Recipe for Chaos in Texas
"Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum is not qualified a Constitutional Scholar. She was a speech writer and then a Journalist - just wrong but like Publius Huldah she sell books, TV videos and makes speeches."
Commentary by;Mangus Colorado.
Saturday, January 09, 2016
7:53 AM
Below are some of her comments in an email sent to her followers. We that promote an Article V convention have placed some comments to her statements in Italics, quotation marks and bold lettering. Our very first comment precedes her entire email.
If an Article V Convention of States is not a way to stop the Liberal movement of destroying our Constitution, then why was Article V created in the first place?
Content of Mrs Schlafly's email:
Attacks on the U.S. Constitution are coming from all sides – sadly even some misguided conservatives have joined the Left on this issue.
"Mrs. Schlafly, IF this statement is true, then please name these "misguided" conservatives."
One liberal professor – in the pages of The New York Times – calls our Constitution “imbecilic.” Another claims it contains “archaic” and “evil provisions.”
One even urges us to “rewrite the Second Amendment.”
Out of exasperation with Barack Obama’s flouting of the Constitution – and the Republican Congress’ willingness to help carry out Obama’s liberal agenda – a few conservative authors and pundits have joined these left-wing opponents of our Constitution.
"To an extent some of the above could be possible."
Together they are promoting a national convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.
"This would be a Convention of States. Congress would NOT be involved in this particular process at the time."
These ill-advised conservatives wrongly believe a series of amendments can put our country on a wiser path.
"The above statement is blatantly broad!"
The authority for such a procedure is Article V of our Constitution, so they are calling their plan of action an Article V convention.
However, they are fooling themselves when they suggest that Article V creates a path to bypass Congress with a “convention of states.”
"Exactly how would the above two statements apply to what you say?"
In a convention setting, the U.S. Congress would get a major say in how the process will work.
The only power the states have under Article V is the opportunity to submit an “application” (petition) asking Congress to call a convention. Hundreds of such applications have been submitted over the years, with widely different purposes and wording. Many applications were later rescinded, and some purport to make the application valid for only a particular amendment such as a federal balanced budget or congressional term limits.
Article V states that Congress “shall” call a convention on the application of two-thirds of state legislatures, or thirty-four (34) of them.
"This is exactly what the Constitution states":
Article V
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.
From <http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/constitution-of-the-u-s.html>
"The balance of Mrs. Schafly's statements can be explained easily by reading the works of actual Constitutional Scholars in the Article V Project to Restore Liberty site." http://www.articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com
The key question is this: how will Congress count valid applications?
The answer is, we don’t know, and so far Congress has ignored them anyway.
If Congress ever decides to act, Article V gives Congress exclusive power to issue the “Call” for a convention to propose “amendments” (plural).
“The Call” is the governing document which determines all the basic rules such as where and when a convention will be held, who is eligible to be a delegate (will current office-holders be eligible?), how delegates will be apportioned, how expenses will be paid, and who will be the chairman.
Article V also gives Congress the power to determine whether the three-fourths of the states required for ratification of amendments can ratify by the state legislature’s action or by state conventions.
Do you trust the current U.S. Congress to determine the rules for how the Constitution will be rewritten?
The most important question to which there is no answer is this: how will convention delegates be apportioned?
Will each state have one vote (no matter how many delegates it sends), which was the rule in the 1787 Philadelphia convention?
Or will the convention be apportioned according to population (like Congress or the Electoral College)?
Nothing in Article V gives the states any power to make this fundamental decision. "This statement is completely false".
If Congress decides apportionment will be determined by population, more populous states will control the outcome.
Do you want California or New York deciding how the U.S. Constitution should read?
Article V doesn’t give any power to the states to propose constitutional amendments, or to decide which amendments will be considered by the convention. "This statement is completely false".
Now imagine Democratic and Republican conventions meeting in the same hall and trying to agree on constitutional changes. Imagine the gridlock in drafting a constitutional plank by caucuses led by Sarah Palin and Al Sharpton. "This statement is completely false".
Everything else about how an Article V Convention would function, including its agenda, is anybody’s guess.
Advocates of an Article V convention can hope and speculate, but they cannot assure us that any of their plans will come true.
If we follow the model of the 1787 Convention, will the deliberations be secret? Are you kidding me? Nothing is secret any more.
What are the plans to deal with protesters at what would surely be the biggest media event of the year, if not of the century? It will be flooded with agitators from the gun-control lobby, the gay lobby, the abortion lobby, the green lobby, plus experienced protesters trained and even paid with George Soros money.
There is no proof that the VIPs promoting an Article V convention have any first-hand knowledge of the politics or procedures of a contested national convention. Don’t they realize that the convention will set its own agenda and that states will have no say over which amendments are considered? "This statement is completely false".
To see how a convention chairman wielding the gavel can manipulate outcomes, take for instance the 2012 Democratic National Convention. "This statement is not even applicable."
A delegate tried to add a reference to God to the party platform, but the chairman ruthlessly called the vote wrong even though we all saw on television that the “Noes” won the vote.
The whole Article V “Convention of States” process is a prescription for political chaos. "This statement is completely false".
Alas, I don’t see any George Washingtons, James Madisons or Ben Franklins around today who could do as good a job as the Founding Fathers, and I’m worried about the men who think they can.
Phyllis Schlafly
Commentary by;Mangus Colorado.
Saturday, January 09, 2016
7:53 AM
Below are some of her comments in an email sent to her followers. We that promote an Article V convention have placed some comments to her statements in Italics, quotation marks and bold lettering. Our very first comment precedes her entire email.
If an Article V Convention of States is not a way to stop the Liberal movement of destroying our Constitution, then why was Article V created in the first place?
Content of Mrs Schlafly's email:
Attacks on the U.S. Constitution are coming from all sides – sadly even some misguided conservatives have joined the Left on this issue.
"Mrs. Schlafly, IF this statement is true, then please name these "misguided" conservatives."
One liberal professor – in the pages of The New York Times – calls our Constitution “imbecilic.” Another claims it contains “archaic” and “evil provisions.”
One even urges us to “rewrite the Second Amendment.”
Out of exasperation with Barack Obama’s flouting of the Constitution – and the Republican Congress’ willingness to help carry out Obama’s liberal agenda – a few conservative authors and pundits have joined these left-wing opponents of our Constitution.
"To an extent some of the above could be possible."
Together they are promoting a national convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.
"This would be a Convention of States. Congress would NOT be involved in this particular process at the time."
These ill-advised conservatives wrongly believe a series of amendments can put our country on a wiser path.
"The above statement is blatantly broad!"
The authority for such a procedure is Article V of our Constitution, so they are calling their plan of action an Article V convention.
However, they are fooling themselves when they suggest that Article V creates a path to bypass Congress with a “convention of states.”
"Exactly how would the above two statements apply to what you say?"
In a convention setting, the U.S. Congress would get a major say in how the process will work.
The only power the states have under Article V is the opportunity to submit an “application” (petition) asking Congress to call a convention. Hundreds of such applications have been submitted over the years, with widely different purposes and wording. Many applications were later rescinded, and some purport to make the application valid for only a particular amendment such as a federal balanced budget or congressional term limits.
Article V states that Congress “shall” call a convention on the application of two-thirds of state legislatures, or thirty-four (34) of them.
"This is exactly what the Constitution states":
Article V
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.
From <http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/constitution-of-the-u-s.html>
"The balance of Mrs. Schafly's statements can be explained easily by reading the works of actual Constitutional Scholars in the Article V Project to Restore Liberty site." http://www.articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com
The key question is this: how will Congress count valid applications?
The answer is, we don’t know, and so far Congress has ignored them anyway.
If Congress ever decides to act, Article V gives Congress exclusive power to issue the “Call” for a convention to propose “amendments” (plural).
“The Call” is the governing document which determines all the basic rules such as where and when a convention will be held, who is eligible to be a delegate (will current office-holders be eligible?), how delegates will be apportioned, how expenses will be paid, and who will be the chairman.
Article V also gives Congress the power to determine whether the three-fourths of the states required for ratification of amendments can ratify by the state legislature’s action or by state conventions.
Do you trust the current U.S. Congress to determine the rules for how the Constitution will be rewritten?
The most important question to which there is no answer is this: how will convention delegates be apportioned?
Will each state have one vote (no matter how many delegates it sends), which was the rule in the 1787 Philadelphia convention?
Or will the convention be apportioned according to population (like Congress or the Electoral College)?
Nothing in Article V gives the states any power to make this fundamental decision. "This statement is completely false".
If Congress decides apportionment will be determined by population, more populous states will control the outcome.
Do you want California or New York deciding how the U.S. Constitution should read?
Article V doesn’t give any power to the states to propose constitutional amendments, or to decide which amendments will be considered by the convention. "This statement is completely false".
Now imagine Democratic and Republican conventions meeting in the same hall and trying to agree on constitutional changes. Imagine the gridlock in drafting a constitutional plank by caucuses led by Sarah Palin and Al Sharpton. "This statement is completely false".
Everything else about how an Article V Convention would function, including its agenda, is anybody’s guess.
Advocates of an Article V convention can hope and speculate, but they cannot assure us that any of their plans will come true.
If we follow the model of the 1787 Convention, will the deliberations be secret? Are you kidding me? Nothing is secret any more.
What are the plans to deal with protesters at what would surely be the biggest media event of the year, if not of the century? It will be flooded with agitators from the gun-control lobby, the gay lobby, the abortion lobby, the green lobby, plus experienced protesters trained and even paid with George Soros money.
There is no proof that the VIPs promoting an Article V convention have any first-hand knowledge of the politics or procedures of a contested national convention. Don’t they realize that the convention will set its own agenda and that states will have no say over which amendments are considered? "This statement is completely false".
To see how a convention chairman wielding the gavel can manipulate outcomes, take for instance the 2012 Democratic National Convention. "This statement is not even applicable."
A delegate tried to add a reference to God to the party platform, but the chairman ruthlessly called the vote wrong even though we all saw on television that the “Noes” won the vote.
The whole Article V “Convention of States” process is a prescription for political chaos. "This statement is completely false".
Alas, I don’t see any George Washingtons, James Madisons or Ben Franklins around today who could do as good a job as the Founding Fathers, and I’m worried about the men who think they can.
Phyllis Schlafly
New documents uncovered: Scalia reveals his true opinion of an Article V Convention of States
New documents uncovered: Scalia reveals his true opinion of an Article V Convention of StatesPosted by Convention of States Project on February 19, 2016When state legislatures consider whether to apply for an Article V convention for proposing amendments, the primary argument in opposition is invariably that such an application poses an intolerable risk of a “runaway convention,” i.e., a convention that proposes amendments outside the scope of the subject matter for which it was called. This question was considered by a panel of distinguished scholars (Paul Bator, Walter Berns, Gerald Gunther and Antonin Scalia) at an AEI forum held on May 23, 1979. The transcript of this forum has just been posted online (hat tip: Josh Blackman and Adam White).
Three panelists agreed that while the matter was not free from doubt, the best view of the Constitution is that an Article V convention may be limited as a matter of law. One panelist, Professor Gunther, contended that such a limitation was merely a “moral exhortation” that was not legally binding. Tr. 8.
Then-Professor Scalia agreed with Professors Bator and Berns that Article V was best interpreted to permit a limited convention. See Tr. 12 (“There is no reason not to interpret it to allow a limited call, if that is what the states desire.”) (Scalia); see also Tr. 7-8, 11 (Bator); Tr. 4-5 (Berns).
Scalia, however, mostly concentrated his remarks on debunking the practical reasoning of the “runaway convention” argument. Acknowledging the theoretical possibility that an Article V convention could propose an extreme or unpalatable amendment, he noted that this possibility could equally be employed as a reason against convening Congress (or any legislative authority). Tr. 5. The right question to ask is “how high we think the risk is and how necessary we think the convention is.” Id.
As far as the risk, Scalia made clear he had “no fear” that “extreme proposals” would come out of an Article V convention. Tr. 5. The risk of a convention exceeding its mandate “was not much of a risk.” Tr. 23. After all: “Three-quarters of the states would have to ratify whatever came out of the convention; therefore, I don’t worry about it too much.” Id.
On the need for a convention, Scalia noted:
The founders inserted this alternative method of obtaining constitutional amendments because they knew the Congress would be unwilling to give attention to many issues the people are concerned with, particularly those involving restrictions on the federal government’s own power. The founders foresaw that and they provided the convention as a remedy. If the only was to get that convention is to take this minimal risk, then it is a reasonable one.
Tr. 6.
He went on to explain that the argument against calling a convention effectively gives Congress a monopoly over amendments, contrary to the Framers’ intent: “The alternative is continuing with a system that provides no means of obtaining a constitutional amendment, except through the kindness of the Congress, which has demonstrated that it will not propose amendments—no matter how generally desired—of certain types.” Tr. 12. Indeed, Congress “likes the existing confusion, because that deters resort to the convention process.” Id.
Scalia left no doubt as to how he weighted the risk and reward in calling a balanced budget amendment convention: “The Congress knows that the people want more fiscal responsibility, but it is unwilling to oblige it. A means comparable to [California’s] Proposition 13 is needed at the federal level. The Constitution had provided it. If the only way to clarify the law, if the only way to remove us from utter bondage to the Congress, is to take what I think to be a minimal risk on this limited convention, then let’s take it.” Tr. 13.
Finally, Scalia put the point in the broader context of a constitutional system that was badly out of kilter: “I am not sure how long a people can accommodate to directives from a legislature it feels is no longer responsive, and to directives from a life-tenured judiciary that was never meant to be responsive, without losing its will to control its own destiny.” Tr. 18.
Though uttered 37 years ago, these words don’t seem the least bit out of date today.
Source; http://www.conventionofstates.com/new_documents_uncovered_scalia_reveals_true_opinion?utm_source=Convention+of+States+Project&utm_campaign=ed5a4ccfa2-COS_Weekly_Roundup_2_24_16_A&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_45196125c1-ed5a4ccfa2-216087253
ADDENDUM To above Article;
Scalia’s Surprising Advice for Who His Replacement Should Be By Dr. Richard Land | February 26, 2016 | 2:23 PM EST
Source;http://cnsnews.com/commentary/dr-richard-land/scalias-surprising-advice-who-his-replacement-should-be?ref=yfp
Less than a week after the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, politicians and legal minds alike were in an uproar about who the next Supreme Court justice should be—as well as when he or she should be appointed, and by whom.
Surprisingly, Scalia gave some advice on his own replacement in this summer’s controversialObergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision. And now, as Justice Scalia lies in repose Scalia’s insightful words ring true that a diverse Supreme Court should benefit—and represent—all Americans.
Justice Scalia left the nation a virtual legal memo with some unexpected advice on qualities we should look for in a future successor on the nation’s highest court, mainly religious, educational and geographic diversity. In Justice Scalia’s strongly worded dissent in last year’s Obergefell-Hodges decision, which mandated same-sex marriage in all 50 states, Justice Scalia said the following: “To allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”
What did Justice Scalia mean? Well, the current Court, prior to Justice Scalia’s death, consisted of nine justices; four of the justices were from New York City, and if you count Justice Alito from suburban New York and New Jersey, five of the justices come from greater New York. Of the other four, two were from California—Kennedy and Breyer—and one was from Georgia—Thomas—with just one justice, Chief Justice Roberts, from the vast Midwest of the United States.
Educationally, there are more common threads—four went to Harvard, three to Yale, one to Cornell and one to Stanford, and three received their undergraduate degrees from Princeton.
And this lack of diversity doesn’t stop there. Justice Scalia also explained in his dissent that the Supreme Court had “not a single Evangelical Christian, a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans, or even a Protestant of any denomination.” Before Scalia’s death, six Catholics and three Jews made up the court. Such an elitist group of judges, Scalia argued, was very likely to be dangerously out of step with the broader culture of the country they seek to serve. Indeed.
Justice Scalia did not believe that the Supreme Court should legislate from the bench. His point, however, was that if they were going to insist on legislating from the bench, they needed to be far more representative of the country religiously, educationally and geographically.
We should heed the late Justice Scalia’s sound and excellent advice. The next justice should be a Protestant from the vast middle of the country, anywhere from Texas in the South to North Dakota in the North or anywhere in between. And, although a Princeton graduate myself, I join Justice Scalia in strongly urging that the next justice not be a graduate of an Ivy League law school or an Ivy League college.
Do we really believe there are no strong candidates to be Supreme Court Justices who can be found in the vast middle of the country that would alter this dangerous imbalance religiously, educationally and geographically on our Supreme Court? Of course there are many qualified candidates—extremely qualified candidates—and they need to be located and found by the President, nominated by him and confirmed by our senators. This is not about quotas or litmus tests; this is a about a critically important government institution that is dangerously out of balance with the country it took an oath to serve. This imbalance needs to be corrected, and it needs to be corrected immediately—religiously, educationally, geographically.
Dr. Richard Land is president of Southern Evangelical Seminary and former president (1988-2013) of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the Southern Baptist Convention’s official entity assigned to address social, moral and ethical concerns, with particular attention to their impact on American families. He has taught as a visiting or adjunct professor for several seminaries and has authored or edited more than 15 books.
Less than a week after the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, politicians and legal minds alike were in an uproar about who the next Supreme Court justice should be—as well as when he or she should be appointed, and by whom.
Surprisingly, Scalia gave some advice on his own replacement in this summer’s controversialObergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision. And now, as Justice Scalia lies in repose Scalia’s insightful words ring true that a diverse Supreme Court should benefit—and represent—all Americans.
Justice Scalia left the nation a virtual legal memo with some unexpected advice on qualities we should look for in a future successor on the nation’s highest court, mainly religious, educational and geographic diversity. In Justice Scalia’s strongly worded dissent in last year’s Obergefell-Hodges decision, which mandated same-sex marriage in all 50 states, Justice Scalia said the following: “To allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”
What did Justice Scalia mean? Well, the current Court, prior to Justice Scalia’s death, consisted of nine justices; four of the justices were from New York City, and if you count Justice Alito from suburban New York and New Jersey, five of the justices come from greater New York. Of the other four, two were from California—Kennedy and Breyer—and one was from Georgia—Thomas—with just one justice, Chief Justice Roberts, from the vast Midwest of the United States.
Educationally, there are more common threads—four went to Harvard, three to Yale, one to Cornell and one to Stanford, and three received their undergraduate degrees from Princeton.
And this lack of diversity doesn’t stop there. Justice Scalia also explained in his dissent that the Supreme Court had “not a single Evangelical Christian, a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans, or even a Protestant of any denomination.” Before Scalia’s death, six Catholics and three Jews made up the court. Such an elitist group of judges, Scalia argued, was very likely to be dangerously out of step with the broader culture of the country they seek to serve. Indeed.
Justice Scalia did not believe that the Supreme Court should legislate from the bench. His point, however, was that if they were going to insist on legislating from the bench, they needed to be far more representative of the country religiously, educationally and geographically.
We should heed the late Justice Scalia’s sound and excellent advice. The next justice should be a Protestant from the vast middle of the country, anywhere from Texas in the South to North Dakota in the North or anywhere in between. And, although a Princeton graduate myself, I join Justice Scalia in strongly urging that the next justice not be a graduate of an Ivy League law school or an Ivy League college.
Do we really believe there are no strong candidates to be Supreme Court Justices who can be found in the vast middle of the country that would alter this dangerous imbalance religiously, educationally and geographically on our Supreme Court? Of course there are many qualified candidates—extremely qualified candidates—and they need to be located and found by the President, nominated by him and confirmed by our senators. This is not about quotas or litmus tests; this is a about a critically important government institution that is dangerously out of balance with the country it took an oath to serve. This imbalance needs to be corrected, and it needs to be corrected immediately—religiously, educationally, geographically.
Dr. Richard Land is president of Southern Evangelical Seminary and former president (1988-2013) of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the Southern Baptist Convention’s official entity assigned to address social, moral and ethical concerns, with particular attention to their impact on American families. He has taught as a visiting or adjunct professor for several seminaries and has authored or edited more than 15 books.
*Justice Antonin Scalia Opposed a Constitutional Convention*
*"I certainly would not want a Constitutional Convention. I mean whoa. Who
knows what would come out of that?" - Justice Antonin Scalia, April 17,
2014 *(Click here
<https://www.votervoice.net/BroadcastLinks/ZAT7MQ5BFi48Fv_4yN9_6Q> to see
video of Scalia's statement.)
In a recent email from former U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to Oklahoma
state legislators encouraging them to pass the Convention of States
application for a "limited convention," Coburn used a supportive quote
attributed to the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The quote, as
it appeared in the email, reads:
"If the only way to clarify the law, if the only way to remove us from
utter bondage to the Congress, is to take what I think to be a minimal risk
on this limited convention, then let's take it." ~ Justice Antonin Scalia~
Reading this, one might believe that this portrays a recent view of the
late justice, especially since Coburn's citation says "Justice." However,
this is misleading.
Although no date was provided with the quote, the quote comes from remarks
delivered by Scalia at a forum hosted by the American Enterprise Institute
on May 23, 1979 - seven years before President Ronald Reagan nominated
Scalia to the Supreme Court. The AEI forum was entitled, "A Constitutional
Convention: How Well Would It Work?" and was moderated by former ABC News
chief John Charles Daly.
Scalia was not a justice of the Supreme Court when he said those words, but
rather a law professor at the University of Chicago Law School. At the
time, Scalia also worked at the American Enterprise Institute, which he was
addressing when he spoke in favor of the idea of a limited convention.
However, contrary to Senator Coburn's attempt to protray Scalia as a
supporter of an Article V constitutional convention, the quote he uses from
1979 does not accurately reflect Scalia's recent views on the subject of a
modern-day constitutional convention.
<https://www.votervoice.net/BroadcastLinks/ZAT7MQ5BFi48Fv_4yN9_6Q>On April
17, 2014, Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg
appeared on an episode of the Kalb Report, a one-on-one panel discussion
television and radio program jointly produced by the National Press Club
Journalism Institute, the George Washington University, and the Philip
Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland. The subject of
their program was "A Conversation about the First Amendment."
During the program, host Marvin Kalb asked a question from Seth Dawson of
the Office of Congressman Denny Heck (D-Wash.) regarding Justice John Paul
Stevens's recent suggestion of a constitutional amendment to modify the
Second Amendment. The question was, "If you could amend the Constitution in
one way, what would it be, and why?" The first to answer was Scalia, who
replied (click on above image for video):
I certainly would not want a Constitutional Convention. I mean whoa. Who
knows what would come out of that?
Scalia acknowledged the difficulty of amending the Constitution and
speaking in the context of amendments he clearly warned against the notion
of convening a convention, which is the second method for amending the
Constitution under Article V.
Following a speech Scalia gave to the Federalist Society in Morristown, New
Jersey, on May 8, 2015, during the question-and-answer session, Scalia was
asked whether a constitutional convention would be in the nation's interest.
"A constitutional convention is a horrible idea," Scalia replied. "This is
not a good century to write a constitution."
Although the Convention of States (COS) Project would have one believe that
a constitutional convention is a "totally different creature" from an
Article V convention or "convention of the states," as they call it, this
is simply not true.
*Black's Law Dictionary*, the definitive legal lexicon in American law,
defines the term constitutional convention, then refers to an Article V
convention as an example of one:
*Constitutional convention.* A duly constituted assembly of delegates or
representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of
framing, revising, or *amending its constitution*. *Art. V of U.S. Const.
provides that a Constitutional Convention may be called on application of
the Legislatures of two-thirds of the states*. [Emphasis added]
This definition of a constitutional convention originates from the second
edition of *A Law Dictionary: Containing Definitions of the Terms and
Phrases of American and English Jurisprudence, Ancient, and Modern*
published in 1910, by Henry Campbell Black (1860-1927), and remains
unchanged in contemporary editions of *Black's Law Dictionary*.
Professor Scalia may have entertained the notion of a convention back in
1979, but by 2014 Justice Scalia was firmly set against it and rightly so,
noting the uncertainty that could arise from such a modern convention. This
is especially true given today's political climate and prevailing lack of
education about the Constitution. The solution, as The John Birch Society
advocates and Justice Scalia understood throughout his judicial career, is
adhering to the Constitution, not changing it by way of amendments at an
unpredictable convention.
*First Action Request: Click here
<https://www.votervoice.net/BroadcastLinks/su7lNO8tHH_g5I6_Q2Ycog> for the
phone number of your state legislators. Phone them and ask them to vote
against all bills and resolutions making application to Congress to call a
convention for proposing amendments.* Tell them that our state legislatures
and Congress should enforce the Constitution, not rewrite it.
*Second Action Request: Click here to send a prewritten, editable message
to your state legislators
<https://www.votervoice.net/BroadcastLinks/AtNCQu7dsk6XSR-q78RMlg>.* It is
preferable (to get the maximum impact) to edit the message in some way,
such as adding opening or closing remarks, or editing the message itself. *Then
send the email message.*
Thanks.
Your Friends at The John Birch Society
Ed Note; see Convention of states article on Pro AV page; This JBS article is a gross misrepresentation in my opinion.
*"I certainly would not want a Constitutional Convention. I mean whoa. Who
knows what would come out of that?" - Justice Antonin Scalia, April 17,
2014 *(Click here
<https://www.votervoice.net/BroadcastLinks/ZAT7MQ5BFi48Fv_4yN9_6Q> to see
video of Scalia's statement.)
In a recent email from former U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to Oklahoma
state legislators encouraging them to pass the Convention of States
application for a "limited convention," Coburn used a supportive quote
attributed to the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The quote, as
it appeared in the email, reads:
"If the only way to clarify the law, if the only way to remove us from
utter bondage to the Congress, is to take what I think to be a minimal risk
on this limited convention, then let's take it." ~ Justice Antonin Scalia~
Reading this, one might believe that this portrays a recent view of the
late justice, especially since Coburn's citation says "Justice." However,
this is misleading.
Although no date was provided with the quote, the quote comes from remarks
delivered by Scalia at a forum hosted by the American Enterprise Institute
on May 23, 1979 - seven years before President Ronald Reagan nominated
Scalia to the Supreme Court. The AEI forum was entitled, "A Constitutional
Convention: How Well Would It Work?" and was moderated by former ABC News
chief John Charles Daly.
Scalia was not a justice of the Supreme Court when he said those words, but
rather a law professor at the University of Chicago Law School. At the
time, Scalia also worked at the American Enterprise Institute, which he was
addressing when he spoke in favor of the idea of a limited convention.
However, contrary to Senator Coburn's attempt to protray Scalia as a
supporter of an Article V constitutional convention, the quote he uses from
1979 does not accurately reflect Scalia's recent views on the subject of a
modern-day constitutional convention.
<https://www.votervoice.net/BroadcastLinks/ZAT7MQ5BFi48Fv_4yN9_6Q>On April
17, 2014, Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg
appeared on an episode of the Kalb Report, a one-on-one panel discussion
television and radio program jointly produced by the National Press Club
Journalism Institute, the George Washington University, and the Philip
Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland. The subject of
their program was "A Conversation about the First Amendment."
During the program, host Marvin Kalb asked a question from Seth Dawson of
the Office of Congressman Denny Heck (D-Wash.) regarding Justice John Paul
Stevens's recent suggestion of a constitutional amendment to modify the
Second Amendment. The question was, "If you could amend the Constitution in
one way, what would it be, and why?" The first to answer was Scalia, who
replied (click on above image for video):
I certainly would not want a Constitutional Convention. I mean whoa. Who
knows what would come out of that?
Scalia acknowledged the difficulty of amending the Constitution and
speaking in the context of amendments he clearly warned against the notion
of convening a convention, which is the second method for amending the
Constitution under Article V.
Following a speech Scalia gave to the Federalist Society in Morristown, New
Jersey, on May 8, 2015, during the question-and-answer session, Scalia was
asked whether a constitutional convention would be in the nation's interest.
"A constitutional convention is a horrible idea," Scalia replied. "This is
not a good century to write a constitution."
Although the Convention of States (COS) Project would have one believe that
a constitutional convention is a "totally different creature" from an
Article V convention or "convention of the states," as they call it, this
is simply not true.
*Black's Law Dictionary*, the definitive legal lexicon in American law,
defines the term constitutional convention, then refers to an Article V
convention as an example of one:
*Constitutional convention.* A duly constituted assembly of delegates or
representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of
framing, revising, or *amending its constitution*. *Art. V of U.S. Const.
provides that a Constitutional Convention may be called on application of
the Legislatures of two-thirds of the states*. [Emphasis added]
This definition of a constitutional convention originates from the second
edition of *A Law Dictionary: Containing Definitions of the Terms and
Phrases of American and English Jurisprudence, Ancient, and Modern*
published in 1910, by Henry Campbell Black (1860-1927), and remains
unchanged in contemporary editions of *Black's Law Dictionary*.
Professor Scalia may have entertained the notion of a convention back in
1979, but by 2014 Justice Scalia was firmly set against it and rightly so,
noting the uncertainty that could arise from such a modern convention. This
is especially true given today's political climate and prevailing lack of
education about the Constitution. The solution, as The John Birch Society
advocates and Justice Scalia understood throughout his judicial career, is
adhering to the Constitution, not changing it by way of amendments at an
unpredictable convention.
*First Action Request: Click here
<https://www.votervoice.net/BroadcastLinks/su7lNO8tHH_g5I6_Q2Ycog> for the
phone number of your state legislators. Phone them and ask them to vote
against all bills and resolutions making application to Congress to call a
convention for proposing amendments.* Tell them that our state legislatures
and Congress should enforce the Constitution, not rewrite it.
*Second Action Request: Click here to send a prewritten, editable message
to your state legislators
<https://www.votervoice.net/BroadcastLinks/AtNCQu7dsk6XSR-q78RMlg>.* It is
preferable (to get the maximum impact) to edit the message in some way,
such as adding opening or closing remarks, or editing the message itself. *Then
send the email message.*
Thanks.
Your Friends at The John Birch Society
Ed Note; see Convention of states article on Pro AV page; This JBS article is a gross misrepresentation in my opinion.
Recipe for Chaos in Texas
Opinions on article by Mangus Colorado and MiMi Joy interspersed within it.
Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum is not qualified a Constitutional Scholar. She was a speech writer and then a Journalist - just wrong but like Publius Huldah she sells books, TV videos and makes speeches.
Saturday, January 09, 2016
7:53 AM
Below are some of her comments in an email sent to her followers. We that promote an Article V convention have placed some comments to her statements in Italics, quotation marks and bold lettering. Our very first comment precedes her entire email.
If an Article V Convention of States is not a way to stop the Liberal movement of destroying our Constitution, then why was Article V created in the first place?
Content of Mrs Schlafly's email:
Attacks on the U.S. Constitution are coming from all sides – sadly even some misguided conservatives have joined the Left on this issue.
"Mrs. Schlafly, IF this statement is true, then please name these "misguided" conservatives."
One liberal professor – in the pages of The New York Times – calls our Constitution “imbecilic.” Another claims it contains “archaic” and “evil provisions.”
One even urges us to “rewrite the Second Amendment.”
Out of exasperation with Barack Obama’s flouting of the Constitution – and the Republican Congress’ willingness to help carry out Obama’s liberal agenda – a few conservative authors and pundits have joined these left-wing opponents of our Constitution.
"To an extent some of the above could be possible."
Together they are promoting a national convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.
"This would be a Convention of States. Congress would NOT be involved in this particular process at the time."
These ill-advised conservatives wrongly believe a series of amendments can put our country on a wiser path.
"The above statement is blatantly broad!"
The authority for such a procedure is Article V of our Constitution, so they are calling their plan of action an Article V convention.
However, they are fooling themselves when they suggest that Article V creates a path to bypass Congress with a “convention of states.”
"Exactly how would the above two statements apply to what you say?"
In a convention setting, the U.S. Congress would get a major say in how the process will work.
The only power the states have under Article V is the opportunity to submit an “application” (petition) asking Congress to call a convention. Hundreds of such applications have been submitted over the years, with widely different purposes and wording. Many applications were later rescinded, and some purport to make the application valid for only a particular amendment such as a federal balanced budget or congressional term limits.
Article V states that Congress “shall” call a convention on the application of two-thirds of state legislatures, or thirty-four (34) of them.
"This is exactly what the Constitution states":
Article V
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.
From <http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/constitution-of-the-u-s.html>
"The balance of Mrs. Schafly's statements can be explained easily by reading the works of actual Constitutional Scholars in the Article V Project to Restore Liberty site."http://www.articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com
The key question is this: how will Congress count valid applications?
The answer is, we don’t know, and so far Congress has ignored them anyway.
If Congress ever decides to act, Article V gives Congress exclusive power to issue the “Call” for a convention to propose “amendments” (plural).
“The Call” is the governing document which determines all the basic rules such as where and when a convention will be held, who is eligible to be a delegate (will current office-holders be eligible?), how delegates will be apportioned, how expenses will be paid, and who will be the chairman.
Article V also gives Congress the power to determine whether the three-fourths of the states required for ratification of amendments can ratify by the state legislature’s action or by state conventions.
Do you trust the current U.S. Congress to determine the rules for how the Constitution will be rewritten?
The most important question to which there is no answer is this: how will convention delegates be apportioned?
Will each state have one vote (no matter how many delegates it sends), which was the rule in the 1787 Philadelphia convention?
Or will the convention be apportioned according to population (like Congress or the Electoral College)?
Nothing in Article V gives the states any power to make this fundamental decision. "This statement is completely false".
If Congress decides apportionment will be determined by population, more populous states will control the outcome.
Do you want California or New York deciding how the U.S. Constitution should read?
Article V doesn’t give any power to the states to propose constitutional amendments, or to decide which amendments will be considered by the convention. "This statement is completely false".
Now imagine Democratic and Republican conventions meeting in the same hall and trying to agree on constitutional changes. Imagine the gridlock in drafting a constitutional plank by caucuses led by Sarah Palin and Al Sharpton. "This statement is completely false".
Everything else about how an Article V Convention would function, including its agenda, is anybody’s guess.
Advocates of an Article V convention can hope and speculate, but they cannot assure us that any of their plans will come true.
If we follow the model of the 1787 Convention, will the deliberations be secret? Are you kidding me? Nothing is secret any more.
What are the plans to deal with protesters at what would surely be the biggest media event of the year, if not of the century? It will be flooded with agitators from the gun-control lobby, the gay lobby, the abortion lobby, the green lobby, plus experienced protesters trained and even paid with George Soros money.
There is no proof that the VIPs promoting an Article V convention have any first-hand knowledge of the politics or procedures of a contested national convention. Don’t they realize that the convention will set its own agenda and that states will have no say over which amendments are considered? "This statement is completely false".
To see how a convention chairman wielding the gavel can manipulate outcomes, take for instance the 2012 Democratic National Convention. "This statement is not even applicable."
A delegate tried to add a reference to God to the party platform, but the chairman ruthlessly called the vote wrong even though we all saw on television that the “Noes” won the vote.
The whole Article V “Convention of States” process is a prescription for political chaos. "This statement is completely false".
Alas, I don’t see any George Washingtons, James Madisons or Ben Franklins around today who could do as good a job as the Founding Fathers, and I’m worried about the men who think they can.
Phyllis Schlafly
Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum is not qualified a Constitutional Scholar. She was a speech writer and then a Journalist - just wrong but like Publius Huldah she sells books, TV videos and makes speeches.
Saturday, January 09, 2016
7:53 AM
Below are some of her comments in an email sent to her followers. We that promote an Article V convention have placed some comments to her statements in Italics, quotation marks and bold lettering. Our very first comment precedes her entire email.
If an Article V Convention of States is not a way to stop the Liberal movement of destroying our Constitution, then why was Article V created in the first place?
Content of Mrs Schlafly's email:
Attacks on the U.S. Constitution are coming from all sides – sadly even some misguided conservatives have joined the Left on this issue.
"Mrs. Schlafly, IF this statement is true, then please name these "misguided" conservatives."
One liberal professor – in the pages of The New York Times – calls our Constitution “imbecilic.” Another claims it contains “archaic” and “evil provisions.”
One even urges us to “rewrite the Second Amendment.”
Out of exasperation with Barack Obama’s flouting of the Constitution – and the Republican Congress’ willingness to help carry out Obama’s liberal agenda – a few conservative authors and pundits have joined these left-wing opponents of our Constitution.
"To an extent some of the above could be possible."
Together they are promoting a national convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.
"This would be a Convention of States. Congress would NOT be involved in this particular process at the time."
These ill-advised conservatives wrongly believe a series of amendments can put our country on a wiser path.
"The above statement is blatantly broad!"
The authority for such a procedure is Article V of our Constitution, so they are calling their plan of action an Article V convention.
However, they are fooling themselves when they suggest that Article V creates a path to bypass Congress with a “convention of states.”
"Exactly how would the above two statements apply to what you say?"
In a convention setting, the U.S. Congress would get a major say in how the process will work.
The only power the states have under Article V is the opportunity to submit an “application” (petition) asking Congress to call a convention. Hundreds of such applications have been submitted over the years, with widely different purposes and wording. Many applications were later rescinded, and some purport to make the application valid for only a particular amendment such as a federal balanced budget or congressional term limits.
Article V states that Congress “shall” call a convention on the application of two-thirds of state legislatures, or thirty-four (34) of them.
"This is exactly what the Constitution states":
Article V
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.
From <http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/constitution-of-the-u-s.html>
"The balance of Mrs. Schafly's statements can be explained easily by reading the works of actual Constitutional Scholars in the Article V Project to Restore Liberty site."http://www.articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com
The key question is this: how will Congress count valid applications?
The answer is, we don’t know, and so far Congress has ignored them anyway.
If Congress ever decides to act, Article V gives Congress exclusive power to issue the “Call” for a convention to propose “amendments” (plural).
“The Call” is the governing document which determines all the basic rules such as where and when a convention will be held, who is eligible to be a delegate (will current office-holders be eligible?), how delegates will be apportioned, how expenses will be paid, and who will be the chairman.
Article V also gives Congress the power to determine whether the three-fourths of the states required for ratification of amendments can ratify by the state legislature’s action or by state conventions.
Do you trust the current U.S. Congress to determine the rules for how the Constitution will be rewritten?
The most important question to which there is no answer is this: how will convention delegates be apportioned?
Will each state have one vote (no matter how many delegates it sends), which was the rule in the 1787 Philadelphia convention?
Or will the convention be apportioned according to population (like Congress or the Electoral College)?
Nothing in Article V gives the states any power to make this fundamental decision. "This statement is completely false".
If Congress decides apportionment will be determined by population, more populous states will control the outcome.
Do you want California or New York deciding how the U.S. Constitution should read?
Article V doesn’t give any power to the states to propose constitutional amendments, or to decide which amendments will be considered by the convention. "This statement is completely false".
Now imagine Democratic and Republican conventions meeting in the same hall and trying to agree on constitutional changes. Imagine the gridlock in drafting a constitutional plank by caucuses led by Sarah Palin and Al Sharpton. "This statement is completely false".
Everything else about how an Article V Convention would function, including its agenda, is anybody’s guess.
Advocates of an Article V convention can hope and speculate, but they cannot assure us that any of their plans will come true.
If we follow the model of the 1787 Convention, will the deliberations be secret? Are you kidding me? Nothing is secret any more.
What are the plans to deal with protesters at what would surely be the biggest media event of the year, if not of the century? It will be flooded with agitators from the gun-control lobby, the gay lobby, the abortion lobby, the green lobby, plus experienced protesters trained and even paid with George Soros money.
There is no proof that the VIPs promoting an Article V convention have any first-hand knowledge of the politics or procedures of a contested national convention. Don’t they realize that the convention will set its own agenda and that states will have no say over which amendments are considered? "This statement is completely false".
To see how a convention chairman wielding the gavel can manipulate outcomes, take for instance the 2012 Democratic National Convention. "This statement is not even applicable."
A delegate tried to add a reference to God to the party platform, but the chairman ruthlessly called the vote wrong even though we all saw on television that the “Noes” won the vote.
The whole Article V “Convention of States” process is a prescription for political chaos. "This statement is completely false".
Alas, I don’t see any George Washingtons, James Madisons or Ben Franklins around today who could do as good a job as the Founding Fathers, and I’m worried about the men who think they can.
Phyllis Schlafly
The Article V Convention Debate Between Publius and Lamberton
Suzanne Hamner December 5, 2014
The Convention of the States, an Article V Convention or a Constitutional Convention. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet," except this process is not rosy, nor would its outcome necessarily be sweet. Last evening, a debate regarding an Article V Convention took place in Marietta, Georgia, at the Cherokee Cattle Company to an almost standing room only crowd. The State of Georgia legislature added its support for a "convention" in order to propose amendments to the US Constitution which has concerned many in the state.
Lance Lamberton, who has worked closely in Georgia in favor of an Article V Convention for a "balanced budget" amendment, argued in favor of a convention while Publius Huldah argued in opposition. Mr. Lamberton was very gracious to accept the offer to debate Publius and there was no doubt listening to him that he firmly believes a convention to be the solution in order to "curb" the out of control Congress with regards to spending. However, Mr. Lamberton could offer no credible references to back his claims the states would control the convention and any outcome.
According to Mr. Lamberton, the convention should be looked at "as a tactic to get Congress to do what it was supposed to do...." Again, Mr. Lamberton was only discussing his support for an Article V Convention for a balanced budget amendment. Mr. Lamberton made an extensive argument in support of his position while calling those arguments opposing the convention "red herrings."
Mr. Lamberton outlined how the states would be in charge of the convention with the member delegates, outlined an oath these delegates would be required to take and how the states would retain prosecutorial discretion should a member delegate betray that oath or operate outside the established "rules."
Publius Huldah countered Mr. Lamberton's support for an Article V Convention to propose amendments skillfully with numerous references to the Federalist Papers, the Congressional Research Services report, and the historical precedent of the first convention to "revise the Articles of Confederation" that gave the United States its present Constitution. Her "Straight Talk About An Article V Convention" at her website contains the same information she shared with the attendees at last night's event.
A quiet gathering during Mr. Lamberton's portion of the presentation turned into astounding applause for the logic, the irrefutable proof and evidence against a convention presented by Publius Huldah.
Both individuals agree the federal government is out of control. Both individuals agree the Congress must be held accountable for their "activities"; however, the disagreement revolves around an Article V Convention as the remedy.
The attendees were allowed to ask questions of both participants. Suzanne Hamner, writer at Freedom Outpost, proposed this question to Mr. Lamberton.
"You stated that your focus was on the BBA and that we should look at this convention 'as a tactic to get Congress to do what it was supposed to do.' Considering that Congress treats the Constitution as a Chinese buffet with John Boehner dismissing impeachment because 'he doesn't like it' and Trey Gowdy's argument 'have you met Joe Biden,' can you show where in the Constitution, the Federalist papers, or any other document where a convention to propose amendments will get Congress to do what it is supposed to do?"
Mr. Lamberton responded saying it was in Article V of the Constitution.
Interrupting Mr. Lamberton, Ms. Hamner pointed out he was not answering the question.
Mr. Lamberton maintained the information was in Article V saying that three quarters of the states would need to ratify amendments.
Ms. Hamner pressed Mr. Lamberton on the context of the question, holding a pocket copy of the US Constitution turned to Article V, stating the question still had not been answered and asked him to show where it stated amendments would force Congress to "do what it was supposed to do."
Mr. Lamberton stated he had answered the question and it was in Article V.
Here is the context of Article V of the Constitution of the United States of America:
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 the ninth section of the first Article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
As an elementary reading comprehension strict teacher once stated, "If you take out what is inserted between the commas, the sentence should still make sense and maintain its intent."
So, let's look at Article V without what is inserted between the commas. "The Congress … shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or … shall call a convention for proposing amendments …."
Now, let's look at this method. "The Congress … on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments …."
So, in looking at Article V, the Congress either proposes amendments or calls a convention for proposing an amendment. The states can "apply" to Congress to call a convention; however, it is Congress who calls the convention to propose amendments – not the states.
Look at it from this point of view. You, as a consumer, may "apply" for a credit card with a credit card company. The credit card company then determines whether or not to issue you a credit card. The credit card company then uses its own established criteria for issuing or denying credit. If the credit card company approves you for credit, you are then bound by their terms for usage, interest, etc.
It's the same with an Article V Convention. The states, as sovereign entities, may "apply" to Congress to hold a convention. It is then up to Congress to determine whether or not to grant or deny that application. Congress would use its own criteria to grant or deny a convention. If the convention is approved, the Congress, as the grantor, would subject the convention to be bound by its terms and conditions.
Nowhere in Article V does it state that the states control anything other than the states must ratify amendments. If Congress calls a convention, nowhere does Article V state that the states will control that convention. Simply put, if Congress proposes amendments for ratification or calls a convention to propose amendments for ratification, Congress, being the body vested to make "all laws necessary and proper" to carry out its enumerated powers, controls the process.
Everyone on the differing sides of this issue agree that Congress is out of control, the federal government has grown too big, our posterity has been sold into debt slavery with an ever mounting deficit with no end in sight, and something has to be done to halt this process in order for this country to survive. From what Mr. Lamberton exhibited, his passion is great when voicing these irrefutable facts – that is unquestionable. And, maybe, Mr. Lamberton did not have enough time to fully express his side of the issue as time is limited in a debate. What cannot be disputed is Mr. Lamberton's sincerity, integrity, and graciousness to participate in a debate to defend the call for a convention.
But, more than integrity, sincerity, and graciousness is needed in order to fully defend opening up our Constitution to an amendment process by an Article V convention. What is needed from those in support of a convention is more than a debate – it is a true discussion on the "amendments" being proposed by the convention supporters: what they mean, how they are to be enforced, who is to enforce it and what is to be done should the "convention" fail. The discussion should not be made with "theories" on operation or how one thinks the convention should go.
Those in opposition to the convention operate on historical precedent, the content of our current Constitution and references from those who wrote it. Those opposed to a convention are only asking those in favor of a convention to show through references, that the states would control the convention, the states would establish the amendments, how the amendments would be enforced and followed, how any amendment limits Congress, and the convention would not deviate from "their" supposed intent.
In regards to a "balanced budget" amendment, the Constitution already limits federal spending to the enumerated powers – a limit the federal government has not followed. Congress spends funds on unconstitutional agencies and powers outside the enumerated. The federal government violates the Bill of Rights and several amendments to the Constitution expanded, not limited, the power of the federal government. Are we now to believe that history will not repeat itself? Are we to believe there is historical basis to conclude a balanced budget amendment would not expand federal government power and control?
Simply put, would you trust an individual known to be a thief with your bank account information? Of course not. So, why would you trust those who have already stolen some freedoms, speaking of state governments as well as the federal government, to uphold the freedoms left?
As the old saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."
http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/12/debate-publius-lamberton/#izkCb3XKQvDlxwTm.99
The Convention of the States, an Article V Convention or a Constitutional Convention. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet," except this process is not rosy, nor would its outcome necessarily be sweet. Last evening, a debate regarding an Article V Convention took place in Marietta, Georgia, at the Cherokee Cattle Company to an almost standing room only crowd. The State of Georgia legislature added its support for a "convention" in order to propose amendments to the US Constitution which has concerned many in the state.
Lance Lamberton, who has worked closely in Georgia in favor of an Article V Convention for a "balanced budget" amendment, argued in favor of a convention while Publius Huldah argued in opposition. Mr. Lamberton was very gracious to accept the offer to debate Publius and there was no doubt listening to him that he firmly believes a convention to be the solution in order to "curb" the out of control Congress with regards to spending. However, Mr. Lamberton could offer no credible references to back his claims the states would control the convention and any outcome.
According to Mr. Lamberton, the convention should be looked at "as a tactic to get Congress to do what it was supposed to do...." Again, Mr. Lamberton was only discussing his support for an Article V Convention for a balanced budget amendment. Mr. Lamberton made an extensive argument in support of his position while calling those arguments opposing the convention "red herrings."
Mr. Lamberton outlined how the states would be in charge of the convention with the member delegates, outlined an oath these delegates would be required to take and how the states would retain prosecutorial discretion should a member delegate betray that oath or operate outside the established "rules."
Publius Huldah countered Mr. Lamberton's support for an Article V Convention to propose amendments skillfully with numerous references to the Federalist Papers, the Congressional Research Services report, and the historical precedent of the first convention to "revise the Articles of Confederation" that gave the United States its present Constitution. Her "Straight Talk About An Article V Convention" at her website contains the same information she shared with the attendees at last night's event.
A quiet gathering during Mr. Lamberton's portion of the presentation turned into astounding applause for the logic, the irrefutable proof and evidence against a convention presented by Publius Huldah.
Both individuals agree the federal government is out of control. Both individuals agree the Congress must be held accountable for their "activities"; however, the disagreement revolves around an Article V Convention as the remedy.
The attendees were allowed to ask questions of both participants. Suzanne Hamner, writer at Freedom Outpost, proposed this question to Mr. Lamberton.
"You stated that your focus was on the BBA and that we should look at this convention 'as a tactic to get Congress to do what it was supposed to do.' Considering that Congress treats the Constitution as a Chinese buffet with John Boehner dismissing impeachment because 'he doesn't like it' and Trey Gowdy's argument 'have you met Joe Biden,' can you show where in the Constitution, the Federalist papers, or any other document where a convention to propose amendments will get Congress to do what it is supposed to do?"
Mr. Lamberton responded saying it was in Article V of the Constitution.
Interrupting Mr. Lamberton, Ms. Hamner pointed out he was not answering the question.
Mr. Lamberton maintained the information was in Article V saying that three quarters of the states would need to ratify amendments.
Ms. Hamner pressed Mr. Lamberton on the context of the question, holding a pocket copy of the US Constitution turned to Article V, stating the question still had not been answered and asked him to show where it stated amendments would force Congress to "do what it was supposed to do."
Mr. Lamberton stated he had answered the question and it was in Article V.
Here is the context of Article V of the Constitution of the United States of America:
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 the ninth section of the first Article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
As an elementary reading comprehension strict teacher once stated, "If you take out what is inserted between the commas, the sentence should still make sense and maintain its intent."
So, let's look at Article V without what is inserted between the commas. "The Congress … shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or … shall call a convention for proposing amendments …."
Now, let's look at this method. "The Congress … on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments …."
So, in looking at Article V, the Congress either proposes amendments or calls a convention for proposing an amendment. The states can "apply" to Congress to call a convention; however, it is Congress who calls the convention to propose amendments – not the states.
Look at it from this point of view. You, as a consumer, may "apply" for a credit card with a credit card company. The credit card company then determines whether or not to issue you a credit card. The credit card company then uses its own established criteria for issuing or denying credit. If the credit card company approves you for credit, you are then bound by their terms for usage, interest, etc.
It's the same with an Article V Convention. The states, as sovereign entities, may "apply" to Congress to hold a convention. It is then up to Congress to determine whether or not to grant or deny that application. Congress would use its own criteria to grant or deny a convention. If the convention is approved, the Congress, as the grantor, would subject the convention to be bound by its terms and conditions.
Nowhere in Article V does it state that the states control anything other than the states must ratify amendments. If Congress calls a convention, nowhere does Article V state that the states will control that convention. Simply put, if Congress proposes amendments for ratification or calls a convention to propose amendments for ratification, Congress, being the body vested to make "all laws necessary and proper" to carry out its enumerated powers, controls the process.
Everyone on the differing sides of this issue agree that Congress is out of control, the federal government has grown too big, our posterity has been sold into debt slavery with an ever mounting deficit with no end in sight, and something has to be done to halt this process in order for this country to survive. From what Mr. Lamberton exhibited, his passion is great when voicing these irrefutable facts – that is unquestionable. And, maybe, Mr. Lamberton did not have enough time to fully express his side of the issue as time is limited in a debate. What cannot be disputed is Mr. Lamberton's sincerity, integrity, and graciousness to participate in a debate to defend the call for a convention.
But, more than integrity, sincerity, and graciousness is needed in order to fully defend opening up our Constitution to an amendment process by an Article V convention. What is needed from those in support of a convention is more than a debate – it is a true discussion on the "amendments" being proposed by the convention supporters: what they mean, how they are to be enforced, who is to enforce it and what is to be done should the "convention" fail. The discussion should not be made with "theories" on operation or how one thinks the convention should go.
Those in opposition to the convention operate on historical precedent, the content of our current Constitution and references from those who wrote it. Those opposed to a convention are only asking those in favor of a convention to show through references, that the states would control the convention, the states would establish the amendments, how the amendments would be enforced and followed, how any amendment limits Congress, and the convention would not deviate from "their" supposed intent.
In regards to a "balanced budget" amendment, the Constitution already limits federal spending to the enumerated powers – a limit the federal government has not followed. Congress spends funds on unconstitutional agencies and powers outside the enumerated. The federal government violates the Bill of Rights and several amendments to the Constitution expanded, not limited, the power of the federal government. Are we now to believe that history will not repeat itself? Are we to believe there is historical basis to conclude a balanced budget amendment would not expand federal government power and control?
Simply put, would you trust an individual known to be a thief with your bank account information? Of course not. So, why would you trust those who have already stolen some freedoms, speaking of state governments as well as the federal government, to uphold the freedoms left?
As the old saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."
http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/12/debate-publius-lamberton/#izkCb3XKQvDlxwTm.99
A Great Article about an Article V endeavor!!
Why Liberals Cannot Realistically Hijack the Convention of States
Posted 09/11/2014 | Government Watch, In The News
By Michael Farris
The Convention of States Project proposed an Article V Convention limited by subject matter. The proposed subject matter is to limit the power of the federal government. The question is: Can the left hijack this process and obtain constitutional amendments that will grow the power of the federal government?
The realistic answer is: Absolutely not.
The reason this is true is found in the specific steps in the process and the current control of legislatures by political party.
There are three steps in the process: 1. Application; 2. Drafting Amendments; 3. Ratification.
The rule of one-state, one-vote applies to each stage.
There have been 400 Article V applications in the history of the country. But, we have never had a convention because there never has been an agreement among two-thirds of the states on the subject matter. When 34 states call a convention on the same subject, then and only then do we have a convention.
While the left can certainly propose a convention on their own, they do not have the necessary number of states to get to 34 applications.
There are currently 28 states where the GOP controls both houses of the state legislature. Governors have no say in the Article V process. There are 5 states where each party controls one house. There are 17 states where DEMs control both houses.
The left simply cannot get to 34 without gaining approval from all 5 split states and 12 more GOP states if they seek to call an Article V convention to expand the power of government. That is a political impossibility.
It is possible to get to 34 for a conservative convention by gaining support from most of the split states and two or three DEM states. For example, if the West Virginia legislature believes that they will get the power to set their own coal policy, then gaining approval from that DEM state becomes very plausible.
The same thing is true for stage two?drafting the amendments.
The subject matter of the convention was already established by the application stage, but the specific language of proposed amendments must be approved by 26 states. The 17 DEM states simply don?t have the votes to get language approved. They really can?t even stop good language if all GOP states agree.
For stage three, the possibility of gaining approval for a liberal constitutional amendment goes to absolute zero. At this stage, 38 states must vote to ratify. A state does not ratify unless both houses agree. Therefore, if a single house in 13 states votes NO on a particular amendment, it is defeated.
The math simply dictates that it is impossible to ratify a liberal constitutional amendment because there are 28 GOP states and in 5 other states the GOP controls one house. Getting one house in 13 out of 33 states to vote NO on a liberal amendment is a political certainty.
In theory, both sides can use the Article V process equally. But, in reality it is like saying that the Peace & Labor Party has the right to run its candidates for President. They may have the right to do so, but it is impossible for them to win. The same thing is true here.
Conservatives can win any battles that will be won. Since we don?t have 38 states, we can?t expect to ratify anything perceived as extremely conservative. But, we can gain victory for a package of conservative ideas with broad popular appeal like balanced budgets, term limits, spending and tax limitations.
http://amac.us/liberals-realistically-hijack-convention-states/
By Michael Farris
The Convention of States Project proposed an Article V Convention limited by subject matter. The proposed subject matter is to limit the power of the federal government. The question is: Can the left hijack this process and obtain constitutional amendments that will grow the power of the federal government?
The realistic answer is: Absolutely not.
The reason this is true is found in the specific steps in the process and the current control of legislatures by political party.
There are three steps in the process: 1. Application; 2. Drafting Amendments; 3. Ratification.
The rule of one-state, one-vote applies to each stage.
There have been 400 Article V applications in the history of the country. But, we have never had a convention because there never has been an agreement among two-thirds of the states on the subject matter. When 34 states call a convention on the same subject, then and only then do we have a convention.
While the left can certainly propose a convention on their own, they do not have the necessary number of states to get to 34 applications.
There are currently 28 states where the GOP controls both houses of the state legislature. Governors have no say in the Article V process. There are 5 states where each party controls one house. There are 17 states where DEMs control both houses.
The left simply cannot get to 34 without gaining approval from all 5 split states and 12 more GOP states if they seek to call an Article V convention to expand the power of government. That is a political impossibility.
It is possible to get to 34 for a conservative convention by gaining support from most of the split states and two or three DEM states. For example, if the West Virginia legislature believes that they will get the power to set their own coal policy, then gaining approval from that DEM state becomes very plausible.
The same thing is true for stage two?drafting the amendments.
The subject matter of the convention was already established by the application stage, but the specific language of proposed amendments must be approved by 26 states. The 17 DEM states simply don?t have the votes to get language approved. They really can?t even stop good language if all GOP states agree.
For stage three, the possibility of gaining approval for a liberal constitutional amendment goes to absolute zero. At this stage, 38 states must vote to ratify. A state does not ratify unless both houses agree. Therefore, if a single house in 13 states votes NO on a particular amendment, it is defeated.
The math simply dictates that it is impossible to ratify a liberal constitutional amendment because there are 28 GOP states and in 5 other states the GOP controls one house. Getting one house in 13 out of 33 states to vote NO on a liberal amendment is a political certainty.
In theory, both sides can use the Article V process equally. But, in reality it is like saying that the Peace & Labor Party has the right to run its candidates for President. They may have the right to do so, but it is impossible for them to win. The same thing is true here.
Conservatives can win any battles that will be won. Since we don?t have 38 states, we can?t expect to ratify anything perceived as extremely conservative. But, we can gain victory for a package of conservative ideas with broad popular appeal like balanced budgets, term limits, spending and tax limitations.
http://amac.us/liberals-realistically-hijack-convention-states/
