The Constitution mandates that when the legislatures of two thirds of the states request a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution, Congress must call for the convention once 34 states have requested it.
If the requisite 34 states have applied for a convention, those individuals who oppose calling for an Article V Convention would suggest that in order to defend the Constitution we must ignore the provisions of Article V.
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson stated clearly that when the government becomes abusive it is the right and the duty of the people to "alter or abolish it." The authors of the Constitution provided a means to alter the Constitution through the amendment process. They granted to Congress the authority to amend the Constitution, but they also provided a way for the states to amend the Constitution if the members of Congress failed to do so.
The authors of the Constitution knew that giving Congress a monopoly on the right to propose amendments was a bad idea. That is why they also granted the states the authority to propose amendments.
The system of checks and balances were written into the Constitution to protect the people from the abuse of power. When two thirds of the members of Congress wish to propose an amendment to the Constitution they are authorized to do so by the Constitution. When two thirds of the legislatures of the states wish to call forth a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution they also have the Constitutional right to do so.
Power when centralized is always more dangerous. Some claim holding an Article V Convention would be dangerous, but I would suggest that allowing Congress to have a monopoly on the amendment process is even more dangerous.
http://foa5c.org/file.php/1/Amendments/071_cg_r_03369_1929_HL.JPG
http://www.quia.com/pages/libertytreeuniversity/page416
http://foa5c.org/file.php/1/Articles/AmendmentsTables.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_applications_for_an_Arti...
Replies
CONgress is like a perpetual motion machine, CONgress believes that spending is the solution to everything. There is no free lunch in this universe.
The only thing more dangerous than our issues in the Middle East right now is the national debt. When the world's reserve currency, mistakenly based on the dollar collapses, and it will soon enough, then people will remember the date when this mistake was set in motion; on December 23, 1913, that was the date the FEDERAL RESERVE was created. Then they will connect the dots to another year an even bigger mistake was made, 1916 and the creation of the IRS. On those two dates, it set in motion a machine that cannot be maintained forever.
Woodrow Wilson when he signed the bill, rammed down his throat by the Bankers, he was concerned enough about it to say he had just signed into law the bill that sold the future generations into a debt based economy he knew would lead to financial ruin for generations as yet unborn.
This November we need to reassign who's running the Senate Majority, and cut up the credit card that CONgress granted to themselves. That's a start. That date of correction is almost here. Even if we can't agree on which political philosophy is the one we need for now, no matter what, get out and vote as many as possible out of office. Public service in CONgress wasn't meant to be a life time career opportunity, vote them all out if they won't self impose term limits, we can with the ballots we cast.
I'm not a hypocrite and I am against the Article V Convention. (In other words you are only willing to support the portions of the Constitution that you believe in) Here is why!
1. We don't have a Congress now who defends our Constitution. (That is precisely why the states need to step and take charge) The problem is not our Constitution! The problem is we have congressmen who refuse to vote constitutionally. Without overhauling our Congress and electing representatives who will defend our Constitution, they will continue to vote the way they do regardless of what the Article V Convention Amends.
2. We don't know who will actually be in control of an Article V Convention (But we do know the bankers and the financial elite control Congress) and who will be voting. We could wind up with a "Bill of Privileges" replacing our "Bill of Rights"! There are plenty of liberals supporting the convention too!
If the framers of the Constitution mandated that the states have a right to amend the Constitution when the Congress failed to do their job and you support the Congressional monopoly to amend the Constitution you are in fact not only a hypocrite, but you are not very smart. By opposing the obedience to provisions of Article V you are promoting disobedience to the Constitution. Allowing Congress to have a monopoly on the amendment process allows the bankers and the financial elite to control the process. Use the brain the God gave you. Congress thinks that dropping bombs can bring peace and you apparently think that violating the Constitution is the best way to preserve it.
A great reply Keith, and a good call.
The 50 states have every right to do with their own constitutions as they please as guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. United does not mean by slavery, separate and equal does not need an interpreter, if we let the lawyers have it their way, we as a nation might as well be back under the Crown's governance, and that isn't going to happen.
I am not a liberal or a conservative, I believe in doing what is right. The political labels were created to divide the people into competing bands seeking to steal from their opponents before their pockets are picked.
You imply that being a liberal is bad. A Conservative is one who wants to preserve the status quo. Thanks to liberals like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin we gave birth to a new nation conceived in liberty. The early conservatives wanted to reconcile with the King.
Your article is rather confusing.
Who "claim[s] that we should attempt to save the Constitution by violating it"?
Are you suggesting that those who oppose changing the Constitution are, by their resistance to such changes, violating the Constitution? How?
Funny, I feel that groups who advocate an Article V convention, but want to do so in a manner that does not follow Article V, would fit your description of people who "claim that we should attempt to save the Constitution by violating it".
For example, they claim this process would is a way the states can bypass Congress, with the states making all the rules for the convention. The Constitution says otherwise, as illustrated in the following article:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-brown/the-article-v-conventio...
If you advocate the provisions of Article V you are advocating that we follow what is mandated in the Constitution. If you oppose the calling of an Article V Convention after the requisite number of states has requested one, you are suggesting that we should violate the Constitution in order to protect it.
Up until two thirds of the states request a convention we can debate whether a convention is a good or bad idea, but once 34 states request a convention, we must either call the convention or violate the Constitution. The question should not be whether the Convention is a good or a bad idea, the question should be have 34 states submitted requests for an Article V Convention.
Keith,
You claim there have been enough applications to mandate that Congress should call a convention.
There have been hundreds of applications, and nearly every state has applied at one time or another. But how should those applications be counted? There are several views on this. Some feel that every application, no matter the topic, should be counted together toward the 2/3 requirement. Some feel that only those that are on similar (or even identical) topics should be counted together.
The question is, who decides? Since Article V places the duty to call the convention in the hands of Congress, it is up to them how they will count the applications. Historically, they have chosen to follow the latter view; that only applications for the same purpose (which have not been rescinded) can be counted together. Under that view, they have never felt obligated to call a convention.
There are other areas of question regarding the Article V convention process. How would delegates to the convention be selected? How many delegates and how many votes would each state have? Can states pass laws and penalties against delegates who exceed the mandate from their state legislatures?
At the end of the convention of 1787, Madison expressed concerns that the Article V convention process was too vague. He felt "that difficulties might arise as to the form, the quorum, &c., which in constitutional regulations ought to be as much as possible avoided."
It seems everyone interested in the Article V convention has an opinion on the above questions. But opinions of how a convention should happen are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is how a convention would be run. Who decides?
Perhaps the Supreme Court answered that question, when they proclaimed, "As a rule, the Constitution speaks in general terms, leaving Congress to deal with subsidiary matters of detail as the public interests and changing conditions may require, and Article V is no exception to the rule." - Dillon vs. Gloss, 1921
So, in answer to your question, if 2/3 of the states had turned in applications, which are undeniably calling for a convention for the same purpose, and none of which had ever been rescinded, then yes, Congress would be obligated to call a convention. As far as I know, that has never happened. Not even in 1929.
If the Constitution does not specify who counts the applications and how they are calculated the 10th Amendment would indicate that powers not specifically granted to Congress are reserved to the states and to the people respectively. You implication that Congress would have the authority to determine who and how the representatives would be selected is a false assumption. Congress can only do what the Constitution authorizes them to do.
I believe Nancy Pelosi came as close to saying that when she stated "We must pass this bill in order to find out what's in it" or very nearly that, in her reference about what we now know as the "UNaffordable care act" that the currant occupant of the Highest Office in the country signed off on and made a healthcare system that was already hyper-costly, but created a penalty for not having health insurance. That's about as close as having a tax on you if you get ill and drive up the overall costs that will be spread to redistribute the wealth, you rob from the rich to take care of the poor peasants, kinda like Karl Marx and Lennin wanted to see done globally.
As you might guess I'm not a solid fan of the occupant. And he's not a genuine constitutional professor of the Constitution, and if he was, heaven help us if his students get seriously into politics like he did.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next