A Convention of the States... Is it time?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


no wrabbit, the whole constitution is not on the table. it is not a constitutional convention.
"in theory"? no, it clearly states, "a convention for proposing amendments".

read article 5 .

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.

3/4 of the states must ratify any amendments.
do you think 38 states are going to throw out the constitution?
no, not going to happen.

but you might get 38 states to impose term limits, or maybe a balanced budget amendment.
two amendments i think both "sides" can agree on.

and the federal government has absolutely nothing to do with a convention of the states. nothing.
no say whatsoever...

reply to post by bjax9er

Okay, I'm impressed by how certain and assertive you are there. However, I will continue to say that, in my interpretation, you are wrong on the facts of how this works.

In truth, no one quite knows for certain because it's never been done. However, that hasn't stopped academics and others who would be a part of forming that process, should one ever occur, from speculating how it would work and come about.

The ODDS of agreement and the likeliehood this would actually work is entirely secondary to the process itself and the way that would happen.

The United States Constitution is unusually difficult to amend. As spelled out in Article V, the Constitution can be amended in one of two ways. First, amendment can take place by a vote of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate followed by a ratification of three-fourths of the various state legislatures (ratification by thirty-eight states would be required to ratify an amendment today). This first method of amendment is the only one used to date. Second, the Constitution might be amended by a Convention called for this purpose by two-thirds of the state legislatures, if the Convention's proposed amendments are later ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.

Source

Next, the entire constitution *IS* on the table for re-writing at a Constitutional Convention or, State's Convention as it's alternately called across the net. At least as I understand it, and this is why to be specific on that.

AMENDMENT XXI

SECTION 1.
The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

SECTION 2.
The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

SECTION 3.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

Cornell Law

You can't rewrite the Constitution EXCEPT.....to pass a succeeding amendment which repeals or modifies a preceding one. Oh, that wouldn't be lost on several people for half a second in importance. Not just the 2nd Amendment, but how about the 22nd?

You might very well get a State's majority to agree on SOME things...so I wouldn't be too fast to assume horse trading and dealing couldn't or wouldn't happen. Many state Governments would be quite happy to see a few tweaks to the 4th amendment, for instance. I'm sure we ALL agree the 13th Amendment is just fine the way it sits and needs to stay, even now. We ALL hate the 16th Amendment, and the 17th is wrong. (I think appointment worked well)

(I'd tweak the 26th a bit too....say, add 10? Maybe 12 for a round number .. I'm an old coot tho. Forgive me that )

See how bad an idea this gets to be...and we aren't even to adding anything NEW yet. Just correcting a few errors of the past, since it would be the process for it.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


i hear what your saying, and agree on your "tweaks" too.

but no matter what the process will be, in the end 38 states must vote to ratify any changes.
so it can't get out of control. not unless one of the degenerate parties control all of the state legislatures.

what is out of control, is the federal government.
the congress is a runaway congress.
the president is a lawless runaway president, and not just this president.
and the executive branch as a whole is completely out of control.
and we have the supreme court legislating from the bench, on just about every case before them.

so i have to try to be optimistic, or nothing will ever change.
congress isnt going to change anything, they sure as hell aren't going to limit their own power.
the president, or the executive branch as a whole isn't going to willingly give up it's power.
we must do it for them.

article 5 is our only recourse, unless of course we use violence.
i would prefer the constitution over violence, and i'am sure you would also, as would most people.

or we could just elect more french republicans, or more demonrats. i mean thats obviously worked well in the past. just keep on keepin on...

bjax9er
but you might get 38 states to impose term limits

So you think politicians will impose term limits on their own term in office....

reply to post by bjax9er


I don't see anything you're saying there that I disagree with at all. Particularly how out of control it's all become.

The only difference of opinion would come in solution and perhaps not so much disagreement as an absolute need for something else to come first, IMO. People in general have to get involved and vote. It doesn't matter which "side", who for or what the motivation is. Just get involved.

We can change the system all we like and make it dance a jig. If, county by county, the power structure is entrenched and corrupt? The entire system is rotten from the inside, and all we change is the shiny cover.

The county level is the caucus and until that becomes a familiar word and normal process...not a confusing bit of party business? Nothing else we do will result in change to last more than a short time, IMO.

hellobruce

bjax9er
but you might get 38 states to impose term limits

So you think politicians will impose term limits on their own term in office....

federal politicians have nothing to do with an article 5 convention.

so yes, state legislatures (politicians) might impose term limits on federal politicians, if we pressure them to do so.

or we could just give in to the tyranny, by doing the same ole same ole...nothing...

bjax9er
so yes, state legislatures (politicians) might impose term limits on federal politicians,

How about they impose term limits on themselves first before worrying about Federal politicians term limits....

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


your right, the people must get involved at a local and the state level first.

but we have to have a reason to get involved, and if nobody knows how much power we actually hold with an article 5 state convention, everyone will continue to look towards the all powerful central leviathan.

so we must educate ourselves on the constitution, and spread the knowledge to our friends and families, on what power we hold, and what we can accomplish if we just try.

we will not always agree on every solution, but if we don't propose a solution, there will never be one...

hellobruce

bjax9er
so yes, state legislatures (politicians) might impose term limits on federal politicians,

How about they impose term limits on themselves first before worrying about Federal politicians term limits....

fine by me!

what are you a federal politician or something?
sounding kind of defensive there.

is your name john mc lame?
jk