- Unnamed author . . .From Canadian Free Press:Bearing in mind that the Founding States authored Article V, will somebody please tell me where Article V gives Congress the power to orchestrate a Con-Con to the extent indicated by the CFP article?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . . .This article, http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/33821, contains numerous errors and [deliberate?] misrepresentations such as, "These folks forget that the convention can specify what it takes to ratify whatever they produce." That is patently false, don't drink the Kool Aid. Perhaps Mr. Lamb ought to read the United States Constitution before he starts pontificating on it.Art. V states, [Amendments proposed by the Congress or Amendments proposed by Convention ". . . 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."
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . . .Lock, I applaud you for posting this URL. I join you in recommending that everyone on this site, who has an interest in getting the government under control, WATCH IT. It is just over 47 minutes but well worth it. Give up one of the TV shows you watch out of habit, or boredom (and not because you really like it) and watch this instead.IMO, you cannot fight this fight to reform the federal government without understanding the concepts put forward in this video. (You are gitting a lot of it in the discussions on this site but the video is focused, on the mark, and even I learned a couple of new things).
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . . .I've enjoyed reading your comments and find them helpful. I'm not scared of a Con Con Art. V. , I think we can force Congress to do what we with if they are scared of it, just a thought. Now I have another question: Is the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, not the "jugular" of the federal government? If this can somehow be declared unconstitutional, either by amendment or decision, than this might de-fund almost every program but perhaps national defense? I'm I looking at this right? I'm sorry I'm not as informed on the Constitution as I had thought, but it's never too late to learn.How this was ever found to be Constitutional, beats me (?).
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . .it is Constitutional because it was accepted as an amendment and is now part of it UNTIL repealed. it is the only way. The 16thA. is repugnant to the original intent IMO and you hit the nail on the head; the 16thA repealed cuts off the ability of the central government to confiscate the the sweat of your brow and the product of your intellect. It also cuts off the head of the central government spending your earnings to dictate outcomes and choose winners and losers.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . . ."How this was ever found to be Constitutional, beats me (?)."Simple, actually. The Supreme Court Justices' salaries, as with all federal employees, is paid in part by the Income Tax authorized by the 16th. [That's my cynical side responding].The real answer is the 16 Amendment was duly passed and ratified so it ispart of the Constitution. How could you find a part of the Constitution to be "unconstitutional," no matter how ill-advised a particular part may seem?I don't have a strong opinion about the 16th. I would like to see it repealed but it is not a driving force in my desire to have an Article V Convention. I will leave that battle for someone else to fight once we have the Convention.In law school, all the professors kept saying, "Use a rifle, not a shotgun;"i.e., pick your issue and concentrate on that objective, don't get distracted by side issues no matter how attractive or how the side issues seem to be similar to the one you are representing.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . .I guess the Sixteenth is technically Constitutional, but it seems to make Art 1, section 8 seem irrelevant in a lot of ways. It seems to me that the Sixteenth Amendment destroys the original meaning of the General Welfare and Commerce clauses (?).I like the rifle analogy, I'm looking (like most of us) for a one shot scenario.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Some rather interesting info re: 16A may be found here [especially the links provided] :
http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/home.as
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . . .I do not know much on this subject of how the Sixteenth was amended, but it seems the states are the only ones that can get legislation overturned, that is against our feds- individuals do not seem to get judges to side with them.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . .Please don't be offended but my reaction is, "So what?"The 16 A, declared ratified the 25th of February, 1913, is de facto valid as an amendment to the Constitution. You can waste all the money you want on lawyers [we lawyers lovemaking money] but the outcome will be the same--IMO no court is going to rule in your favor after almost a hundred years of accepting the Amendment as valid.Ask your lawyer (or look it up yourself--it's cheaper) what is the difference between de facto and de jure. Also look up the word laches. Assume, for sake of argument, there was a good basis for your case in 1913. The law does not favor "sitting on a claim" for almost a hundred years then bringing the suit. My opinion on the chances of a court even hearing the case: nil. Aint gonna' happen!Incidentally, you might want to look at Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11. Caveat: I don't know where you live so the odds against my being licensed to practice law in your state are 49-1. This should not be construed as legal advice. Consider it friendly advice generally to anyone participating on this site who may be tempted to file suit for which there is no legal basis.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . . .I was not suggesting anyone pursue that aspect. I am a student of history and like to have factual information to base my opinions on; that's all.And I agree that no court would make a ruling regarding that, just like no court in the land is going to rule O ineligible. Which begs the question : why do we even have laws if we are going to disregard them or have no recourse when they are broken?Ahhh.....for debating purposes.... and lawyer fees....I get it now.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . . ."but it seems to make Art 1, section 8 seem irrelevant in a lot of ways."Look at it this way:Amendment XVI: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. . . ."That Amendment made Article I, § 3, Clause 1 obsolete. It did not repeal any of the other parts of Article I.Qualifications for electing Senators (§ 3) is separate from theduties of the whole Congress (§ 8), so the latter is still in full force and effect. In order to change § 8, an amendment would have to specifically target that section.I agree that the United States Supreme Court has made some unauthorized changes to Article I, § 8 but that is not necessarily the fault of the 16th. (Yes, lawyers are nit-pickers when it comes to the law. But you need to learn to live with that if you are going to challenge the law. Remember, every judge was and is a lawyer first.)
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . . .Let me post still another outrage--and another 770,000,000 reasons to want to repeal the 17th. I believe we have established to everyone's satisfaction (except for a troll here and there) the U.S. Senate is blind and deaf to the American People and most responsive to the lobbyist who finance their campaign.Congress is in the process of eleminating the mortage interest deduction for American homebuyers WHILE IT GIVES $779,000,000.00 TO REFURBISH MOSQUES IN EGYPT.WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THE PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON?WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH US FOR LETTING THEM STAY THERE?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Here is another link to a very informative article about the 14th amendment in the Congress provide.
- An historical aside regarding 14A that some may find........pertinent?.....or at least of some interest:
http://privateattorneygeneral.spruz.com/user/371126//cong_record-ju...
- Permalink Reply by on
- Reply by on
Con Con 
PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY COLUMNS - A Warning About Things to Come, 2-25-2011
- Good Advice Against a Con Con, 4-09-2010
- Con Con Is a Terrible Idea, 12-19-2008
- Bad New Plans to Rewrite the Constitution, 11-21-2007
- Time To Put Limits On Term Limits For Congress,2-20-2002
- Deceptive and Mischievous Term Limits Campaign,9-19-1996
- Beware Of Con Con Hidden In Term Limits Petition, 5-23-1996
PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORTS - Con Con Is a Terrible Idea, May 2009
- Is a Con Con Hidden in Term Limits?, May 1996
- Combating Chicanery About the Constitution, Sept. 1987
- CON CON: Playing Russian Roulette with the Constitution, Dec. 1984
JAMES MADISON'S WARNING BURGER LETTERS 
Phyllis sworn in as a Member of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the Constitution, July 30, 1985Letters from retired Chief Justice Warren Burger opposing a Constitutional Convention:
Burger Voices Doubts on Constitutional Convention(Note: Commission Meetings prior to the swearing in were held in the U.S. Supreme Court building.) SKOUSEN LETTER - Letter from W. Cleon Skousen, 9-13-94
BROCHURES 
Brochure George Washington, James Madison, and Ben Franklin did a magnificent job of producing our United States Constitution.Washington and Madison both called it a "miracle." It has lasted over 220 years, protecting our liberty while accommodating our geographic, economic, and population expansion."The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance." — Albert Einstein NEWS QUESTIONS VIDEO 
Article V — Repeal Amendment Debate
held on March 1, 2011 at the
Sheraton Clayton Plaza Hotel, St. Louis, MO.
Part 1 Part 2NEWS about Con Con (convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution) - Heritage Foundation opposes this "imprudent and potentially dangerous" idea, Feb. 10, 2011
- Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli admits that a convention cannot be limited, Jan. 17, 2011
Fifteen states have rescinded their resolutions calling for a Con Con:- Alabama (1988)
- Florida (1988) — amended by S0010 (2010)
- Louisiana (1990)
- Idaho (1999)
- Utah (2001)
- North Dakota (2001)
- Arizona (2003)
- Virginia (2004)
- South Carolina (2004)
- Georgia (2004)
- Wyoming — HEJR0003 (2009)
- Oklahoma — SJR 11 (2009)Missouri — SCR 10 (2009) did not pass
- South Dakota — HB 1135 (2010)
- New Hampshire — HCR28 (2010)
- Tennessee — HJR0030 (2010)
ARTICLES - Serious Questions For Texas House Members. If You Cannot Answer The..., By Shirley Spellerberg, 2-28-2011
- Don't Ask For What You Don't Want For You Surely May Get It!!, By Shirley Spellerberg, 2-25-2011
- A constitutional convention would be political folly,By Shirley Spellerberg, 2-16-2011
- Wolves in Sheep's Clothing?, By Kelleigh Nelson, 10-17-2009
LINKS - Article V of the United States Constitution
- For more information: www.noconcon.com
Beware Constitutional Convention! (part 1 of 3)
Beware Constitutional Convention! (part 2 of 3)
Beware Constitutional Convention! (part 3 of 3)
- Permalink Reply by on
- Link for all of the above from Eagle Forum . . .
- Permalink Reply by on
- The Article V requests they are presenting is not the same as 38 States [the required number to ratify] presents a single document for Ratification to each State legislature and they then ratify that document [amendment] upon the final ratification of the 38th State does this not become the law of the land with no further action required? IMO the Congress has no power over the States powers under the Article V powers.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Magnus, the more that I read history. The more I love history.
- Permalink Reply by on
- There is a lot to read here - and I will add more . . from my Library of what my participation in many debates . .
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . .In law we talk about "substantive due process" and "procedural due process." If you are asking a court for relief you must make sure you follow the procedural rules. If you don't you will be out without ever getting to the merits (the substance) of the case.You cannot have an Article V Conveintion, IMO, without going through Congress. I don't care if 38 states "ratify" something, or if all 50 do. If you haven't jumped through the procedural hoops, going through Congress and getting the amendments proposed, there is nothing to ratify.Keep in mind, many in Congress are lawyers, the Supreme Court Justices are all lawyers, and the president is a lawyer. None of them want to give up the power they have. They will hold you to the letter of the law and procedure. If you don't do it right, it won't get done.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . . ."With all due respect for you law degree - where does it say that the States can not ratify an amendment with 3/4 of the state already ratifying it has passed the Article V requirements."Lock:It's not about the law degree--it is a matter of understanding the law and the legal system that allowed me to sit for the Bar Exam in order to prove I possed the knowledge and understanding of law to be licensed by my state to practice law.Article V 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."Until Congress acts, there is nothing to ratify.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . . .Laymans question here.It says that on application of the legislatures of 2/3 of the State legislatures (sufficient backing/interest - to avoid trivial requests I presume) the Congress shall call a Convention for proposing amendments.I read this to mean it was intended that Congress is required to do so, not optional. So unless Congress pulls a Wisconsin dem type disappearing act (dereliction of duty clearly), the Convention is assured.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . .
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . .Many of the comments here are from laymen. I would be a layman on any subject for which I am not trained (i.e., history, mathmatics, politics, etc., ad infinitum). Personally I don't think lawyers are any smarter than anyone else. I only play the "lawyer card" if someone challenges me in an area where I have some small expertise.You are correct that the wording of Article is "Congress shall . . ." That does not necessarily say Congress will! The Supreme Court has ducked that issue saying it is a political matter.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Interesting 17A-related link:
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . .Lock:There are many things the Constitution says but the only thing that matters is what the Supreme Court says it says. Supreme Court opinions trump legislation, no matter how well drafted.That is not in the Constitution but it is the fact on the ground in Washington. I don't like that any better than you, but you shouldn't p*** into the wind. Get used to it--unless we can get an Article V Convention to change the Constitution to take away the Supreme Court's unlawful powers and give it back to Congress as the Founders intended.In the 112th Congress, there are 200 lawyers--148 Representatives and 52 Senators. To get anything done by Congress, it has to be agreeable to the lawyers serving there. Just from the numbers, there is a majority of Senators who list law as their profession. You won't get anything done unless you can make a legal argument that a lawyer could in good conscience accept.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . ."but 38 States ratifying an amendment will not be mess with by a SCOTUS that knows 38 can end the courts powers 100%."Lock:I don't wish to sound impertinent, but "What part of 'No' don't you understand?"* If Congress does not propose an amendment, or in the alternative, if we cannot get an Article V Convention to propose amendments, there is nothing to ratify. Proposing amendments is the first stage of the process; the second part is ratifying the proposed amendment. It must be done in sequence and there has to be a proposal before there can be a ratification.__________________
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . .Let them try nullification on for size. Its coming from AZ, TN and others. The States are rearing up their heads and the old paradigm is ending (SCOTUS is supreme). Over the next bit of time the Federal Government (POTUS, Congress & SCOTUS) is going to be overwhelmed with issues coming from multiple States.Those "lawyers" in the Congress, Dept of Justice and POTUS himself -none of whom were actually taught anything real about the Constitution are about to meet their match.You can naysay all you like, as a matter of fact, I sincerely hope "they" all have the same ideas you do about what can and cannot be done, as it suckers the opposition into underestimating their advesary.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . . .I sincerely hope you are right and I am wrong. I want to see this Covention convene as much as anyone--maybe more than most.Jimmy the Greek once said something to the effect, "The race is not always to the swift or the battle to the strong. But that's the way to bet." *GlennP.S. "none of whom were actually taught anything real about the Constitution . . . . " Comment: You are right about not being taught anything about the Constitution, Constitutional Law class is reading case law. I graduated from one of the top 25 law schools in the country; I don't remember being asked or told to read the Constitution. To lawyers, the body of Court decisions is the constitution.Lawyers are deeply embedded in the fabric of our society--even to the extent of reviewing bombing targets and advising military commanders. "This one might cause legal problems for you."I think that is just nuts. But it is the society we live in. You ignore that at your peril. Look, I am not defending lawyers; I am probably more anti-lawyer than anyone on this site because I know them well, I have had to put up with them all my working life. I am trying to help you see what you are up against so you can go prepared. If that is "naysaying," I'm guilty!
- Permalink Reply by on
- 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,Now my point is again how would they say no and not have a total Constitutional Crisis on their hands?. . There is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government by the noiseless, and therefore unalarming, instrumentality of the Supreme Court.
Thomas Jefferson
(letter to Wm. Johnson, 1823)
That the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States, or of any other Court to be instituted by the Congress, is not in any case to be encreased enlarged or extended by any Fiction Collusion or mere suggestion; . . .
New York Ratifying Convention, 1788
(Part of proposed amendments to the Constitution)
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . .That is the key question. I'm still of the opinion that state lawmakers consisting of an Article V majority can break in on a session of Congress and say, "Surprise! We've amended the Constitution and you're all fired. The president and USSC can clean out their desks too."
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . . .I need to note that I believe that ___ has essentially correctly indicated that the "Surprise!" mode of amendment is not realistic because lawyers, who control system, are not trained to think that way; power issues too. Correction welcome Mr.___.
- Permalink Reply by on
- unnamed author . . .IMO what is relevant is that the provision says Congress shall. That leaves no room for argument nor the option of legally or Constitutionally ignoring it.34 States - all at once trump the lawyers who control the system. Betcha a dollar!
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . .
I agree, Another way of looking at it is that there's nothing stopping the states from ramming an amendment to the Constitution just like Nancy Pelosi rammed Obamacare.
And as Lock has basically pointed out, Congress is the enemy. So why should the states involve corrupt, state-power usurping Congress in amending the Constitution to put Congress back on its constitutional leash?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . .I was responding to earlier post, in which some were taking about and Art V by the States in order to repeal the 17Th Some of the comments were that 2/3 of the States could call and ¾ Ratify with out going before Congress. I was justifying my thought as to why an Art V by the States had to go before Congress, in order to protect the majority of inhabitants from the minority.The example that I used was a perfect and equal world, but it even applies as you increase the weight (population) of the 33 States.Example from my example: 200,000 inhabitants in the 50 States, 33 States carry 90% of the inhabitants (200,000 x 90% = 180,000 inhabitants in the 33 States)That only leaves 20,000 inhabitants in the remaining 17 States, this is why our FF gave the States the Senate.Now, out of the 180,000 in the 33 States you would need 60% of those inhabitants to agree on an issue just to give you a simple majority of the whole (200,000)(180,000 x 60% = 108,000 / 200,000 = 54%)That’s my two cents!
- Permalink Reply by on
- Thank you Lock! I did leave that out, I will have to go back and adjust my figures. I was to focused on the 2/3 and I forgot the 3/4
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . . .OK…I have spent the last 120+ minutes watching and analyzing a 49 minute video that was suggested to me; please…. I beg of you…. tell me what the last sentence of that compound sentence of Art V has to do with the Amendment process?I see the last sentence of this article as being an attempt to get heathens from the South to ratify.I have about two more pages that I need answered….from one 49 min video?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . . .I see the last sentence of this article as being an attempt to get heathens from the South to ratifyNot hardly. Try looking up WHEN it was written. The people in the South were not heathens - that just indicates a prejudice on your part. Try looking at the Constitution objectively and understanding it is quite easy.____ you are over complicating it. You are at liberty to do so. The Constitution says so ;)
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . . .YES….That was bad chose of words and I sincerely apologize to everyone for it!
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . ."I beg of you…. tell me what the last sentence of that compound sentence of Art V has to do with the Amendment process?I see the last sentence of this article as being an attempt to get heathens from the South to ratify."O.K., ____. Let me see if I can walk you through this. My Flesch-Kincaid reading scale suggests you need at least a ninth-grade reading level to understand it, so I will type slow. The last part of the compound sentence in Article V states:“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.”Translated into plain English, before the year 1808 no amendment shall interfere with slavery, impose a capitation or other personal [income] tax, or deprive a State of its equal representation and vote in the Senate.All of the amendments that accomplished those things (the 14th, 16th, and 17th) were passed after 1808 so have little relevance for us today. It happened a long time ago; there is nothing we can do to change that. We just need to go forward and do what we need to do now to change it. F.Y.I.
Article I, Section. 9.
Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. [Changed by the XIV Amend.]Clause 4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. (See Note 7) [Changed by the XVI Amend.]As for Southerners being “heathens,” if you knew anything about English/American History you would likely know that white Southerners were for the most part English Cavaliers and other well-educated Anglicans, the religious rabble in the north were still burning witches at the stake and prohibiting the free exercise of religion for anyone not of their denomination. So who’s the heathen?Remember the old adage: “Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it beyond any reasonable doubt.”
- Permalink Reply by on
- unnamed author . . .I am not a Constitutional Scholar and I have spent the last two years trying to learn as much as I can about the Constitution and what the FF intended for this country. Between work and family life (which comes first) it does not leave a lot of time for educating yourself. So, if I open my mouth and insert my foot or look like a fool to some, so be it, a fool I will be
- Permalink Reply by on
- unnamed author . . .Regarding constitutional scholar issues, here are Thomas Jefferson's "secret formulas" for interpreting the Constitution.But the following quote indicates why Jefferson's formulas could fail.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Is this the sentence you are referring to
Article V - Amendment Note1 -Note2 - Note3
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 fourthClauses 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.Deprive
deprive v. 1. To take something away from; divest. 2. To keep from the possession of something. [<Med. Lat. deprivare]Source: AHDThere are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:- Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
- Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
- Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
- Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798]):The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution.Ratification ConventionsThe normal course of events, when an amendment to the Constitution has been desired by the people, is for Congress to pass the amendment and for the state legislatures to then ratify. Congressional proposal of the amendment is by a two-thirds majority vote in both houses. State ratification is by three-fourths majority.The Constitution does provide for one other way to ratify: by convention. A state convention differs from the state legislature in that it is usually an entirely separate body from the legislature. This introduces a different political dynamic into the amendment process.The only time that conventions have been used was in the case of the 21st Amendment, which overturned the 18th Amendment. The 18th abolished alcohol manufacture or sales on a national scale. The 21st repealed the 18th, stating instead that each state shall have the ability to set its own laws regarding liquor. The text of the 21st specifically stated that it would have to be ratified by conventions held in each state:3. The 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.Why specify conventions over legislatures, as every other amendment had been ratified up to then? The thought was that the people of the conventions, which would typically be average citizens, would be less likely to bow to political pressure to reject the amendment than elected officials would be. Note that the Supreme Court has ruled that a popular referendum is not a substitute for either the legislature nor a convention, nor can a referendum approve of or disapprove of the legislature's or a convention's decision on an amendment.
- Permalink Reply by on
- this is one of the sources of false complaint of a con con, she does not understand the concept of the State Article V convention method IMO.Stop the Con Con in the Texas Legislature!March 14, 2011Dear Texas Friends:Your Help is needed immediately to stop Texas from applying for a U.S. Constitutional Convention!As you know, calling for a federal Constitutional Convention (Con Con) is a dangerous way to try and fix some problems that our federal government is facing. (See Phyllis’ column andvideos for details.)The Texas Senate has passed a Resolution calling for a Con Con and it is pending in the House State Sovereignty Committee and could come up for a vote as early as THIS WEEK!We are told that this Committee is asking the other Members of the Texas House if they are hearing from their constituents on this issue, and some are. But not all are hearing and not all of those constituents are against the Con Con! Our Austin EF lobbyists are working hard on this issue, but your Representatives really need to hear from YOU!Your phone call and email to your State Representative onMonday, Tuesday or Wednesday of this week can really make a difference.Find your Representative’s office and phone number by clicking on this weblink: http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/Choose House on the drop down menu for Districts. There will be a link to send an email directly to your Representative and a 512 area code phone number to call their Austin office as well as the number for their local office. Please call both offices and send an email stating your opposition to a Con Con and firmly requesting that the Representativevote NO on all resolutions calling for a Con Con.Some legislators say that they are in favor of calling a Con Con as a way to force the Congress to draft a balanced budget amendment and send it to the states for ratification.They will tell you that “No one really wants an Article V Constitutional Convention.” But their good intentions can lead to disaster. Remind them that no one — neither legal counsels nor legislators — can answer the 20 Questions which are here.The late Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Warren Burger, answered these questions about limiting a Constitutional Convention: “There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda.”If any Constitutional Amendments are needed, then the tried and true amendment process should be used — a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states.PLEASE HELP STOP THE CON CON IN THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE!
Further Reading:
- Permalink Reply by on
- Unnamed author . . .After 17A was ratified, for practical purposes Congress was one House, imo, not two, and the state governments, along with the Constitution, essentially ceased to exist.
No comments:
Post a Comment