campaign finance reform
When we are sure that we can define constitutional intent, a general convention is okay to proceed on the first listed issues.