Article V for Dummies - Part One of my Call for Peaceful Change

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.

- US Constitution, Article V

A lot of words to describe a very unique and powerful way to effect change on a large scale in the United States. It was put into the Constitution, so that we the people would have the ability to make changes, and maybe radically reform our government if needed.

The most basic component of Article V is the way that Congress adds amendments to the document, there is only one provision that is important now, and that is, that any amendment that is passed must not infringe upon the rights of each state to have representation in the Senate. Pretty easy when you think about it.

Now, there are several ways this Article gives for an amendment or major change to be made to the Constitution. however I will only be going into one, and that is the Convention. A convention can be called for if 38 of the 50 state legislatures ask for it, it can be called simply to add one item to the document OR to rewrite parts of the document, but the key is that 38 states must agree (2/3rds)

So far in our history only once has an amendment been decided by State Conventions (the 21st, Prohibition in 1933, by a request by congress) the rest have been decided by each state ratifying them in the traditional manner. But it brings up a unique way we as a nation can in fact change our laws, and have it a true representation of the nation as a whole.

The Convention Route.

If, 38 State legislatures DEMAND a convention to rewrite or amend the document they HAVE to let us. And it was decided long ago by the Supreme Court that the Executive Branch is POWERLESS to intervene.

So instead of pulling these Sovereign Scams like Accepted for Value and citing obscure interpretations of UCC and talking about Strawmen (or is that STRAWMEN) and the whole new 11 USC 411 scam running around, implore your state legislators (not your US Reps or Senators, your State Level Ones, to demand a Convention to Amend or Change The Constitution, see how fast the Federal Government cringes in a corner at that one.. As unlike the others, it's legal, it's in the framework AND it's our RIGHT.

Thirty eight states in agreement....... hmm that's a very difficult road to walk
I've got a bit of a shortcut: get your state legislators to RATIFY the original 13th amendment, which is still out there with no "time limit". Then we could throw out most of the elected ones and start over pretty much from scratch. I'm pretty sure our resulting laws would be much easier to comprehend and much shorter as well.

Original 13th Amendment

ganjoa

To what end?

Originally posted by 11235813213455
To what end?

A good question, but if you are an American, and you are upset with how things are going, yelling and screaming "I'm gonn start a REBOLUTION" isn't going to do any good. This is the only LEGAL way to change the Constitution, using the provisions in Article V and making it so. (Congress does have the authority to propose and pass amendments as well with the states ratifying them after.. ) but a convention ensures we are all heard on it.

We have gotten so far away from the Constitution, it isn't funny.
I agree that this is a good way for the citizenry to be heard, but how do you get 38 states to come together and agree on something?

Originally posted by vkey08

Originally posted by 11235813213455
To what end?

A good question, but if you are an American, and you are upset with how things are going, yelling and screaming "I'm gonn start a REBOLUTION" isn't going to do any good. This is the only LEGAL way to change the Constitution, using the provisions in Article V and making it so. (Congress does have the authority to propose and pass amendments as well with the states ratifying them after.. ) but a convention ensures we are all heard on it.

I don't understand the thrust of the change you envision though.

Constitutional amendments are not really all that tough if the population is sufficiently agitated and organized. Given the current climate, what change do you seek through the method you propose?

reply to post by 11235813213455


Personally, I haven't given what change (I) want much of a thought, But I have seen a lot of threads with people threatening armed rebellion, and fighting with violence against the government, this is an alternative way to go about effecting that change without the need for guns and blood.

It's all about method. And I agree with one of the previous posters, that the original Article 13 should be ratified. But when you have a bunch of people running off their mouths half cocked and saying "they can pry my guns from my cold dead fingers" it sets up an adversarial situation, this deals with that, and allows a voice, to be heard, and to be used to help refine and/or amend and/or change the document to better suit our needs.

Originally posted by vkey08
reply to post by 11235813213455

 

Personally, I haven't given what change (I) want much of a thought, But I have seen a lot of threads with people threatening armed rebellion, and fighting with violence against the government, this is an alternative way to go about effecting that change without the need for guns and blood.

It's all about method. And I agree with one of the previous posters, that the original Article 13 should be ratified. But when you have a bunch of people running off their mouths half cocked and saying "they can pry my guns from my cold dead fingers" it sets up an adversarial situation, this deals with that, and allows a voice, to be heard, and to be used to help refine and/or amend and/or change the document to better suit our needs.

Can you or anyone guarantee that the unintended consequences that may come from an amendment infringing on the Bill Of Rights wouldn't be worse than doing nothing? That is to ask.. how can you truly know what will happen if this abstract change is made law of the land?

People can do the worst of things with out being the worst of people. I understand intention here but as with folks saying that they can pry my guns from my cold dead fingers there are many that would like to pry the guns from their cold dead fingers. That to me is even more alarming because it puts 0 thought into unintended consequences.

Personally I don't blame them for "running their mouths off". I think it's a necessary feedback loop to the advertised intentions of the government. I see it as akin to the way a rattlesnake warns not to be stepped on. They are only acting rational to the situation.

reply to post by 11235813213455


It's interesting that you automatically think that it would follow a worst case scenario, as we've seen in the past, when states call for an amendment it's never something that would contradict the ones before (unless it's repeal of say prohibition)

A good starting point was already mentioned, the original 13th Amendment prohibiting anyone with a title of nobility from holding public office. Another thought would be to put in term limits for Congress, maybe strengthen and clarify the right to bear arms.

Remember the original document was written during a time when we had no computers, no electricity and no communication that didn't take weeks. The document therefore doesn't address (and while it's generally assumed that it is) whether internet blogs for instance constitute free speech.

Line item vetoes would be another interesting prospect, most states have them, why not the President? I think when you get down to it, most Americans are peaceful people, and would rather have the chance to make things better than make things worse..

Please tell me how an armed rebellion would be better than peaceful debate and action?

reply to post by vkey08


I said nothing concerning an armed rebellion. I did say that the discontent is a necessary feedback. They are well within their rights at this point.

And from my perspective I believe that the framers had a greater longview than 99% of the mental degenerates in Washington today so I always see worst case scenario when they want to tinker. In fact I think they welcome unintended consequences because it gives them wedge issues.

Originally posted by 11235813213455
reply to post by vkey08

 

I said nothing concerning an armed rebellion. I did say that the discontent is a necessary feedback. They are well within their rights at this point.

And from my perspective I believe that the framers had a greater longview than 99% of the mental degenerates in Washington today so I always see worst case scenario when they want to tinker. In fact I think they welcome unintended consequences because it gives them wedge issues.

Article V expressly prohibits the Executive Branch from having any involvement.. It would not allow for them to "tinker" as you put it, these conventions are directed by the states, not the Federal Government..

Originally posted by vkey08

Originally posted by 11235813213455
reply to post by vkey08

 

I said nothing concerning an armed rebellion. I did say that the discontent is a necessary feedback. They are well within their rights at this point.

And from my perspective I believe that the framers had a greater longview than 99% of the mental degenerates in Washington today so I always see worst case scenario when they want to tinker. In fact I think they welcome unintended consequences because it gives them wedge issues.

Article V expressly prohibits the Executive Branch from having any involvement.. It would not allow for them to "tinker" as you put it, these conventions are directed by the states, not the Federal Government..

Doesn't matter.. you have the presupposition that something should be done and lay out the process. I don't believe anything needs to be done and certainly nothing that rises to the level of tinkering with the constitution.

Originally posted by 11235813213455

Originally posted by vkey08

Originally posted by 11235813213455
reply to post by vkey08

 

I said nothing concerning an armed rebellion. I did say that the discontent is a necessary feedback. They are well within their rights at this point.

And from my perspective I believe that the framers had a greater longview than 99% of the mental degenerates in Washington today so I always see worst case scenario when they want to tinker. In fact I think they welcome unintended consequences because it gives them wedge issues.

Article V expressly prohibits the Executive Branch from having any involvement.. It would not allow for them to "tinker" as you put it, these conventions are directed by the states, not the Federal Government..

Doesn't matter.. you have the presupposition that something should be done and lay out the process. I don't believe anything needs to be done and certainly nothing that rises to the level of tinkering with the constitution.

No, now you are assuming. I was asked by a few members to post a primer on Article V and how it could be used to make change to the Constitution if it ever came down to it. I did so.