Article V Library
GREAT Article V resources
Constitutional Reform
University of Cincinnati College of Law and Harvard PDF on Article V
No, the Necessary and Proper Clause Does NOT Empower Congress to Control an Amendments Convention
August 23, 2014 by Rob Natelson
The Great Debate over Article V has finally begun!
The Great Debate over Article V has finally begun!
Knowing that former law professor Robert Natelson was privately attacking Compact for America for a year or so, we have been trying to elicit a full public debate over our differences regarding the proper interpretation of Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
Until December of last year, Natelson demurred, continuing to launch private attacks on Compact for America, while professing neutrality publicly, rather than engaging in a public debate.
But then the skirmishes began, as many do, around Christmas.
Natelson published an American Thinker piece attacking the Tenth Amendment as a foundation of state power in the Article V process.
We promptly responded with our American Thinker rebuttal, a full scale policy brief, and republication in the Federalist Society's blog.
We also continued to demonstrate the strong constitutional foundation of the Compact approach to Article V in five more policy briefs, with the last published on March 21, 2016, entitled, "Doesn't the Article V Convention Draft the Amendment?"
This prompted Natelson to finally fully emerge from the closet. He countered with an aggressive report on April 3, 2016, attacking the Compact approach is "clearly" unconstitutional.
This report clarified that the central dispute between Compact for America and Natelson is whether Article V confers power on its various named bodies (state legislatures, Congress, conventions) to the total exclusion of all autonomous sovereign power retained by the states as guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment.
Compact for America contends that states retain sovereign power to fill the gaps of Article V and ensure state control over the convention agenda through a legally binding agreement furnishing all particulars of the amendment by application and convention process. In attacking this "Compact approach" to Article V for several years now, Natelson has been declaring that historical custom and practice alone serves as the basis of ensuring state control over the state-initiated amendment process. This is despite the fact that the Supreme Court recently declared that historical convention practices alone do not establish constitutional law. Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510, 520-21 (2001).
This is a critically important dispute to resolve for the future of the Article V movement, which is why we welcome the emergence of a public debate.
Simply put, we believe Natelson's theory of Article V is fatally flawed and, despite his best intentions, effectively a Trojan Horse for abandoning the principle of state control over the state-initiated Article V amendment process. We're not alone in this observation.
Although internal strife in the Article V movement is disconcerting, it is much better that we get our theoretical ducks in a row before the real opposition emerges.
So, in response to Natelson's public attack on Compact for America, we have commenced the "Saving Article V from Natelson" series.
The first article in the series highlighted the fundamental incoherence of Natelson’s theory of Article V. Specifically, we observed that it is patently illogical for Natelson to claim, on the one hand, that state legislatures exercise Article V power to the exclusion of any sovereign power enjoyed by the states under the Tenth Amendment, while claiming, on the other hand, that pre-constitutional interstate convention practices and customs (which themselves originate from the exercise of state sovereignty) govern the Article V amendment process.
In the second article, we have observed that none of the cases cited by Natelson actually support his claim that the Compact approach to Article V is unconstitutional. Natelson’s case law menagerie is either totally irrelevant or otherwise actually supportive of the Compact approach. The Compact’s mechanics do not usurp, limit or obstruct any provision of Article V. They only ensure the application and call agenda is strictly observed, and the convention is organized and conducted exactly as it was meant to be organized and conducted under the plain text of Article V with no wiggle room at all.
More articles will follow as we proceed to the historic first full meeting of the Compact for a Balanced Budget Commission in Washington, DC on May 25, 2016, which will feature testimony by economist Stephen Moore, constitutional scholar Ilya Shapiro, and many others.
The Compact for America effort is the only Article V movement with an actual interstate agency fighting alongside us to advance the ball and fix the national debt. Please join us on May 25, 2016.
As you can imagine, all of this intensive educational work is pretty expensive, especially as we have been supporting legislative efforts in 10 states.
Please consider lending your support to the Compact for America initiative in any way that you can.
Very truly yours,
_________________________________________
Nick Dranias
President & Executive Director
Compact for America Educational Foundation, Inc.
2323 Clear Lake City Blvd., Ste. 180-190
Houston, TX 77062
Mobile: 602-228-2582
Office: 602-539-2703
Fax: 602-483-1658
Email: Nick.Dranias@CompactforAmerica.org
Website: www.CompactforAmerica.org
Knowing that former law professor Robert Natelson was privately attacking Compact for America for a year or so, we have been trying to elicit a full public debate over our differences regarding the proper interpretation of Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
Until December of last year, Natelson demurred, continuing to launch private attacks on Compact for America, while professing neutrality publicly, rather than engaging in a public debate.
But then the skirmishes began, as many do, around Christmas.
Natelson published an American Thinker piece attacking the Tenth Amendment as a foundation of state power in the Article V process.
We promptly responded with our American Thinker rebuttal, a full scale policy brief, and republication in the Federalist Society's blog.
We also continued to demonstrate the strong constitutional foundation of the Compact approach to Article V in five more policy briefs, with the last published on March 21, 2016, entitled, "Doesn't the Article V Convention Draft the Amendment?"
This prompted Natelson to finally fully emerge from the closet. He countered with an aggressive report on April 3, 2016, attacking the Compact approach is "clearly" unconstitutional.
This report clarified that the central dispute between Compact for America and Natelson is whether Article V confers power on its various named bodies (state legislatures, Congress, conventions) to the total exclusion of all autonomous sovereign power retained by the states as guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment.
Compact for America contends that states retain sovereign power to fill the gaps of Article V and ensure state control over the convention agenda through a legally binding agreement furnishing all particulars of the amendment by application and convention process. In attacking this "Compact approach" to Article V for several years now, Natelson has been declaring that historical custom and practice alone serves as the basis of ensuring state control over the state-initiated amendment process. This is despite the fact that the Supreme Court recently declared that historical convention practices alone do not establish constitutional law. Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510, 520-21 (2001).
This is a critically important dispute to resolve for the future of the Article V movement, which is why we welcome the emergence of a public debate.
Simply put, we believe Natelson's theory of Article V is fatally flawed and, despite his best intentions, effectively a Trojan Horse for abandoning the principle of state control over the state-initiated Article V amendment process. We're not alone in this observation.
Although internal strife in the Article V movement is disconcerting, it is much better that we get our theoretical ducks in a row before the real opposition emerges.
So, in response to Natelson's public attack on Compact for America, we have commenced the "Saving Article V from Natelson" series.
The first article in the series highlighted the fundamental incoherence of Natelson’s theory of Article V. Specifically, we observed that it is patently illogical for Natelson to claim, on the one hand, that state legislatures exercise Article V power to the exclusion of any sovereign power enjoyed by the states under the Tenth Amendment, while claiming, on the other hand, that pre-constitutional interstate convention practices and customs (which themselves originate from the exercise of state sovereignty) govern the Article V amendment process.
In the second article, we have observed that none of the cases cited by Natelson actually support his claim that the Compact approach to Article V is unconstitutional. Natelson’s case law menagerie is either totally irrelevant or otherwise actually supportive of the Compact approach. The Compact’s mechanics do not usurp, limit or obstruct any provision of Article V. They only ensure the application and call agenda is strictly observed, and the convention is organized and conducted exactly as it was meant to be organized and conducted under the plain text of Article V with no wiggle room at all.
More articles will follow as we proceed to the historic first full meeting of the Compact for a Balanced Budget Commission in Washington, DC on May 25, 2016, which will feature testimony by economist Stephen Moore, constitutional scholar Ilya Shapiro, and many others.
The Compact for America effort is the only Article V movement with an actual interstate agency fighting alongside us to advance the ball and fix the national debt. Please join us on May 25, 2016.
As you can imagine, all of this intensive educational work is pretty expensive, especially as we have been supporting legislative efforts in 10 states.
Please consider lending your support to the Compact for America initiative in any way that you can.
Very truly yours,
_________________________________________
Nick Dranias
President & Executive Director
Compact for America Educational Foundation, Inc.
2323 Clear Lake City Blvd., Ste. 180-190
Houston, TX 77062
Mobile: 602-228-2582
Office: 602-539-2703
Fax: 602-483-1658
Email: Nick.Dranias@CompactforAmerica.org
Website: www.CompactforAmerica.org
Free audiobook - know thy enemy . . for they are among us.
The Communist Manifesto - FULL Audio Book - by Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels - The Communist Manifesto was conceived as an outline of the basic beliefs of the...
This opens many doors in the Article V process.
http://www.conventionofstates.com/fec_sides_with_convention_of_states_project
Rand Paul's call for an Article V Convention: http://iamamerican.info/advocate1.htm
President Ronald Reagan Calls for a Balanced Budget Amendment: http://iamamerican.info/advocate.htm
Article V Process by Loren Enns: http://www.operationbba4usa.org/webbriefing1.htm
Tennessee Passes BBA Article V Resolution: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152266259145280&set=vb.60237925279&&theater
Article V Pros & Cons: http://new.livestream.com/accounts/1786944/events/2693276
http://www.compactforamerica.org/#!Saving-Article-V-from-Natelson-A-Convention-of-States-Requires-States/c213a/5747ee850cf2f56abe505fd4
Knowledge is Power! We are running out of time. Let’s save our country my friend!
In the pursuit a Balance Budget Amendment, Stopping National Bankruptcy and Saving the American Dream for All
http://www.conventionofstates.com/fec_sides_with_convention_of_states_project
Rand Paul's call for an Article V Convention: http://iamamerican.info/advocate1.htm
President Ronald Reagan Calls for a Balanced Budget Amendment: http://iamamerican.info/advocate.htm
Article V Process by Loren Enns: http://www.operationbba4usa.org/webbriefing1.htm
Tennessee Passes BBA Article V Resolution: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152266259145280&set=vb.60237925279&&theater
Article V Pros & Cons: http://new.livestream.com/accounts/1786944/events/2693276
http://www.compactforamerica.org/#!Saving-Article-V-from-Natelson-A-Convention-of-States-Requires-States/c213a/5747ee850cf2f56abe505fd4
Knowledge is Power! We are running out of time. Let’s save our country my friend!
In the pursuit a Balance Budget Amendment, Stopping National Bankruptcy and Saving the American Dream for All
With ALEC's Leadership, It's Time for the Article V Movement to Unite in One Bill
The three major efforts to organize the states to advance constitutional
amendments have their policy and theoretical differences. Legislative
bandwidth constraints have forced us to emphasize those differences.
But did you know that we can all get along?
Did you know that each effort can make the other stronger?
It's true. As underscored by a recent open letter by the American
Legislative Exchange Council, all three efforts deserve your support.
You can read the open letter by ALEC here.
<https://www.alec.org/article/alec-reaffirms-support-for-article-v-initiatives/>
In the spirit of ALEC's effort to unite support among advocates for Compact
for America, Convention of States and the Balanced Budget Amendment Task
Force, Representative Lewis Moore and Senator AJ Griffin have offered in
Oklahoma to "piggy back" the Convention of States and Balanced Budget
Amendment Task Force resolutions on their bills advancing the Balanced
Budget Compact. This is part of an initiative suggested by former Alaska
Lt. Governor Mead Treadwell, also a Balanced Budget Compact Commissioner,
for deployment in Wyoming and West Virginia as well.
We can do this because the Compact is a bill, and bills can carry related
subject resolutions. "The larger can swallow the smaller." This gives the
three movements a huge opportunity to underscore the synergies between them.
With one vote, legislators in Oklahoma could advance the three most
powerful efforts to check and balance Washington!
We believe that including the BBATF and COS Article V applications in the
same bill as the Compact for a Balanced Budget could be hugely powerful in
states where we are being forced to vie for legislative bandwidth.
The reason is that all three efforts reflect a “common, closely akin theme
or purpose,” in seeking the organization of a convention of states at least
in substantial part for the shared purpose of proposing and ultimately
ratifying a federal Balanced Budget Amendment.
Additionally, the three efforts are mutually reinforcing.
For example, the CBB’s Balanced Budget Amendment could furnish a
ready-made, poll-tested, expert-vetted amendment to be proposed by a
convention organized under the COS application or, depending on the
aggregation theory, even under the BBATF application.
Further, those who want to maximize the chances of a balanced budget
amendment being proposed would want to hedge the litigation risks that are
uniquely associated with the aggregation theory utilized by the BBATF
application approach by having a fallback in the CBB or COS approach.
Likewise, the CBB and BBATF approaches could furnish synergy for the COS
approach by proving the concept of an Article V convention for more limited
and cost efficient purposes and thereby make it more politically plausible
that a broad agenda convention would garner sufficient support.
Finally, in the event that courts wrongly derail both the CBB and BBATF,
the movement can fall back on the COS approach.
For these reasons, it would be natural for a legislative supporter of one
of the three components to want to support all three components. There
would be nothing misleading about including all three approaches in the
same bill; and no one could claim they were forced into a binary choice
about a package of unrelated matters.
In the spirit of ALEC's leadership, the Article V movement could unite.
All legislative leadership needs to do is allow all three efforts to unite
in one piece of legislation, instead of forcing a binary choice among them
that is completely unnecessary and counterproductive.
Very truly yours,
________________________________________
Nick Dranias
President & Executive Director
*Compact for America Educational Foundation, Inc.*
Mobile: 602-228-2582
Office: 602-539-2703
Fax: 602-483-1658
Email: Nick.Dranias@CompactforAmerica.org
Website: www.CompactforAmerica.org
amendments have their policy and theoretical differences. Legislative
bandwidth constraints have forced us to emphasize those differences.
But did you know that we can all get along?
Did you know that each effort can make the other stronger?
It's true. As underscored by a recent open letter by the American
Legislative Exchange Council, all three efforts deserve your support.
You can read the open letter by ALEC here.
<https://www.alec.org/article/alec-reaffirms-support-for-article-v-initiatives/>
In the spirit of ALEC's effort to unite support among advocates for Compact
for America, Convention of States and the Balanced Budget Amendment Task
Force, Representative Lewis Moore and Senator AJ Griffin have offered in
Oklahoma to "piggy back" the Convention of States and Balanced Budget
Amendment Task Force resolutions on their bills advancing the Balanced
Budget Compact. This is part of an initiative suggested by former Alaska
Lt. Governor Mead Treadwell, also a Balanced Budget Compact Commissioner,
for deployment in Wyoming and West Virginia as well.
We can do this because the Compact is a bill, and bills can carry related
subject resolutions. "The larger can swallow the smaller." This gives the
three movements a huge opportunity to underscore the synergies between them.
With one vote, legislators in Oklahoma could advance the three most
powerful efforts to check and balance Washington!
We believe that including the BBATF and COS Article V applications in the
same bill as the Compact for a Balanced Budget could be hugely powerful in
states where we are being forced to vie for legislative bandwidth.
The reason is that all three efforts reflect a “common, closely akin theme
or purpose,” in seeking the organization of a convention of states at least
in substantial part for the shared purpose of proposing and ultimately
ratifying a federal Balanced Budget Amendment.
Additionally, the three efforts are mutually reinforcing.
For example, the CBB’s Balanced Budget Amendment could furnish a
ready-made, poll-tested, expert-vetted amendment to be proposed by a
convention organized under the COS application or, depending on the
aggregation theory, even under the BBATF application.
Further, those who want to maximize the chances of a balanced budget
amendment being proposed would want to hedge the litigation risks that are
uniquely associated with the aggregation theory utilized by the BBATF
application approach by having a fallback in the CBB or COS approach.
Likewise, the CBB and BBATF approaches could furnish synergy for the COS
approach by proving the concept of an Article V convention for more limited
and cost efficient purposes and thereby make it more politically plausible
that a broad agenda convention would garner sufficient support.
Finally, in the event that courts wrongly derail both the CBB and BBATF,
the movement can fall back on the COS approach.
For these reasons, it would be natural for a legislative supporter of one
of the three components to want to support all three components. There
would be nothing misleading about including all three approaches in the
same bill; and no one could claim they were forced into a binary choice
about a package of unrelated matters.
In the spirit of ALEC's leadership, the Article V movement could unite.
All legislative leadership needs to do is allow all three efforts to unite
in one piece of legislation, instead of forcing a binary choice among them
that is completely unnecessary and counterproductive.
Very truly yours,
________________________________________
Nick Dranias
President & Executive Director
*Compact for America Educational Foundation, Inc.*
Mobile: 602-228-2582
Office: 602-539-2703
Fax: 602-483-1658
Email: Nick.Dranias@CompactforAmerica.org
Website: www.CompactforAmerica.org
Article V http://article5library.org/
ContentsConvention ApplicationsApplications by SubjectResearch by CongressSearch the LibrarySearch Engine ContentsCitation GuideDocuments Wanted
Other ResourcesArticle V BibliographyThe Research WikiOther LinksHouse Clerk List
About the LibraryIntroductionAcknowledgmentsFAQContact
Welcome to the Article V LibraryArticle V of the Constitution, and the amendment process it sets forth, is a fascinating area of study for legal scholars. Unfortunately, researchers often experience a great deal of frustration when delving into Article V topics because of difficulties in accessing even relatively recent source material. Many documents are available in differing versions, with different citations. Congress maintains no consistent records* and has no standard procedures for handling state convention applications. Large portions of those documents are often not found in the common database services used by researchers. While collections have been made, articles written, and reprints published, each one to date has included errors and omissions that have perplexed and exasperated later generations of researchers. To say that many wild geese have been pursued to exhaustion is a vast understatement. In addition, the end product of most researchers’ work is necessarily limited in length and scope, so that the complete body of useful information gathered never makes it into print.
The Article V Library was started so that researchers could benefit from the notes and research trails already explored by previous generations. The goal is to have copies of all original source materials made available electronically, with accurate citations, research notes, and searchable by full text. We intend to do what Congress has failed to do: Maintain a complete and public index of all state Article V applications and related documents. We hope that you find it useful.
If you have any comments, or wish to suggest any material to be added, please feel free to use the contact form..
* House rules enacted in January 2015 (H.R. 5 § (3)(c)) established that the chair of the Judiciary Committee shall designate certain state Article V convention applications and recissions for public availability and the clerk of the house to maintain that public listing.
Please see the disclaimer and terms of use before accessing or using documents from this site. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License.
http://article5library.org/
FEC sides with Convention of States: D.C. can't control delegates
Posted by Anne Reiner on December 15, 2014
Earlier this year, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) was petitioned to revise its definition of "federal office" to include delegates to a Convention of States. Such a measure would bring convention delegates under the control of Washington, D.C., and make them subject to FEC regulations.
Obviously, such a measure goes against the Framers' intent for Article V, and runs counter to the implicit purpose of a Convention of States--namely, to provide a way to reform a government that will not reform itself.
Over the last few months, our legal team has been crafting an airtight argument protecting the integrity of an Article V Amending Convention.
We argued first, that the definition of "federal office" was established by Congress, and therefore not subject to change by the FEC’s initiative; and second, that it would be entirely inappropriate, as a constitutional matter, for either Congress or the agency to assert authority over the selection of Article V delegates.
Today we learned the FEC sided with our arguments. This is a huge victory for the Convention of States movement, and we're thankful for the brilliant legal minds that helped make it happen.
For full details, you can read our response to the FEC petition here and the FEC ruling here.
Earlier this year, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) was petitioned to revise its definition of "federal office" to include delegates to a Convention of States. Such a measure would bring convention delegates under the control of Washington, D.C., and make them subject to FEC regulations.
Obviously, such a measure goes against the Framers' intent for Article V, and runs counter to the implicit purpose of a Convention of States--namely, to provide a way to reform a government that will not reform itself.
Over the last few months, our legal team has been crafting an airtight argument protecting the integrity of an Article V Amending Convention.
We argued first, that the definition of "federal office" was established by Congress, and therefore not subject to change by the FEC’s initiative; and second, that it would be entirely inappropriate, as a constitutional matter, for either Congress or the agency to assert authority over the selection of Article V delegates.
Today we learned the FEC sided with our arguments. This is a huge victory for the Convention of States movement, and we're thankful for the brilliant legal minds that helped make it happen.
For full details, you can read our response to the FEC petition here and the FEC ruling here.
ARTICLE V IS A LIMIT ON CONGRESS NOT THE STATES
U.S. Constitution - Article 5
Article 5 - Amendment
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.
Please note the use of the directive "Congress SHALL" the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers gave no room for Congress to block the States from presenting AMENDMENTS. Most of those that are against using Article V create a huge laundry list of doom and gloom items that would give Congress the power to set formate, number of delegates, subjects, selection of delegates, Court reviews and changes.
These are all conjured up maybe, if, could be, dangerous, open, unlimited, can change the entire Constitution, will end our Constitution, need to use elections to make changes, does not comply with the Federalist papers, Court cases say it can not be limited, and the list goes on and on. Depending which group making the presentation they will use case law to change Article V simple clear language.
Read the actual words of the Constitution Article V above and share with us how and where any such things are required, suggested or even allowed. Clearly Congress upon the vote of 2/3 can put forth an amendment and clearly the State legislatures of 2/3 can put forth an amendment. What is Congress now empowered to act upon?
It "SHALL" send the amendment to the many States for a vote by the legislature to RATIFY, this requres 3/4 of the States to approve exactly as presented. Then Congress must use that as the LAW OF THE LAND in the future.
Or in the alternative the States 2/3 can present an amendment for the Congress to send out for a vote to Ratify by 3/4 approval. What happens if the State Legislatures of 3/4 plus vote to create an amendment - congress "SHALL" again send it our for a vote to Ratify by the 50 State legislatures and upon the vote of to approve by 3/4 of the many States become the law of the land.
Notice that none of the above actions require approval of any of the Three branches of Government. Congress is again LIMITED to serve as a CLERK without a vote in the States amendment option. Not only is the Federal Government and Congress Limited they are instructed to stay out of the process if the States use the State Convention option.
States determine what a CONVENTION is comprised of as in the case of the 21st amendment the Congress sent the amendment to the State Legislatures for them to use the Convention method to hold a vote in each legislature to RATIFY. The States used the entire Legislature as the Convention. I find no records of any of the panic arguments presented by those that do not want to repeal offending Amendments - 14th, 16th and 17th. They never present a method to CORRECT as the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers called the State option of the Article V powers.
In closing America is operating as a Social Democracy ruled by Man and majority votes. Congress now uses a 50% plus one vote to approve any law [statute] they desire as they did with ACA. All three branches have usurped powers so for all intents and purposes we have no Constitution at this time limiting the Central Federal government.
Here is what was said about using general clauses such as the General Welfare or the Necessary and Proper to expand LIMITED powers. It appears that old Federalist Paper author Hamilton is again behind the expansion of the General Welfare and the Necessary and proper Clauses - keep in mind that he supported a King like Presidnet and very strong Federal government.
Here are some supporting links:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/304451/limiting-general-welfare-clause-andrew-c-mccarthy
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag29_user.html
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/a1_8_1s25.html
http://www.claremont.org/basicPageArticle/restoring-the-general-to-the-general-welfare-clause/#.VDAUGWddWSo
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Congressional_power
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/nec&proper.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause
Article 5 - Amendment
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.
Please note the use of the directive "Congress SHALL" the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers gave no room for Congress to block the States from presenting AMENDMENTS. Most of those that are against using Article V create a huge laundry list of doom and gloom items that would give Congress the power to set formate, number of delegates, subjects, selection of delegates, Court reviews and changes.
These are all conjured up maybe, if, could be, dangerous, open, unlimited, can change the entire Constitution, will end our Constitution, need to use elections to make changes, does not comply with the Federalist papers, Court cases say it can not be limited, and the list goes on and on. Depending which group making the presentation they will use case law to change Article V simple clear language.
Read the actual words of the Constitution Article V above and share with us how and where any such things are required, suggested or even allowed. Clearly Congress upon the vote of 2/3 can put forth an amendment and clearly the State legislatures of 2/3 can put forth an amendment. What is Congress now empowered to act upon?
It "SHALL" send the amendment to the many States for a vote by the legislature to RATIFY, this requres 3/4 of the States to approve exactly as presented. Then Congress must use that as the LAW OF THE LAND in the future.
Or in the alternative the States 2/3 can present an amendment for the Congress to send out for a vote to Ratify by 3/4 approval. What happens if the State Legislatures of 3/4 plus vote to create an amendment - congress "SHALL" again send it our for a vote to Ratify by the 50 State legislatures and upon the vote of to approve by 3/4 of the many States become the law of the land.
Notice that none of the above actions require approval of any of the Three branches of Government. Congress is again LIMITED to serve as a CLERK without a vote in the States amendment option. Not only is the Federal Government and Congress Limited they are instructed to stay out of the process if the States use the State Convention option.
States determine what a CONVENTION is comprised of as in the case of the 21st amendment the Congress sent the amendment to the State Legislatures for them to use the Convention method to hold a vote in each legislature to RATIFY. The States used the entire Legislature as the Convention. I find no records of any of the panic arguments presented by those that do not want to repeal offending Amendments - 14th, 16th and 17th. They never present a method to CORRECT as the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers called the State option of the Article V powers.
In closing America is operating as a Social Democracy ruled by Man and majority votes. Congress now uses a 50% plus one vote to approve any law [statute] they desire as they did with ACA. All three branches have usurped powers so for all intents and purposes we have no Constitution at this time limiting the Central Federal government.
Here is what was said about using general clauses such as the General Welfare or the Necessary and Proper to expand LIMITED powers. It appears that old Federalist Paper author Hamilton is again behind the expansion of the General Welfare and the Necessary and proper Clauses - keep in mind that he supported a King like Presidnet and very strong Federal government.
Here are some supporting links:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/304451/limiting-general-welfare-clause-andrew-c-mccarthy
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag29_user.html
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/a1_8_1s25.html
http://www.claremont.org/basicPageArticle/restoring-the-general-to-the-general-welfare-clause/#.VDAUGWddWSo
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Congressional_power
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/nec&proper.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause
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/
Pulling the Constitution's emergency cord
Mark Alspaugh August 19, 2014 3:00 a.m.
Article V of the Constitution provides a state-led way for “we the people,” working through our state legislatures, to propose amendments to the Constitution that can stop its systematic dismantling.
It provides that “The Congress ... on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments. ...” It is a constitutional “emergency cord provision” rapidly gaining momentum nationwide.
Unfortunately, polemics previously published here advance a cacophony of baseless and misleading arguments opposing an Article V convention. This commentary stands on the Jeffersonian principle that an enlightened citizenry is indispensable for proper functioning of our republic. Unlike arguments that rely on the tyranny of so-called expert opinion offered without rational proof, these arguments can be fact- checked.
Opponents label an Article V convention as a “constitutional convention.” While the label may contain a grain of truth, without clarification it is woefully, perhaps dangerously, inaccurate.
Numerous baseless beliefs and fear-mongering hobgoblins flow from such inaccuracy.
Political scientists describe three types of “constitutional conventions.” A “general constitutional convention” is one called to create the first constitution of a political unit or to replace an existing constitution. An “unlimited constitutional convention” is one called to revise an existing constitution to the extent necessary. Finally, a “limited constitutional convention” is one restricted to amending a current constitution within the scope of the convention’s call, the mandate establishing the convention.
Using the phrase “constitutional convention,” without necessary clarification, leads many to visualize a 1787-like “general constitutional convention” where everything is on the table, rather than the type actually mandated by the Constitution, a convention of the third kind.
A related question is, “Can the subject matter of an Article V Amending Convention be limited?” While opponents claim the answer is no, numerous authoritative sources say yes. For instance, the American Bar Association holds that, “... Congress has the power to establish procedures which would limit a convention’s authority to a specific subject matter where the legislatures of two-thirds of the states seek a convention limited to that subject.”
The Article V convention is a creature of the states. They alone define its scope by their applications. Congress can certainly assure that any amendments proposed are within the scope of the applications and, if not, decline to send them forward for ratification.
The “runaway convention” hobgoblin that continues to surface in these conversations is a scaremongering myth.
An Article V amending convention cannot change one word of the Constitution. It can only propose amendments.
To become part of the Constitution, any amendments proposed must be ratified by at least three-fourths of the states (38), a process identical to that applied to amendments originating in Congress.
The possibility that a convention of states could be hijacked by political fringe groups dedicated to imposition of an ideologically focused agenda to rewrite the Constitution, decimate the Bill of Rights, and destroy our liberties – in plain view of all the states, 38 of which would need to ratify their actions – is preposterous. Would Indiana join 37 other states to ratify amendments doing away with the Bill of Rights? Of course not. The Congressional Research Service, a creature of Congress, agrees and calls the “runaway convention” shenanigan impossible.
The works of nationally recognized constitutional scholar, professor Robert Natelson, thoroughly rebut the claim that the convention of 1787 was a runaway convention. Moreover, the call for it did not even originate in the Continental Congress that had no power to call a convention, but instead came from the Annapolis Convention of 1786 at a time when the fledgling and powerless government of the United States was on the verge of collapse.
The Convention of States Project does not seek a specific amendment.
It suggests a convention limited to proposing amendments that “impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials.” Think balanced budget, regulation limits, term limits, fairer taxation, meaningful oversight and real accountability in a total package of restraints.
Both major parties are complicit in the constitutional problems our country faces today and it will take an alliance of patriots from all political persuasions to fix our broken government. An Article V Convention of States is perhaps the last, best hope of saving the republic. Patriots who want to know more are encouraged to visit www.conventionofstates.com and join the movement.
Mark Alspaugh is Arkansas state director for the Convention of States Project. He wrote this for The Journal Gazette.
http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20140819/EDIT07/308199996/0/SEARCH
Article V of the Constitution provides a state-led way for “we the people,” working through our state legislatures, to propose amendments to the Constitution that can stop its systematic dismantling.
It provides that “The Congress ... on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments. ...” It is a constitutional “emergency cord provision” rapidly gaining momentum nationwide.
Unfortunately, polemics previously published here advance a cacophony of baseless and misleading arguments opposing an Article V convention. This commentary stands on the Jeffersonian principle that an enlightened citizenry is indispensable for proper functioning of our republic. Unlike arguments that rely on the tyranny of so-called expert opinion offered without rational proof, these arguments can be fact- checked.
Opponents label an Article V convention as a “constitutional convention.” While the label may contain a grain of truth, without clarification it is woefully, perhaps dangerously, inaccurate.
Numerous baseless beliefs and fear-mongering hobgoblins flow from such inaccuracy.
Political scientists describe three types of “constitutional conventions.” A “general constitutional convention” is one called to create the first constitution of a political unit or to replace an existing constitution. An “unlimited constitutional convention” is one called to revise an existing constitution to the extent necessary. Finally, a “limited constitutional convention” is one restricted to amending a current constitution within the scope of the convention’s call, the mandate establishing the convention.
Using the phrase “constitutional convention,” without necessary clarification, leads many to visualize a 1787-like “general constitutional convention” where everything is on the table, rather than the type actually mandated by the Constitution, a convention of the third kind.
A related question is, “Can the subject matter of an Article V Amending Convention be limited?” While opponents claim the answer is no, numerous authoritative sources say yes. For instance, the American Bar Association holds that, “... Congress has the power to establish procedures which would limit a convention’s authority to a specific subject matter where the legislatures of two-thirds of the states seek a convention limited to that subject.”
The Article V convention is a creature of the states. They alone define its scope by their applications. Congress can certainly assure that any amendments proposed are within the scope of the applications and, if not, decline to send them forward for ratification.
The “runaway convention” hobgoblin that continues to surface in these conversations is a scaremongering myth.
An Article V amending convention cannot change one word of the Constitution. It can only propose amendments.
To become part of the Constitution, any amendments proposed must be ratified by at least three-fourths of the states (38), a process identical to that applied to amendments originating in Congress.
The possibility that a convention of states could be hijacked by political fringe groups dedicated to imposition of an ideologically focused agenda to rewrite the Constitution, decimate the Bill of Rights, and destroy our liberties – in plain view of all the states, 38 of which would need to ratify their actions – is preposterous. Would Indiana join 37 other states to ratify amendments doing away with the Bill of Rights? Of course not. The Congressional Research Service, a creature of Congress, agrees and calls the “runaway convention” shenanigan impossible.
The works of nationally recognized constitutional scholar, professor Robert Natelson, thoroughly rebut the claim that the convention of 1787 was a runaway convention. Moreover, the call for it did not even originate in the Continental Congress that had no power to call a convention, but instead came from the Annapolis Convention of 1786 at a time when the fledgling and powerless government of the United States was on the verge of collapse.
The Convention of States Project does not seek a specific amendment.
It suggests a convention limited to proposing amendments that “impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials.” Think balanced budget, regulation limits, term limits, fairer taxation, meaningful oversight and real accountability in a total package of restraints.
Both major parties are complicit in the constitutional problems our country faces today and it will take an alliance of patriots from all political persuasions to fix our broken government. An Article V Convention of States is perhaps the last, best hope of saving the republic. Patriots who want to know more are encouraged to visit www.conventionofstates.com and join the movement.
Mark Alspaugh is Arkansas state director for the Convention of States Project. He wrote this for The Journal Gazette.
http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20140819/EDIT07/308199996/0/SEARCH
Liberty First
http://krisannehall.co
This is the Liberty First weekly digest. This digest is a compiliation of articles & podcasts from to March 21st.
KrisAnne Hall is Liberty's Lobbyist
1. Congress on Article V - 2014-03-17 11:38:28-04 (Podcast)
We are going to start a series on Article V Conventions. Only this series is going to be very unique. Not the same old rehash of pro-Article V vs. con-Article V. This is a brand new discussion…one that should have happened a long time ago. We are going to discuss our current Congress’s perspective regarding […]
The post Congress on Article V appeared first on Liberty First.
2. Article V Convention Part 2 - 2014-03-18 11:40:16-04 (Podcast)
By popular demand…. We are going to start a series on Article V Conventions. Only this series is going to be very unique. Not the same old rehash of pro-Article V vs. con-Article V. This is a brand new discussion…one that should have happened a long time ago. We are going to discuss our current […]
The post Article V Convention Part 2 appeared first on Liberty First.
3. Article V Convention Part 3 - 2014-03-19 10:53:37-04 (Podcast)
Do you want an open or limited Article V Convention? What Kind of Article V Convention does Congress think we should have? That is the question for today’s show. Proponents of an Art. V Convention claim we can limit the convention to specific amendments. What does the Congressional research report tell us Congress believes? What […]
The post Article V Convention Part 3 appeared first on Liberty First.
4. Article V Convention Part 4 - 2014-03-20 10:37:28-04 (Podcast)
Continuing our series on “What Does Congress Believe An Article V Convention Should Look Like”, we discuss the question: “Is Congress required to submit all amendments proposed by the convention to the States for approval and ratification?” Again, this is about Congressional opinion, NOT the Constitution and NOT the framers intent. We need to know […]
The post Article V Convention Part 4 appeared first on Liberty First.
5. Article V Convention Part V - 2014-03-21 09:37:46-04 (Podcast)
Today is the last installment of our series, “What Does Congress Believe An Article V Convention Should Look Like”. We will do a quick review and look at Congress’ answer for our final two questions, What role does the President play in an Article V Convention? and Who are the delegates and what is their […]
The post Article V Convention Part V appeared first on Liberty First.
Thank You for Supporting Liberty
Constitutional Education & Consulting, Inc., PO Box 26, Wellborn, FL 32094, USA
This is the Liberty First weekly digest. This digest is a compiliation of articles & podcasts from to March 21st.
KrisAnne Hall is Liberty's Lobbyist
1. Congress on Article V - 2014-03-17 11:38:28-04 (Podcast)
We are going to start a series on Article V Conventions. Only this series is going to be very unique. Not the same old rehash of pro-Article V vs. con-Article V. This is a brand new discussion…one that should have happened a long time ago. We are going to discuss our current Congress’s perspective regarding […]
The post Congress on Article V appeared first on Liberty First.
2. Article V Convention Part 2 - 2014-03-18 11:40:16-04 (Podcast)
By popular demand…. We are going to start a series on Article V Conventions. Only this series is going to be very unique. Not the same old rehash of pro-Article V vs. con-Article V. This is a brand new discussion…one that should have happened a long time ago. We are going to discuss our current […]
The post Article V Convention Part 2 appeared first on Liberty First.
3. Article V Convention Part 3 - 2014-03-19 10:53:37-04 (Podcast)
Do you want an open or limited Article V Convention? What Kind of Article V Convention does Congress think we should have? That is the question for today’s show. Proponents of an Art. V Convention claim we can limit the convention to specific amendments. What does the Congressional research report tell us Congress believes? What […]
The post Article V Convention Part 3 appeared first on Liberty First.
4. Article V Convention Part 4 - 2014-03-20 10:37:28-04 (Podcast)
Continuing our series on “What Does Congress Believe An Article V Convention Should Look Like”, we discuss the question: “Is Congress required to submit all amendments proposed by the convention to the States for approval and ratification?” Again, this is about Congressional opinion, NOT the Constitution and NOT the framers intent. We need to know […]
The post Article V Convention Part 4 appeared first on Liberty First.
5. Article V Convention Part V - 2014-03-21 09:37:46-04 (Podcast)
Today is the last installment of our series, “What Does Congress Believe An Article V Convention Should Look Like”. We will do a quick review and look at Congress’ answer for our final two questions, What role does the President play in an Article V Convention? and Who are the delegates and what is their […]
The post Article V Convention Part V appeared first on Liberty First.
Thank You for Supporting Liberty
Constitutional Education & Consulting, Inc., PO Box 26, Wellborn, FL 32094, USA
21st amendment ratification and the Founding convention
The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution: As Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787 : Together with the Journal of the Federal Convention, Luther Martin's Letter, Yates' Minutes, Congressional Opinions, Virginia & Kentucky Resolutions of '98-'99, and Other Illustrations of the Constitution, Volume 5
Jonathan Elliot United States. Constitutional Convention
- January 1, 1845
This introduction clearly states the Congress has no power to dictate rules, methods or representatives involving a State Convention to Ratify call by Congress.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1333662?uid=3739920&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103643543077
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/flr62&div=15&id=&page=
Another prohibition repeal:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1004921405015#page-
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/waslee1&div=17&id=&page=
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1281642?uid=3739920&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103644070777
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/abaj52&div=87&id=&page=
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/rutlj36&div=45&id=&page=
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1121581?uid=3739920&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103644070777
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2147300?uid=3739920&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103644070777
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/hlps1&div=7&id=&page=
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/urich9&div=18&id=&page=
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/arz23&div=24&id=&page=
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=DbYxAQAAMAAJ&rdid=book-DbYxAQAAMAAJ&rdot=1
Jonathan Elliot United States. Constitutional Convention
- January 1, 1845
This introduction clearly states the Congress has no power to dictate rules, methods or representatives involving a State Convention to Ratify call by Congress.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1333662?uid=3739920&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103643543077
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/flr62&div=15&id=&page=
Another prohibition repeal:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1004921405015#page-
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/waslee1&div=17&id=&page=
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1281642?uid=3739920&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103644070777
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/abaj52&div=87&id=&page=
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/rutlj36&div=45&id=&page=
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1121581?uid=3739920&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103644070777
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2147300?uid=3739920&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103644070777
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/hlps1&div=7&id=&page=
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/urich9&div=18&id=&page=
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/arz23&div=24&id=&page=
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=DbYxAQAAMAAJ&rdid=book-DbYxAQAAMAAJ&rdot=1
14th amendment information . .
www.youtube.com/embed/ANXe6LXca1U?list=PLDF745B643E55B814
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore
https://www.youtube.com/embed/KWG8AcCty_I
https://www.youtube.com/embed/P56ZeBotFeA Excellent Video!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore
https://www.youtube.com/embed/KWG8AcCty_I
https://www.youtube.com/embed/P56ZeBotFeA Excellent Video!
Annotation 31 - Fourteenth Amendment
Very Good Links!
Why isn't a Convention of States a Constitutional Convention?
Why is a Convention of States is a safe option?
Fighting the “naysayers. Michael Farris explains how the "Constitution was not illegally adopted." http://email.geniusmailer.com/ct/15684199:17578196436:m:1:496577081:CC4EC36D8DD48EB30ED17AF31D59F649:r
http://www.pointoforder.com/2013/08/11/rob-natelson-on-the-article-v-convention/
http://www.cato.org/events/classical-liberal-constitution-uncertain-quest-limited-government?
This is in regard to the 2nd and 14th amendments and is well explained.
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/jfp5ch01.htm
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/87senrpt.pdf
Notes on the debates and the convention.
http://nhccs.org/Mnotes.html
An Excellent Listing of Who the Enemy is: Overall Website >> http://www.discoverthenetworks.org
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237
This list of Soros' supported groups is absolutely mind blowing. Considering how many they are and how concentrated for destruction of church and country, one has to wonder why they haven’t totally succeeded… or why the man hasn’t been arrested for sedition. They did miss the institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies at Catholic University of America. Its leader was co-Chair of Catholics for Obama.
If you or any of your circle are involved with one of these truly evil groups, warn them that such involvement is doing no good save for those who want a one world government with the human population reduced by 80% - actually a goal of Zeke Emanuel, the “architect” of Obamacare. So much for denying death panels!
Why is a Convention of States is a safe option?
Fighting the “naysayers. Michael Farris explains how the "Constitution was not illegally adopted." http://email.geniusmailer.com/ct/15684199:17578196436:m:1:496577081:CC4EC36D8DD48EB30ED17AF31D59F649:r
http://www.pointoforder.com/2013/08/11/rob-natelson-on-the-article-v-convention/
http://www.cato.org/events/classical-liberal-constitution-uncertain-quest-limited-government?
This is in regard to the 2nd and 14th amendments and is well explained.
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/jfp5ch01.htm
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/87senrpt.pdf
Notes on the debates and the convention.
http://nhccs.org/Mnotes.html
An Excellent Listing of Who the Enemy is: Overall Website >> http://www.discoverthenetworks.org
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237
This list of Soros' supported groups is absolutely mind blowing. Considering how many they are and how concentrated for destruction of church and country, one has to wonder why they haven’t totally succeeded… or why the man hasn’t been arrested for sedition. They did miss the institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies at Catholic University of America. Its leader was co-Chair of Catholics for Obama.
If you or any of your circle are involved with one of these truly evil groups, warn them that such involvement is doing no good save for those who want a one world government with the human population reduced by 80% - actually a goal of Zeke Emanuel, the “architect” of Obamacare. So much for denying death panels!
The Constitution’s Vanishing Act
by Richard A. Epstein (Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow and member of hoover ip squared working group steering committee)
For decades, Supreme Court justices have been rewriting key parts of our governing document.
________________________________________
The United States Constitution is at its core a classical liberal document. But over the last hundred years, much of it has turned into a progressive text thanks in large part to Supreme Court justices who interpret it creatively, thereby skirting the laborious amendment process of Article V. Here, I address one major, if underappreciated, cause of the problem—the fine art of making its critical words and letters just disappear through the Court’s imaginative application of its power of judicial review. This constitutional disappearing act does not take sides in the longstanding debate over judicial restraint and activism. In some cases, it unduly expands judicial power; in other cases, it wrongly contracts it. The two best illustrations of how this process works are found in the Eighth Amendment and in Article 1, which sets out the federal government’s taxing power.
Cruel and Unusual Punishments
The Eighth Amendment reads in full: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Its use of the passive voice creates an interpretive ambiguity. Does the amendment bind only the federal government or does it bind the states as well? Using the word “excessive” twice in one 16-word sentence is not a model of clarity.
But for these purposes, the most critical word is “punishments.” The letter “s” has disappeared during the arduous process of constitutional interpretation. Just Google the phrase “cruel and unusual punishment,” and 1,740,000 entries come up. Add the “s” and that number drops by 80 percent to 330,000 entries, most of which refer to punishments without the “s.”
The importance of the slip is evident from the 2012 Supreme Court decision Miller v. Alabama, which struck down a mandatory lifetime sentence for a fourteen year-old guilty of murder. In writing her opinion, Justice Elena Kagan included the “s” in quoting the clause. But during the analysis, that “s” disappears, thereby transforming the constitutional text:
The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment “guarantees individuals the right not to be subjected to excessive sanctions.” That right, we have explained, “flows from the basic ‘precept of justice that punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned’ ” to both the offender and the offense.
Justice Kagan faithfully references earlier cases that take her position. But the wealth of precedent does not conceal the major shift in constitutional focus. The prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishments” conjures up a list of punishments that should be rejected because they are cruel, no matter what the offense. The issue of proportionality never arises.
That interpretation makes sense because this clause is lifted word for word from the English Bill of Rights of 1689, after it accuses the deposed King James II of inflicting “illegal and cruel punishments.” The clause outlaws the rack, the thumb-screw, drawing and quartering, and other fiendish activities. In no sense did it outlaw the death penalty. Nor could that reading be sensibly made of our own Constitution, whose Fifth Amendment contains references to the death penalty in connection with due process, grand jury presentments, and double jeopardy.
Yet once the “s” is dropped, it is far easier to read the clause as Justice Kagan did, demanding proportionality between the offense and the punishment. At this point, the Court can question the death penalty in many cases, including child rape. In 2008, the Court in Kennedy v. Louisiana found that the Eighth Amendment should be read in light of “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” But this line of reasoning is simply pop sociology. Historically, there has been much principled and popular opposition to the repeal of the death penalty that should not be so easily cast aside.
Even the most austere account of limited government offers no coherent theory to explain whether the death penalty should be retained or junked, and if so, for what offenses. If there were ever a legislative function, this is it. The disappearance of that “s” was not just a random event. It paved the way for the justices to create a code of criminal sentencing, whose effects are so widespread and profound that it must be regarded as a constitutional amendment, and an unwise one at that.
The Taxing Power
My second example of a disappearing constitutional provision concerns the taxing power found in Article I:
Section 8. Clause 1.
The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. This clause is a big deal because it remedies one of the major defects of the Articles of Confederation, under which the federal government had to beg the individual states for the revenues needed to discharge its own collective function. But in overturning earlier practice, the Founders were nervous about lurching too far in the opposite direction, so they limited the general power of taxation to three specified objects: “payment of debts, provision of common Defence, and the general Welfare of the United States.”
So it is important to understand that the clause is not a catchall that sweeps in every objective under the sun. Federal taxes are meant to fund only a short list of public—i.e. nonexcludable—goods that only the central government can provide. The Congressional power to levy taxes is needed to prevent free-riding by individual states. The limited purposes help prevent politically corrosive cross-subsidies between states that could sink the Union.
The proper interpretation of the clause raises thorny questions about whether, for example, the United States could provide disaster relief that benefits some but not all states. President Grover Cleveland thought that the answer was an emphatic “no” in 1887 when he vetoed the Texas Seed Bill, which allocated $10,000 for Texas drought relief. Under the Constitution, he did “not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit.”
Indeed, the vital element in this clause is that it prohibits any transfer payment from one group of individuals to another, as those cannot serve the “general welfare of the United States.” To see why, take the analogous case where a corporate charter allows the Board of Directors to adopt only those measures that advance the general welfare of the corporation. Without question, the so-called business judgment rule insulates corporate officers and directors when they work in good faith to advance the welfare of the corporation, and thus all its shareholders, in transactions with third parties. But it is a per se violation of that rule for the directors to tax one subclass of shareholders in order to pay dividends to a second subclass. All transfer payments among shareholders clearly violate their duty to advance the welfare of shareholders as a group.
That same logic applies to the federal constitution, where the words “of the United States” block any abuse of the power of taxation to secure a system of individual transfer payments. As with corporations, the long-term health of the polity depends on cutting down transfer payments that give rise to factional battles. Yet those critical words “of the United States” have disappeared in the case law, most recently in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, where Chief Justice Roberts relied on the taxing power to uphold the individual mandate under Obamacare, after rejecting the view that it fell within the scope of the Court’s indefensibly broad reading of thecommerce power.
Chief Justice Roberts reached his conclusion by invoking Congress’s enumerated power to “lay and collect Taxes”—full stop—which makes it a lot easier to conclude that “the breadth of Congress’s power to tax is greater than its power to regulate commerce.” Although he first quotes the clause in full, it is no accident that his actual analysis stops with the words “general Welfare,” which is then entrusted to the determination of Congress.
The four conservative justices (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito) also disregarded the original understanding when they wrote in the dissent, “The power to make any expenditure that furthers ‘the general welfare’ is obviously very broad,” giving Congress “wide leeway to decide whether an expenditure qualifies.” In so doing they bought into the low-scrutiny rational basis test, which bears no relation to the text, history, or structure of the Constitution. They are surely right that, since the New Deal, no taxation program has been found to fall outside Congress’s taxing power, which is what makes their dissent so unpersuasive.
The consequences of this constitutional disappearing act are enormous. The full range of federal transfer programs is not sustainable under any sensible interpretation of either the commerce or the taxing power.
Think of the disastrous Obamacare program. Focusing solely on the individual mandate meant that the weird collection of unsustainable special taxes and this vast expansion of the taxing power passed constitutional muster without a murmur of judicial protest. This is especially ironic as we grapple with the near bankruptcy of hundreds of federal transfer programs—including unemployment benefits, social security, Medicare, and Medicaid—which were only created because judicial interpretation vaporized key constitutional terms.
These two constitutional vignettes are, in one sense, polar opposites. The current law on cruel and unusual punishments injects the Supreme Court into matters that properly fall beyond its purview, while the taxing power cases remove the judicial oversight needed to prevent government bankruptcy. Both errors stem from the willingness of the justices to drift ever farther from the constitutional text on matters of first principle. Sure, the Constitution raises lots of thorny issues. But those complexities should never let us overlook this simple proposition: Every word of the Constitution must be quoted and analyzed. The Constitution is short and to the point. Making words disappear is the surest way to distort its meaning.
________________________________________
Richard A. Epstein, Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at New York University, and senior lecturer at the University of Chicago, researches and writes on a broad range of constitutional, economic, historical, and philosophical subjects. He has taught administrative law, antitrust law, communications law, constitutional law, corporate law, criminal law, employment discrimination law, environmental law, food and drug law, health law, labor law, Roman law, real estate development and finance, and individual and corporate taxation. His publications cover an equally broad range of topics. His most recent book, published in 2013, is The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government (2013). He is a past editor of the Journal of Legal Studies (1981–91) and the Journal of Law and Economics (1991–2001).
For decades, Supreme Court justices have been rewriting key parts of our governing document.
________________________________________
The United States Constitution is at its core a classical liberal document. But over the last hundred years, much of it has turned into a progressive text thanks in large part to Supreme Court justices who interpret it creatively, thereby skirting the laborious amendment process of Article V. Here, I address one major, if underappreciated, cause of the problem—the fine art of making its critical words and letters just disappear through the Court’s imaginative application of its power of judicial review. This constitutional disappearing act does not take sides in the longstanding debate over judicial restraint and activism. In some cases, it unduly expands judicial power; in other cases, it wrongly contracts it. The two best illustrations of how this process works are found in the Eighth Amendment and in Article 1, which sets out the federal government’s taxing power.
Cruel and Unusual Punishments
The Eighth Amendment reads in full: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Its use of the passive voice creates an interpretive ambiguity. Does the amendment bind only the federal government or does it bind the states as well? Using the word “excessive” twice in one 16-word sentence is not a model of clarity.
But for these purposes, the most critical word is “punishments.” The letter “s” has disappeared during the arduous process of constitutional interpretation. Just Google the phrase “cruel and unusual punishment,” and 1,740,000 entries come up. Add the “s” and that number drops by 80 percent to 330,000 entries, most of which refer to punishments without the “s.”
The importance of the slip is evident from the 2012 Supreme Court decision Miller v. Alabama, which struck down a mandatory lifetime sentence for a fourteen year-old guilty of murder. In writing her opinion, Justice Elena Kagan included the “s” in quoting the clause. But during the analysis, that “s” disappears, thereby transforming the constitutional text:
The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment “guarantees individuals the right not to be subjected to excessive sanctions.” That right, we have explained, “flows from the basic ‘precept of justice that punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned’ ” to both the offender and the offense.
Justice Kagan faithfully references earlier cases that take her position. But the wealth of precedent does not conceal the major shift in constitutional focus. The prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishments” conjures up a list of punishments that should be rejected because they are cruel, no matter what the offense. The issue of proportionality never arises.
That interpretation makes sense because this clause is lifted word for word from the English Bill of Rights of 1689, after it accuses the deposed King James II of inflicting “illegal and cruel punishments.” The clause outlaws the rack, the thumb-screw, drawing and quartering, and other fiendish activities. In no sense did it outlaw the death penalty. Nor could that reading be sensibly made of our own Constitution, whose Fifth Amendment contains references to the death penalty in connection with due process, grand jury presentments, and double jeopardy.
Yet once the “s” is dropped, it is far easier to read the clause as Justice Kagan did, demanding proportionality between the offense and the punishment. At this point, the Court can question the death penalty in many cases, including child rape. In 2008, the Court in Kennedy v. Louisiana found that the Eighth Amendment should be read in light of “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” But this line of reasoning is simply pop sociology. Historically, there has been much principled and popular opposition to the repeal of the death penalty that should not be so easily cast aside.
Even the most austere account of limited government offers no coherent theory to explain whether the death penalty should be retained or junked, and if so, for what offenses. If there were ever a legislative function, this is it. The disappearance of that “s” was not just a random event. It paved the way for the justices to create a code of criminal sentencing, whose effects are so widespread and profound that it must be regarded as a constitutional amendment, and an unwise one at that.
The Taxing Power
My second example of a disappearing constitutional provision concerns the taxing power found in Article I:
Section 8. Clause 1.
The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. This clause is a big deal because it remedies one of the major defects of the Articles of Confederation, under which the federal government had to beg the individual states for the revenues needed to discharge its own collective function. But in overturning earlier practice, the Founders were nervous about lurching too far in the opposite direction, so they limited the general power of taxation to three specified objects: “payment of debts, provision of common Defence, and the general Welfare of the United States.”
So it is important to understand that the clause is not a catchall that sweeps in every objective under the sun. Federal taxes are meant to fund only a short list of public—i.e. nonexcludable—goods that only the central government can provide. The Congressional power to levy taxes is needed to prevent free-riding by individual states. The limited purposes help prevent politically corrosive cross-subsidies between states that could sink the Union.
The proper interpretation of the clause raises thorny questions about whether, for example, the United States could provide disaster relief that benefits some but not all states. President Grover Cleveland thought that the answer was an emphatic “no” in 1887 when he vetoed the Texas Seed Bill, which allocated $10,000 for Texas drought relief. Under the Constitution, he did “not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit.”
Indeed, the vital element in this clause is that it prohibits any transfer payment from one group of individuals to another, as those cannot serve the “general welfare of the United States.” To see why, take the analogous case where a corporate charter allows the Board of Directors to adopt only those measures that advance the general welfare of the corporation. Without question, the so-called business judgment rule insulates corporate officers and directors when they work in good faith to advance the welfare of the corporation, and thus all its shareholders, in transactions with third parties. But it is a per se violation of that rule for the directors to tax one subclass of shareholders in order to pay dividends to a second subclass. All transfer payments among shareholders clearly violate their duty to advance the welfare of shareholders as a group.
That same logic applies to the federal constitution, where the words “of the United States” block any abuse of the power of taxation to secure a system of individual transfer payments. As with corporations, the long-term health of the polity depends on cutting down transfer payments that give rise to factional battles. Yet those critical words “of the United States” have disappeared in the case law, most recently in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, where Chief Justice Roberts relied on the taxing power to uphold the individual mandate under Obamacare, after rejecting the view that it fell within the scope of the Court’s indefensibly broad reading of thecommerce power.
Chief Justice Roberts reached his conclusion by invoking Congress’s enumerated power to “lay and collect Taxes”—full stop—which makes it a lot easier to conclude that “the breadth of Congress’s power to tax is greater than its power to regulate commerce.” Although he first quotes the clause in full, it is no accident that his actual analysis stops with the words “general Welfare,” which is then entrusted to the determination of Congress.
The four conservative justices (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito) also disregarded the original understanding when they wrote in the dissent, “The power to make any expenditure that furthers ‘the general welfare’ is obviously very broad,” giving Congress “wide leeway to decide whether an expenditure qualifies.” In so doing they bought into the low-scrutiny rational basis test, which bears no relation to the text, history, or structure of the Constitution. They are surely right that, since the New Deal, no taxation program has been found to fall outside Congress’s taxing power, which is what makes their dissent so unpersuasive.
The consequences of this constitutional disappearing act are enormous. The full range of federal transfer programs is not sustainable under any sensible interpretation of either the commerce or the taxing power.
Think of the disastrous Obamacare program. Focusing solely on the individual mandate meant that the weird collection of unsustainable special taxes and this vast expansion of the taxing power passed constitutional muster without a murmur of judicial protest. This is especially ironic as we grapple with the near bankruptcy of hundreds of federal transfer programs—including unemployment benefits, social security, Medicare, and Medicaid—which were only created because judicial interpretation vaporized key constitutional terms.
These two constitutional vignettes are, in one sense, polar opposites. The current law on cruel and unusual punishments injects the Supreme Court into matters that properly fall beyond its purview, while the taxing power cases remove the judicial oversight needed to prevent government bankruptcy. Both errors stem from the willingness of the justices to drift ever farther from the constitutional text on matters of first principle. Sure, the Constitution raises lots of thorny issues. But those complexities should never let us overlook this simple proposition: Every word of the Constitution must be quoted and analyzed. The Constitution is short and to the point. Making words disappear is the surest way to distort its meaning.
________________________________________
Richard A. Epstein, Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at New York University, and senior lecturer at the University of Chicago, researches and writes on a broad range of constitutional, economic, historical, and philosophical subjects. He has taught administrative law, antitrust law, communications law, constitutional law, corporate law, criminal law, employment discrimination law, environmental law, food and drug law, health law, labor law, Roman law, real estate development and finance, and individual and corporate taxation. His publications cover an equally broad range of topics. His most recent book, published in 2013, is The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government (2013). He is a past editor of the Journal of Legal Studies (1981–91) and the Journal of Law and Economics (1991–2001).
The Classical Liberal Constitution
by Richard A. Epstein (Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow and member of hoover ip squared working group steering committee)
Both progressives and conservatives fundamentally misunderstand our most important founding document.
________________________________________
This coming week, Harvard University Press will publish my new book, The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government. This 700-page volume took me over seven years to complete, and it offers a distinctive third approach to constitutional law that helps explain why the current Supreme Court’s conceptual framework is in a state of serious intellectual disrepair on many, but by no means all, issues.
Conventional wisdom divides constitutional judges and scholars into two warring camps: conservative and progressive. The classical liberal offers a third point of view, by explaining how our Constitution secures a system of strong property rights and limited government. It does so by rejecting the deep antitheoretical strand that often guides both conservative and progressive thought, and leads both groups—for somewhat different reasons—to support a highly deferential, if misnamed, “rational basis” test to assess the constitutionality of congressional and legislative action.
The Lochner Syndrome
Conservative thinkers often start their constitutional analysis with neither text nor structure, but with their own view of the proper role of the Supreme Court in a democratic society. In their view, the essential choices about the social and economic structure properly belong to the political branches of government at both the federal and state level.
Both progressives and conservatives fundamentally misunderstand our most important founding document.
________________________________________
This coming week, Harvard University Press will publish my new book, The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government. This 700-page volume took me over seven years to complete, and it offers a distinctive third approach to constitutional law that helps explain why the current Supreme Court’s conceptual framework is in a state of serious intellectual disrepair on many, but by no means all, issues.
Conventional wisdom divides constitutional judges and scholars into two warring camps: conservative and progressive. The classical liberal offers a third point of view, by explaining how our Constitution secures a system of strong property rights and limited government. It does so by rejecting the deep antitheoretical strand that often guides both conservative and progressive thought, and leads both groups—for somewhat different reasons—to support a highly deferential, if misnamed, “rational basis” test to assess the constitutionality of congressional and legislative action.
The Lochner Syndrome
Conservative thinkers often start their constitutional analysis with neither text nor structure, but with their own view of the proper role of the Supreme Court in a democratic society. In their view, the essential choices about the social and economic structure properly belong to the political branches of government at both the federal and state level.
Illustration by Barbara Kelley
The view holds that the judiciary should override statutes and executive actions only in exceptional cases. They think no judge should translate his policy objections to particular laws into constitutional terms. Thus, in The Tempting of America, Robert Bork called the Supreme Court’s 1905 decision in Lochner v. New York—which by a five-to-four vote declared New York’s controversial maximum-hours law unconstitutional—an “abomination” that “lives in the law as the symbol, indeed the quintessence of judicial usurpation of power.”
Unlike conservatives, progressives defend these laws. But their judicial attitude is driven by the same skepticism about judicial intervention in economic matters. That is the message of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ famous Lochner dissent: “a constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the State or of laissez faire.”
So it is that two giants at the opposite ends of the political spectrum make the identical mistake: Neither thinks that it is possible to map onto the U.S. Constitution a substantive theory of government. Holmes makes that mistake when he talks about “a constitution” when the proper frame of reference should be the United States Constitution. Bork decries Lochner as “judicial usurpation” because he denies that there can be an independent textual or structural basis for striking down any economic regulation, no matter how misguided it may be.
What is perverse about both positions is that a constitution (indeed any constitution) is adopted precisely to establish some permanent framework in which laws can be made and validated. An ancient constitution could follow Justinian’s maxim “quod principi placuit legis vigorem habet,” which states, “that which is pleasing unto the prince has the force of law.” However, the U.S. Constitution explicitly rejects this approach by adopting all sorts of measures intended to diffuse the power of public officials: in part through federalism, in part through the division of government power into the Congress, the President and the Courts. These structural protections are augmented by a broad catalogue of individual rights, which checks both federal and the state power. Judicial usurpation is, to be sure, one sin. But to read these broad protections narrowly is the inverse mistake of judicial abnegation.
As applied to Lochner’s maximum hour law, the legislature should be required to justify exactly why, in a free society, it has the right to make a judgment about how many hours individuals should work and under what conditions. That point may not be absolute, but by the same token, ordinary liberty does carry with it the presumptive right to choose employment of one’s choice, with narrow exceptions for military service and jury duty.
Otherwise, surely under our Constitution, no state could order its citizens to accept certain jobs against their will. The same principle against governmental interference with individual liberty also is at work when government seeks to stop people from working in a job of their own choosing. If A uses force to prevent B from working for C, he commits the tort of interference with advantageous relations, and can be enjoined from that behavior. Put government in the role of A, and it is in exactly the same position.
The Police Power Exception
Of course, government prohibits people from engaging in criminal activity and taking advantage of the helpless. Indeed, both of those long-standing social norms have become embedded in the police power, under which federal and state governments may regulate individual activity to protect, as the phrase goes, “the safety, health, morals and general welfare” of the public at large. Inclusive as this list may seem, it does not negate key constitutional guarantees. In particular, the police power rationale does not let government pass overtly paternalist legislation on the one hand or overtly anticompetitive legislation (as in Lochner) on the other.
It is here that the underlying substantive vision matters. Under the classical liberal constitution, maintaining a free and open market for both capital and labor is an essential government function, which resonates in the explicit guarantees with respect to contract, private property, and the freedom of speech and the press. These apparently disparate guarantees are all linked together by the common sentiment that the state must show a serious justification before it can limit their exercise. The class of justifications is not open-ended, and it never includes the anticompetitive and protectionist legislation that is routinely sustained based on a supposed need to correct abuses of the market that are unrelated to duress, fraud, and monopoly.
More specifically, the proper scope of the police power is tied to the two reasons that lead people to join a political compact in the first place. The first reason is to control the use of force and fraud. The second is to allow state taxation and coercion to facilitate gainful interactions among individuals who are unable by themselves to create the much needed public goods—including defending against foreign threats, maintaining domestic order at home, and providing the common infrastructure of roads and other public facilities—because of insuperable transaction costs. The simple but powerful notion that justifies these coercive actions is that all individuals receive just compensation from the state for their tax dollars in the form of a higher level of personal security and economic prosperity.
Making This Work
The willful suppression of private competition does not come within a country mile of serving these objectives. Instead, misguided legislation often spends public dollars to make all private citizens worse off than they would otherwise be, which is not the case when the sensible enforcement of the antitrust laws controls cartels and other anticompetitive activities.
It is just this basic pattern that explains the greatest successes of our constitutional order. When the justices escape their habitual skepticism about the power of legal theory, they can work wonders by making those key judgments needed to implement the classical liberal constitution. When the justices care about outcomes, they become classical liberals in spite of themselves. Here are two examples.
The First Amendment states that that Congress “shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” But it is possible to bring this abstraction down to earth in a way that is consistent with the general constitutional plan. The first point to note is that freedom of speech has to be read broadly to cover, as it does, all forms of expression. No devotee of judicial restraint could think that the First Amendment protects the words spoken in a play but not the gestures of the actors. Yet at the same time, no notion of textual literalism could defend the proposition that the protection of freedom of speech allows individuals to foment riots, to cheat their customers, or to organize cartels.
Now the classical liberal account of wrongful conduct shapes the police power exceptions to the basic constitutional guarantee. Yet by the same token, the Court has increasingly recognized that it is an indefensible stretch to think that this conception of the police power sustains the campaign finance laws, like McCain/Feingold, which limit corporate speech and thus thwart the active political competition they should advance.
Progressives may like this legislation, and some (but by no means all) conservatives may tolerate it. But under a classical liberal constitution, the only proper way to limit political contributions is to enforce the constitutional limitations on government power. Once the scope of government is so limited, individuals and groups no longer have any incentive to lobby governments for benefits that they can no longer dole out free of constitutional restraint.
The identical classical liberal argument applies with equal force to structural issues. As a textual matter, the Constitution gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce among the several states.” It does not in so many words restrict the power of the state to act when Congress does not. But from the early nineteenth century on, courts have developed a Dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence that has worked wonders in preserving an internal common market for goods and services within the United States.
But why did it succeed? Because the justices, both conservative and liberal, tasked with constitutional enforcement, have always been keenly aware of the dangers that state barriers pose to domestic trade and national prosperity. Far from deferring to anyone, they have taken the task of constitutional design seriously and have adopted the classical liberal presumption of distrust to trade barriers, which are now subject to narrow police power justifications.
Any state, under the watchful eye of the Court, may keep out various kinds of animals and materials that pose a serious danger to the health and safety of the citizens. But they reverse field on Lochner because they now rigorously enforce the line between health and safety regulation on the one hand and anticompetitive legislation on the other. They don’t take refuge in the weak rational basis test to let state governments do as they please, but root out anticompetitive laws (like many maximum hour laws) masquerading as safety regulations.
Getting the Court Back Into the Game
The bottom line here is that the same mindset that works for individual rights works for understanding of the structural constitution. In both areas the result of energetic government, or what Clark Neily calls “judicial engagement,” pays handsome and enduring public dividends. The principles embodied in the classical liberal constitution are not those that work only in this or that era. They are principles for the ages, which is why they deserve to be embedded in constitutional jurisprudence. Yet all too often, these basic principles are rejected for ephemeral concerns that undermine our constitutional well-being.
It is not possible in this short essay to go through the many permutations on this common theme that are developed at length in my book Classical Liberal Constitution. But it is imperative to remember that eternal vigilance is indeed the price of liberty. When our Supreme Court drops its guard and defers to the federal government on matters of taxation and regulation, we end up with a huge government that saps the energy of a nation and gives us the tragedy that is Obamacare.
The Court’s progressives uphold these laws because they believe in their efficacy, even though labor unions and agricultural cartels always work against the long-term aggregate interests of the community. For their part, conservatives often practice a narrow and misguided originalism that ignores the foundational economic principles that lend coherence to the Constitution as a whole. The classical liberal approach does neither. It rejects both the judicial restraint of the conservatives and the economic naiveté of the progressives, and in so doing supplies the only blueprint for judicial action that can help lift this nation from its current malaise. We pay a high price for straying from first principles.
________________________________________
Richard A. Epstein, Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at New York University, and senior lecturer at the University of Chicago, researches and writes on a broad range of constitutional, economic, historical, and philosophical subjects. He has taught administrative law, antitrust law, communications law, constitutional law, corporate law, criminal law, employment discrimination law, environmental law, food and drug law, health law, labor law, Roman law, real estate development and finance, and individual and corporate taxation. His publications cover an equally broad range of topics. His most recent book, published in 2013, is The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government (2013). He is a past editor of the Journal of Legal Studies (1981–91) and the Journal of Law and Economics (1991–2001).
http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/162686
Unlike conservatives, progressives defend these laws. But their judicial attitude is driven by the same skepticism about judicial intervention in economic matters. That is the message of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ famous Lochner dissent: “a constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the State or of laissez faire.”
So it is that two giants at the opposite ends of the political spectrum make the identical mistake: Neither thinks that it is possible to map onto the U.S. Constitution a substantive theory of government. Holmes makes that mistake when he talks about “a constitution” when the proper frame of reference should be the United States Constitution. Bork decries Lochner as “judicial usurpation” because he denies that there can be an independent textual or structural basis for striking down any economic regulation, no matter how misguided it may be.
What is perverse about both positions is that a constitution (indeed any constitution) is adopted precisely to establish some permanent framework in which laws can be made and validated. An ancient constitution could follow Justinian’s maxim “quod principi placuit legis vigorem habet,” which states, “that which is pleasing unto the prince has the force of law.” However, the U.S. Constitution explicitly rejects this approach by adopting all sorts of measures intended to diffuse the power of public officials: in part through federalism, in part through the division of government power into the Congress, the President and the Courts. These structural protections are augmented by a broad catalogue of individual rights, which checks both federal and the state power. Judicial usurpation is, to be sure, one sin. But to read these broad protections narrowly is the inverse mistake of judicial abnegation.
As applied to Lochner’s maximum hour law, the legislature should be required to justify exactly why, in a free society, it has the right to make a judgment about how many hours individuals should work and under what conditions. That point may not be absolute, but by the same token, ordinary liberty does carry with it the presumptive right to choose employment of one’s choice, with narrow exceptions for military service and jury duty.
Otherwise, surely under our Constitution, no state could order its citizens to accept certain jobs against their will. The same principle against governmental interference with individual liberty also is at work when government seeks to stop people from working in a job of their own choosing. If A uses force to prevent B from working for C, he commits the tort of interference with advantageous relations, and can be enjoined from that behavior. Put government in the role of A, and it is in exactly the same position.
The Police Power Exception
Of course, government prohibits people from engaging in criminal activity and taking advantage of the helpless. Indeed, both of those long-standing social norms have become embedded in the police power, under which federal and state governments may regulate individual activity to protect, as the phrase goes, “the safety, health, morals and general welfare” of the public at large. Inclusive as this list may seem, it does not negate key constitutional guarantees. In particular, the police power rationale does not let government pass overtly paternalist legislation on the one hand or overtly anticompetitive legislation (as in Lochner) on the other.
It is here that the underlying substantive vision matters. Under the classical liberal constitution, maintaining a free and open market for both capital and labor is an essential government function, which resonates in the explicit guarantees with respect to contract, private property, and the freedom of speech and the press. These apparently disparate guarantees are all linked together by the common sentiment that the state must show a serious justification before it can limit their exercise. The class of justifications is not open-ended, and it never includes the anticompetitive and protectionist legislation that is routinely sustained based on a supposed need to correct abuses of the market that are unrelated to duress, fraud, and monopoly.
More specifically, the proper scope of the police power is tied to the two reasons that lead people to join a political compact in the first place. The first reason is to control the use of force and fraud. The second is to allow state taxation and coercion to facilitate gainful interactions among individuals who are unable by themselves to create the much needed public goods—including defending against foreign threats, maintaining domestic order at home, and providing the common infrastructure of roads and other public facilities—because of insuperable transaction costs. The simple but powerful notion that justifies these coercive actions is that all individuals receive just compensation from the state for their tax dollars in the form of a higher level of personal security and economic prosperity.
Making This Work
The willful suppression of private competition does not come within a country mile of serving these objectives. Instead, misguided legislation often spends public dollars to make all private citizens worse off than they would otherwise be, which is not the case when the sensible enforcement of the antitrust laws controls cartels and other anticompetitive activities.
It is just this basic pattern that explains the greatest successes of our constitutional order. When the justices escape their habitual skepticism about the power of legal theory, they can work wonders by making those key judgments needed to implement the classical liberal constitution. When the justices care about outcomes, they become classical liberals in spite of themselves. Here are two examples.
The First Amendment states that that Congress “shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” But it is possible to bring this abstraction down to earth in a way that is consistent with the general constitutional plan. The first point to note is that freedom of speech has to be read broadly to cover, as it does, all forms of expression. No devotee of judicial restraint could think that the First Amendment protects the words spoken in a play but not the gestures of the actors. Yet at the same time, no notion of textual literalism could defend the proposition that the protection of freedom of speech allows individuals to foment riots, to cheat their customers, or to organize cartels.
Now the classical liberal account of wrongful conduct shapes the police power exceptions to the basic constitutional guarantee. Yet by the same token, the Court has increasingly recognized that it is an indefensible stretch to think that this conception of the police power sustains the campaign finance laws, like McCain/Feingold, which limit corporate speech and thus thwart the active political competition they should advance.
Progressives may like this legislation, and some (but by no means all) conservatives may tolerate it. But under a classical liberal constitution, the only proper way to limit political contributions is to enforce the constitutional limitations on government power. Once the scope of government is so limited, individuals and groups no longer have any incentive to lobby governments for benefits that they can no longer dole out free of constitutional restraint.
The identical classical liberal argument applies with equal force to structural issues. As a textual matter, the Constitution gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce among the several states.” It does not in so many words restrict the power of the state to act when Congress does not. But from the early nineteenth century on, courts have developed a Dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence that has worked wonders in preserving an internal common market for goods and services within the United States.
But why did it succeed? Because the justices, both conservative and liberal, tasked with constitutional enforcement, have always been keenly aware of the dangers that state barriers pose to domestic trade and national prosperity. Far from deferring to anyone, they have taken the task of constitutional design seriously and have adopted the classical liberal presumption of distrust to trade barriers, which are now subject to narrow police power justifications.
Any state, under the watchful eye of the Court, may keep out various kinds of animals and materials that pose a serious danger to the health and safety of the citizens. But they reverse field on Lochner because they now rigorously enforce the line between health and safety regulation on the one hand and anticompetitive legislation on the other. They don’t take refuge in the weak rational basis test to let state governments do as they please, but root out anticompetitive laws (like many maximum hour laws) masquerading as safety regulations.
Getting the Court Back Into the Game
The bottom line here is that the same mindset that works for individual rights works for understanding of the structural constitution. In both areas the result of energetic government, or what Clark Neily calls “judicial engagement,” pays handsome and enduring public dividends. The principles embodied in the classical liberal constitution are not those that work only in this or that era. They are principles for the ages, which is why they deserve to be embedded in constitutional jurisprudence. Yet all too often, these basic principles are rejected for ephemeral concerns that undermine our constitutional well-being.
It is not possible in this short essay to go through the many permutations on this common theme that are developed at length in my book Classical Liberal Constitution. But it is imperative to remember that eternal vigilance is indeed the price of liberty. When our Supreme Court drops its guard and defers to the federal government on matters of taxation and regulation, we end up with a huge government that saps the energy of a nation and gives us the tragedy that is Obamacare.
The Court’s progressives uphold these laws because they believe in their efficacy, even though labor unions and agricultural cartels always work against the long-term aggregate interests of the community. For their part, conservatives often practice a narrow and misguided originalism that ignores the foundational economic principles that lend coherence to the Constitution as a whole. The classical liberal approach does neither. It rejects both the judicial restraint of the conservatives and the economic naiveté of the progressives, and in so doing supplies the only blueprint for judicial action that can help lift this nation from its current malaise. We pay a high price for straying from first principles.
________________________________________
Richard A. Epstein, Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at New York University, and senior lecturer at the University of Chicago, researches and writes on a broad range of constitutional, economic, historical, and philosophical subjects. He has taught administrative law, antitrust law, communications law, constitutional law, corporate law, criminal law, employment discrimination law, environmental law, food and drug law, health law, labor law, Roman law, real estate development and finance, and individual and corporate taxation. His publications cover an equally broad range of topics. His most recent book, published in 2013, is The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government (2013). He is a past editor of the Journal of Legal Studies (1981–91) and the Journal of Law and Economics (1991–2001).
http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/162686
Topic: Article V Convention
This article discusses another in a long line of misstatements of fact by convention opponents by Bill Walker (libertarian) Friday, October 25, 2013 |
|
Factual accuracy—the accurate presentation of fact, or rather, the lack of accurate presentation of fact is the major issue concerning an Article V Convention. Convention opponents, that is, those urging government insurrection against the Constitution by not calling a convention when so mandated, all share the common trait of either misstatement of facts, outright lying or most frequently ignoring the facts altogether.
For an example of the last trait, examine the recent column by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. According to his biography, Dr. Vieira holds four degrees from Harvard including a law degree. However to make his point why a convention should not be called, he ignores long established Supreme Court rulings in order to present his biased view. Being charitable, perhaps he missed a day of law school and doesn’t know the Supreme Court has ruled several times on the amendment process thus settling any question surrounding that issue.
Vieira is fond of comparing the calling of a convention to the actions of ship’s personnel the night of the sinking of the Titanic. He mocks a discussion between the ship’s designer and its captain about "designing a new ship" when the Titanic is already sinking saying holding a convention will achieve too little, too late. The problem is, Vieira creates his own Titanic disaster when he mocks the speed of the amendment process and demonstrates how little he really knows about the convention process. He should have learned in law school to carefully research all facts before asserting anything publicly. Perhaps he missed two days in law school.
He asserts a convention will take too long to resolve the problems of this nation. The facts prove otherwise. First, the states have already applied in sufficient numbers to cause a convention call meaning a convention call can immediately be issued by Congress. Second, according to the Congressional Research Service , ratification of a proposed amendment requires, on average, one year, eight months, seven days to accomplish—less than one election cycle. In other words if Congress obeyed the Constitution and called a convention now, its results could be in effect before the 2016 elections. In short, the facts prove an amendment is the fastest way to bring about change in our nation, faster even than elections. He ignores the fact the reason a convention has never been called is not because of any "unknown fear" but because Congress has never consented to be bound by Article V and count the applications.
While this last fact may at first appear to support Vieira’s main assertion that under Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 usually known as the "necessary and proper" clause, Congress has the power to legislatively control a convention both as to agenda as well as operational procedure, the facts prove otherwise. Additionally, Vieira suggests if Congress proposes its own amendment on subject matter contained within state applications this satisfies the convention call provision of Article V. Facts again refute Vieira. Vieira’s biography states he has practiced law for over 30 years with an emphasis on constitutional issues, i.e., constitutional law. As the facts that refute Vieira are Supreme Court rulings, there is no excuse he can offer for his omission—except that it is deliberate on his part. If so, he has created his own Titanic scenario, one where deliberate avoidance of relevant facts brings into question his veracity about anything he presents or has presented because he fails to tell the truth.
Regarding his substitution proposal (Congress passes an amendment instead of calling the convention) the Supreme Court refuted Vieira in U.S. v Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931) when it ruled no rules of construction, interpolation or addition is permitted in Article V. Vieira might try assert in rebuttal the ruling dealt with ratification and therefore cannot be applied to amendment proposal. However he is incorrect. As the court said, "A mere reading demonstrates that this is true." The court specifically referred to the amendment proposal process of Article V including the convention process to assert that there was no reason for any rules of construction. From that premise in discussing the proposal process it then proceeded to discuss the ratification process having first established the principle of no construction, interpolation or addition existed in the proposal process.
The court stated, "The United States asserts that Article V is clear in statement and in meaning, contains no ambiguity, and calls for no resort to rules of construction. A mere reading demonstrates that this is true. It provides two methods for proposing amendments. Congress may propose them by a vote of two-thirds of both houses, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states, must call a convention to propose them. Amendments proposed in either way become a part of the Constitution."
The Sprague decision makes it clear Article V contains two distinct, separate methods of amendment proposal. It does not allow one method to be substituted for the other as Vieira suggests because this would require language that simply is not in Article V. The central point of Sprague was that language intended to control, modify or otherwise thwart the clear intent and meaning of the present words simply are not permitted. Further the court applied its "no rules of construction, interpolation or addition" ruling to this portion of Article V with its "mere reading" comment making it abundantly clear its ruling applied to both proposal and ratification. In sum, there is no textual language in Article V which permits Congress the authority to do as he states. The ruling makes it clear no implied power exists to do this. Therefore Congress cannot act as Vieira states. The facts prove him wrong. True, Congress may propose an amendment on an amendment subject contained in state applications but this does not relieve it of its peremptory responsibility to call a convention which can then propose its own amendment on the same amendment subject if it so determines because the convention proposal process is a separate process completely independent of Congress’ proposal power and therefore not dependent on whether or not Congress proposes an amendment, regardless of the reason or subject for the proposal.
Sprague also refutes Vieira’s first premise—that under the necessary and proper clause Congress can legislatively regulate a convention. Vieira cites as his authority for his claim that part of the clause which states, "…and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." He then continues, "The power to "call a Convention for proposing Amendments" is one of those "all other Powers". Therefore, pursuant to that power, Congress may enact whatever "Law[] which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the ***Power [to call a Convention]".
To reach his conclusion, Vieira ignored part the actual text of the portion of the Constitution he cites—that portion following "all other Powers." That text specifies that "The power[s]" must, be "vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States…" In short, unless the "power" is vested in the Government, the necessary and power clause cannotapply. The Supreme Court directly addressed this in Sprague.
The court stated, "Article V does not purport to delegate any governmental power to the United States, nor to withhold any from it; it is a grant of authority by the people to Congress, and not to the United States." Combined with its statement of no rules of construction, interpolation or addition the conclusion of the court is obvious: unless the people, by expressed, textual consent in Article V delegate such authority to Congress it has no such authority. Therefore Congress cannot substitute itself for a convention and assert it has satisfied the peremptory requirement of Article V nor can it legislatively control a convention as he asserts because Article V does not delegate this governmental power to the United States. Rather, as the court notes, the powers of Congress in the amendment process (just as with the other bodies named—the state legislatures and state ratification conventions) are what the people have delegated to that body—nothing less and nothing more.
If Sprague were the only Supreme Court ruling addressing Vieira’s theory of legislative control of the amendment process by Congress then he might be excused. It is not. There is a more famous case bearing directly on his legislative control theory. It directly refutes him and brings into question his fundamental knowledge of constitutional law. Indeed the case ofHollingsworth v State of Virginia , 3 U.S. 378 (1798) created the concept of constitutional law as it defined the difference between legislative law and constitutional law.
Hollingsworth raised the first challenge to the passage of an amendment in United States history. The argument presented was the "amendment has not been proposed in the form prescribed by the Constitution, and, therefore, it is void [as] it appears that the amendment was never submitted to the President for his approbation." In sum, the argument was an amendment was like any other piece of legislation passed by Congress and therefore required the consent of the president to be enacted.
The court was succinct in disagreement. "There can, surely, be no necessity to answer that argument. 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." Moreover the court continued, "And the case of amendments is evidently a substantive act, unconnected with the ordinary business of legislation, and not with the policy, or terms, of investing the President with a qualified negative on the acts and resolutions of Congress."
Hence, legislation and amendment are to distinct functions each with their own procedures, powers and limitations. One of these is Congress is limited to a "call" which is neither a "bill" nor a "law" meaning the call is a distinct, limited, peremptory delegation by the people to Congress. Hence a "call" cannot become a "law." Thus, because the Constitution mandates any legislation passed by Congress must suffer approbation by the president, and the court has ruled that the president may have "nothing to do with the proposition…of amendments to the Constitution," the Congress cannot legislatively act as Dr. Vieira suggests because Article V does not allow for the participation of the president in the amendment process. Obviously, if the Congress were to propose legislation as Vieira states whereby they either substitute their amendment in lieu of calling a convention or attempted to control convention procedures such as delegate selection, agenda and so forth, this clearly falls under the term of "proposition" of an amendment as the obvious intent is to define the terms, conditions and subject matter of an amendment proposal. The court made it unmistakably clear such a "law" is unconstitutional. It appears Dr. Vieira missed three days of law school.
The Founders also directly addressed the issue of congressional control and the convention. James Madison, father of the Constitution and author of Article V made an unequivocalstatement regarding Congress’ authority and relationship to a convention call and thus addressed any notion of legislative control by Congress of the convention. It is difficult to imagine that sometime during law courses at Harvard Law School the father of the Constitution and his quotes were not discussed in class. Madison stated Congress may employ no committee to discuss a convention call, may not debate the matter and may take no vote regarding any aspect of it. Obviously, without these tools Congress is helpless to propose legislation. Thus both the Founders and the Supreme Court have expressly refuted Dr. Vieira’s congressional control theory which was determined to be unconstitutional centuries ago.
It appears Dr. Vieira missed four days of law school.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article10542-vieiras-titanic-ignoring-the-facts-about-an-article-v-convention.html
Link to multiple AV related stories on this site: http://www.nolanchart.com/topic144-article-v-convention.htm
For an example of the last trait, examine the recent column by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. According to his biography, Dr. Vieira holds four degrees from Harvard including a law degree. However to make his point why a convention should not be called, he ignores long established Supreme Court rulings in order to present his biased view. Being charitable, perhaps he missed a day of law school and doesn’t know the Supreme Court has ruled several times on the amendment process thus settling any question surrounding that issue.
Vieira is fond of comparing the calling of a convention to the actions of ship’s personnel the night of the sinking of the Titanic. He mocks a discussion between the ship’s designer and its captain about "designing a new ship" when the Titanic is already sinking saying holding a convention will achieve too little, too late. The problem is, Vieira creates his own Titanic disaster when he mocks the speed of the amendment process and demonstrates how little he really knows about the convention process. He should have learned in law school to carefully research all facts before asserting anything publicly. Perhaps he missed two days in law school.
He asserts a convention will take too long to resolve the problems of this nation. The facts prove otherwise. First, the states have already applied in sufficient numbers to cause a convention call meaning a convention call can immediately be issued by Congress. Second, according to the Congressional Research Service , ratification of a proposed amendment requires, on average, one year, eight months, seven days to accomplish—less than one election cycle. In other words if Congress obeyed the Constitution and called a convention now, its results could be in effect before the 2016 elections. In short, the facts prove an amendment is the fastest way to bring about change in our nation, faster even than elections. He ignores the fact the reason a convention has never been called is not because of any "unknown fear" but because Congress has never consented to be bound by Article V and count the applications.
While this last fact may at first appear to support Vieira’s main assertion that under Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 usually known as the "necessary and proper" clause, Congress has the power to legislatively control a convention both as to agenda as well as operational procedure, the facts prove otherwise. Additionally, Vieira suggests if Congress proposes its own amendment on subject matter contained within state applications this satisfies the convention call provision of Article V. Facts again refute Vieira. Vieira’s biography states he has practiced law for over 30 years with an emphasis on constitutional issues, i.e., constitutional law. As the facts that refute Vieira are Supreme Court rulings, there is no excuse he can offer for his omission—except that it is deliberate on his part. If so, he has created his own Titanic scenario, one where deliberate avoidance of relevant facts brings into question his veracity about anything he presents or has presented because he fails to tell the truth.
Regarding his substitution proposal (Congress passes an amendment instead of calling the convention) the Supreme Court refuted Vieira in U.S. v Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931) when it ruled no rules of construction, interpolation or addition is permitted in Article V. Vieira might try assert in rebuttal the ruling dealt with ratification and therefore cannot be applied to amendment proposal. However he is incorrect. As the court said, "A mere reading demonstrates that this is true." The court specifically referred to the amendment proposal process of Article V including the convention process to assert that there was no reason for any rules of construction. From that premise in discussing the proposal process it then proceeded to discuss the ratification process having first established the principle of no construction, interpolation or addition existed in the proposal process.
The court stated, "The United States asserts that Article V is clear in statement and in meaning, contains no ambiguity, and calls for no resort to rules of construction. A mere reading demonstrates that this is true. It provides two methods for proposing amendments. Congress may propose them by a vote of two-thirds of both houses, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states, must call a convention to propose them. Amendments proposed in either way become a part of the Constitution."
The Sprague decision makes it clear Article V contains two distinct, separate methods of amendment proposal. It does not allow one method to be substituted for the other as Vieira suggests because this would require language that simply is not in Article V. The central point of Sprague was that language intended to control, modify or otherwise thwart the clear intent and meaning of the present words simply are not permitted. Further the court applied its "no rules of construction, interpolation or addition" ruling to this portion of Article V with its "mere reading" comment making it abundantly clear its ruling applied to both proposal and ratification. In sum, there is no textual language in Article V which permits Congress the authority to do as he states. The ruling makes it clear no implied power exists to do this. Therefore Congress cannot act as Vieira states. The facts prove him wrong. True, Congress may propose an amendment on an amendment subject contained in state applications but this does not relieve it of its peremptory responsibility to call a convention which can then propose its own amendment on the same amendment subject if it so determines because the convention proposal process is a separate process completely independent of Congress’ proposal power and therefore not dependent on whether or not Congress proposes an amendment, regardless of the reason or subject for the proposal.
Sprague also refutes Vieira’s first premise—that under the necessary and proper clause Congress can legislatively regulate a convention. Vieira cites as his authority for his claim that part of the clause which states, "…and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." He then continues, "The power to "call a Convention for proposing Amendments" is one of those "all other Powers". Therefore, pursuant to that power, Congress may enact whatever "Law[] which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the ***Power [to call a Convention]".
To reach his conclusion, Vieira ignored part the actual text of the portion of the Constitution he cites—that portion following "all other Powers." That text specifies that "The power[s]" must, be "vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States…" In short, unless the "power" is vested in the Government, the necessary and power clause cannotapply. The Supreme Court directly addressed this in Sprague.
The court stated, "Article V does not purport to delegate any governmental power to the United States, nor to withhold any from it; it is a grant of authority by the people to Congress, and not to the United States." Combined with its statement of no rules of construction, interpolation or addition the conclusion of the court is obvious: unless the people, by expressed, textual consent in Article V delegate such authority to Congress it has no such authority. Therefore Congress cannot substitute itself for a convention and assert it has satisfied the peremptory requirement of Article V nor can it legislatively control a convention as he asserts because Article V does not delegate this governmental power to the United States. Rather, as the court notes, the powers of Congress in the amendment process (just as with the other bodies named—the state legislatures and state ratification conventions) are what the people have delegated to that body—nothing less and nothing more.
If Sprague were the only Supreme Court ruling addressing Vieira’s theory of legislative control of the amendment process by Congress then he might be excused. It is not. There is a more famous case bearing directly on his legislative control theory. It directly refutes him and brings into question his fundamental knowledge of constitutional law. Indeed the case ofHollingsworth v State of Virginia , 3 U.S. 378 (1798) created the concept of constitutional law as it defined the difference between legislative law and constitutional law.
Hollingsworth raised the first challenge to the passage of an amendment in United States history. The argument presented was the "amendment has not been proposed in the form prescribed by the Constitution, and, therefore, it is void [as] it appears that the amendment was never submitted to the President for his approbation." In sum, the argument was an amendment was like any other piece of legislation passed by Congress and therefore required the consent of the president to be enacted.
The court was succinct in disagreement. "There can, surely, be no necessity to answer that argument. 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." Moreover the court continued, "And the case of amendments is evidently a substantive act, unconnected with the ordinary business of legislation, and not with the policy, or terms, of investing the President with a qualified negative on the acts and resolutions of Congress."
Hence, legislation and amendment are to distinct functions each with their own procedures, powers and limitations. One of these is Congress is limited to a "call" which is neither a "bill" nor a "law" meaning the call is a distinct, limited, peremptory delegation by the people to Congress. Hence a "call" cannot become a "law." Thus, because the Constitution mandates any legislation passed by Congress must suffer approbation by the president, and the court has ruled that the president may have "nothing to do with the proposition…of amendments to the Constitution," the Congress cannot legislatively act as Dr. Vieira suggests because Article V does not allow for the participation of the president in the amendment process. Obviously, if the Congress were to propose legislation as Vieira states whereby they either substitute their amendment in lieu of calling a convention or attempted to control convention procedures such as delegate selection, agenda and so forth, this clearly falls under the term of "proposition" of an amendment as the obvious intent is to define the terms, conditions and subject matter of an amendment proposal. The court made it unmistakably clear such a "law" is unconstitutional. It appears Dr. Vieira missed three days of law school.
The Founders also directly addressed the issue of congressional control and the convention. James Madison, father of the Constitution and author of Article V made an unequivocalstatement regarding Congress’ authority and relationship to a convention call and thus addressed any notion of legislative control by Congress of the convention. It is difficult to imagine that sometime during law courses at Harvard Law School the father of the Constitution and his quotes were not discussed in class. Madison stated Congress may employ no committee to discuss a convention call, may not debate the matter and may take no vote regarding any aspect of it. Obviously, without these tools Congress is helpless to propose legislation. Thus both the Founders and the Supreme Court have expressly refuted Dr. Vieira’s congressional control theory which was determined to be unconstitutional centuries ago.
It appears Dr. Vieira missed four days of law school.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article10542-vieiras-titanic-ignoring-the-facts-about-an-article-v-convention.html
Link to multiple AV related stories on this site: http://www.nolanchart.com/topic144-article-v-convention.htm
Mark Levin was interviewed at the Reagan Library and here is the link for that video. It is long, but towards the end, he does a Q&A session that is very good. Very specific questions and very specific answers! http://therightscoop.com/watch-live-now-mark-levin-at-the-reagan-library/
“Convention of States” Can Amend U.S. Constitution without Federal Approval
David Leeper
Here is a brief (5-minute) video from Huckabee that neatly summarizes how the Constitution’s Article 5 can be used by the state legislatures to rein in a runaway Congress, President, and Supreme Court.
Huckabee’s guest, Michael Farris, is a leader in the Convention of Statesmovement that aims to help state legislatures do exactly that — rein in the federal government. They would do it by the book, per the Article 5 “escape clause” that the Founders and Framers put in the Constitution for a situation like the one we face today.
Convention of States is wisely tapping the sudden interest in Article 5 prompted by Mark Levin’s The Liberty Amendments. Just published August 13, the book shot instantly to #1 on both Amazon and The New York Timesbest-sellers lists. I’ve read it cover-to-cover, and I recommend it highly(!).
Convention of States is seeking volunteers in 3000 state legislative districts around the country to push their state representative to call for an Article 5 application. See ConventionOfStates.com for details, and consider signing up!
The video above is short, sharp, and on-target. From Citizens for Self-Governance, we include below three additional short (5-minute) video excerpts* of Michael Farris, Robert Natelson, and Mark Meckler addressing state legislators on the Convention of States initiative.
As you study this topic further, be ready for this uplifting revelation:
The states of the United States are not subservient to the federal government in Washington. In fact, it is just the other way around. That’s how the Founders & Framers intended it, designed it, and how it could still be today. To make it so, We the People have to stand up and use Article 5 as the Founders and Framers intended that it be used.
By the way, this could well be the next great mission for the Tea Party Movement. That is, work at the state level, as well as at the federal level, to change Washington back to what it’s supposed to be — a servant, not a master, of We the People.
* For those who would like to see the full 77-minute Convention of States session with state legislators, please click the blue link above.
Here is a brief (5-minute) video from Huckabee that neatly summarizes how the Constitution’s Article 5 can be used by the state legislatures to rein in a runaway Congress, President, and Supreme Court.
Huckabee’s guest, Michael Farris, is a leader in the Convention of Statesmovement that aims to help state legislatures do exactly that — rein in the federal government. They would do it by the book, per the Article 5 “escape clause” that the Founders and Framers put in the Constitution for a situation like the one we face today.
Convention of States is wisely tapping the sudden interest in Article 5 prompted by Mark Levin’s The Liberty Amendments. Just published August 13, the book shot instantly to #1 on both Amazon and The New York Timesbest-sellers lists. I’ve read it cover-to-cover, and I recommend it highly(!).
Convention of States is seeking volunteers in 3000 state legislative districts around the country to push their state representative to call for an Article 5 application. See ConventionOfStates.com for details, and consider signing up!
The video above is short, sharp, and on-target. From Citizens for Self-Governance, we include below three additional short (5-minute) video excerpts* of Michael Farris, Robert Natelson, and Mark Meckler addressing state legislators on the Convention of States initiative.
As you study this topic further, be ready for this uplifting revelation:
The states of the United States are not subservient to the federal government in Washington. In fact, it is just the other way around. That’s how the Founders & Framers intended it, designed it, and how it could still be today. To make it so, We the People have to stand up and use Article 5 as the Founders and Framers intended that it be used.
By the way, this could well be the next great mission for the Tea Party Movement. That is, work at the state level, as well as at the federal level, to change Washington back to what it’s supposed to be — a servant, not a master, of We the People.
* For those who would like to see the full 77-minute Convention of States session with state legislators, please click the blue link above.
Learn | Convention of States
On September 15, as the Convention was reviewing the revisions made by the Committee of Style, George Mason expressed opposition to the provisions limiting the power to propose amendments to Congress. According to the Convention records, Mason thought that “no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case.” In response, Governor Morris and Elbridge Gerry made a motion to amend the article to reintroduce language requiring that a convention be called when two--‐thirds of the States applied for an amendment.
- 30 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 1005, 1007 (2007)
There are two methods to propose amendments to the Constitution. Congress is in a perpetual “convention” with the power to propose amendments to the Constitution. The reality, however, is that Congress will never propose an amendment that reduces the power of Washington. That is why the Founders developed a second method to propose amendments.
The Founders knew the federal government might one day become drunk with the abuses of power. The most important check to this power is the Article V provision that gives the states the ability to call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution.
By calling a Convention of the states, we can stop the federal spending and debt spree, the power grabs of the federal courts, and other misuses of federal power. The current situation is precisely what the Founders feared, and they gave us a solution we have a moral duty to use. Thirty-four state legislatures can propose a return to liberty by passing resolutions containing an application for a Convention of the States. Then the states can hold a convention where amendments can be proposed and debated. Ultimately, amendments that are approved in such a convention can be sent to the 50 state legislatures for ratification. Congress has no ability to stop such a process. The Founders made sure of that.
We are approaching a crossroads. One path leads to the escalating power of an irresponsible centralized government, ultimately resulting in the financial ruin of generations of Americans. The other path leads to the restoration of liberty and an American renaissance.
Which will we choose?
Learn | Convention of States
Learn | How Our Proposal is Different
The Founders Gave us a Solution: A Convention of the States
Rather than calling a convention for a particular amendment, Citizens for Self-Governance (CSG) has launched the Convention of the States Project to urge state legislatures to properly use Article V to call a convention for a particular subject—reducing the power of Washington, D.C. It is important to note that a convention for a particular amendment (e.g. a Balanced Budget Amendment) would be limited to that single idea. Requiring a balanced budget is a great idea that CSG fully supports. Congress, however, could comply with a Balanced Budget Amendment by simply raising taxes. We need spending restraints as well. We need restraints on taxation. We need prohibitions against improper federal regulation. We need to stop unfunded mandates.
While the national debt is a crisis of the first magnitude, in many ways it is the symptom rather than the disease. The disease is an improper allocation of power with Washington, D.C., believing its power has no limits. A Convention of the States needs to be called to ensure that we are able to debate and impose a complete package of restraints on the misuse of power by all branches of the federal government.
State applications for a Convention of the States establish a rule of germaneness that will govern the convention. If the applications designate “a balanced budget” as the subject matter, the convention would be limited to drafting that specific amendment. But if the applications call for a convention dedicated to the subject of reducing the jurisdiction and power of the federal government, then only amendments on that subject matter would be germane on the floor of the Convention.
The following are examples of amendment topics that would be germane at a Convention of the States:
• A balanced budget amendment
• A redefinition of the General Welfare Clause (the original view was the federal government could not spend money on any topic within the jurisdiction of the states)
• A redefinition of the Commerce Clause (the original view was that Congress was granted a narrow and exclusive power to regulate shipments across state lines-- not all of the economic activity in the nation)
• A prohibition of using international treaties and law to govern the domestic law of the United States
• A limitation on using Executive Orders and federal regulations to enact laws (since the Congress is supposed to be the exclusive agency to enact laws)
• Imposing term limits on Congress and the Supreme Court
• Placing an upper limit on federal taxation
• Requiring a sunset of all existing federal taxes and a super-majority vote to replace them with new, fairer taxes
It is important to emphasize that these are merely examples of what would be germane. It would be the Convention of the States itself that would determine which ideas deserve serious consideration, and it will take a majority of votes from the states to formally propose any amendments. All amendments to be discussed and ultimately proposed for ratification, however, will be limited to the subject matter of the applications—reducing the power and jurisdiction of Washington, D.C.
All existing Article V efforts to reduce the power of Washington, D.C., are aimed at particular amendments. Every one of these ideas would be germane at a Convention of the States under the application that CSG has prepared. Mark Levin, who is not only a well-known talk show host but a fine constitutional scholar as well, has recently begun to advocate the calling of a Convention of the States for a group of amendments that he calls the “Liberty Amendments.” Of his 11 proposed amendments, 10 would be germane at the Convention of the States using the CSG model application.
American citizens have become so frustrated with runaway federal power that they have begun discussing ideas like nullification and even secession. Such ideas are not only impractical; they could ultimately lead to a violent conflict. We need not turn to such dangerous alternatives. The Founders gave us a legitimate path to save our liberty by using our legitimate state governments to impose binding restraints on the federal government. We must use the power granted to the states in the Constitution.
- See more at: http://www.conventionofstates.com/learn-convention-states-0#sthash.begqbBvl.dpuf
http://www.conventionofstates.com/article-v
- 30 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 1005, 1007 (2007)
There are two methods to propose amendments to the Constitution. Congress is in a perpetual “convention” with the power to propose amendments to the Constitution. The reality, however, is that Congress will never propose an amendment that reduces the power of Washington. That is why the Founders developed a second method to propose amendments.
The Founders knew the federal government might one day become drunk with the abuses of power. The most important check to this power is the Article V provision that gives the states the ability to call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution.
By calling a Convention of the states, we can stop the federal spending and debt spree, the power grabs of the federal courts, and other misuses of federal power. The current situation is precisely what the Founders feared, and they gave us a solution we have a moral duty to use. Thirty-four state legislatures can propose a return to liberty by passing resolutions containing an application for a Convention of the States. Then the states can hold a convention where amendments can be proposed and debated. Ultimately, amendments that are approved in such a convention can be sent to the 50 state legislatures for ratification. Congress has no ability to stop such a process. The Founders made sure of that.
We are approaching a crossroads. One path leads to the escalating power of an irresponsible centralized government, ultimately resulting in the financial ruin of generations of Americans. The other path leads to the restoration of liberty and an American renaissance.
Which will we choose?
Learn | Convention of States
Learn | How Our Proposal is Different
The Founders Gave us a Solution: A Convention of the States
Rather than calling a convention for a particular amendment, Citizens for Self-Governance (CSG) has launched the Convention of the States Project to urge state legislatures to properly use Article V to call a convention for a particular subject—reducing the power of Washington, D.C. It is important to note that a convention for a particular amendment (e.g. a Balanced Budget Amendment) would be limited to that single idea. Requiring a balanced budget is a great idea that CSG fully supports. Congress, however, could comply with a Balanced Budget Amendment by simply raising taxes. We need spending restraints as well. We need restraints on taxation. We need prohibitions against improper federal regulation. We need to stop unfunded mandates.
While the national debt is a crisis of the first magnitude, in many ways it is the symptom rather than the disease. The disease is an improper allocation of power with Washington, D.C., believing its power has no limits. A Convention of the States needs to be called to ensure that we are able to debate and impose a complete package of restraints on the misuse of power by all branches of the federal government.
State applications for a Convention of the States establish a rule of germaneness that will govern the convention. If the applications designate “a balanced budget” as the subject matter, the convention would be limited to drafting that specific amendment. But if the applications call for a convention dedicated to the subject of reducing the jurisdiction and power of the federal government, then only amendments on that subject matter would be germane on the floor of the Convention.
The following are examples of amendment topics that would be germane at a Convention of the States:
• A balanced budget amendment
• A redefinition of the General Welfare Clause (the original view was the federal government could not spend money on any topic within the jurisdiction of the states)
• A redefinition of the Commerce Clause (the original view was that Congress was granted a narrow and exclusive power to regulate shipments across state lines-- not all of the economic activity in the nation)
• A prohibition of using international treaties and law to govern the domestic law of the United States
• A limitation on using Executive Orders and federal regulations to enact laws (since the Congress is supposed to be the exclusive agency to enact laws)
• Imposing term limits on Congress and the Supreme Court
• Placing an upper limit on federal taxation
• Requiring a sunset of all existing federal taxes and a super-majority vote to replace them with new, fairer taxes
It is important to emphasize that these are merely examples of what would be germane. It would be the Convention of the States itself that would determine which ideas deserve serious consideration, and it will take a majority of votes from the states to formally propose any amendments. All amendments to be discussed and ultimately proposed for ratification, however, will be limited to the subject matter of the applications—reducing the power and jurisdiction of Washington, D.C.
All existing Article V efforts to reduce the power of Washington, D.C., are aimed at particular amendments. Every one of these ideas would be germane at a Convention of the States under the application that CSG has prepared. Mark Levin, who is not only a well-known talk show host but a fine constitutional scholar as well, has recently begun to advocate the calling of a Convention of the States for a group of amendments that he calls the “Liberty Amendments.” Of his 11 proposed amendments, 10 would be germane at the Convention of the States using the CSG model application.
American citizens have become so frustrated with runaway federal power that they have begun discussing ideas like nullification and even secession. Such ideas are not only impractical; they could ultimately lead to a violent conflict. We need not turn to such dangerous alternatives. The Founders gave us a legitimate path to save our liberty by using our legitimate state governments to impose binding restraints on the federal government. We must use the power granted to the states in the Constitution.
- See more at: http://www.conventionofstates.com/learn-convention-states-0#sthash.begqbBvl.dpuf
http://www.conventionofstates.com/article-v
Mark Levin Teaches About Article V
Amending the Constitution by Convention:
Practical Guidance for Citizens and Policymakers
by Robert G. Natelson*
IP-6-2012
May 2012
727 East 16th Avenue • Denver, Colorado 80203
http://liberty.i2i.org/files/2012/06/IP_6_2012_c.pdf
http://www.i2i.org/constitutionalstudieshome.php
IP-6-2012
May 2012
727 East 16th Avenue • Denver, Colorado 80203
http://liberty.i2i.org/files/2012/06/IP_6_2012_c.pdf
http://www.i2i.org/constitutionalstudieshome.php
The case for state-proposed amendments to the Constitution
Non-partisan, state-proposed constitutional amendments will restrain an overbearing, irresponsible federal government
compliments of DE and America912 on July 12, 2013 at 1:44pm
February 23, 2011 Robert J. Thorpe
The Framers anticipated that the U.S. Constitution would need to be amended from time to time, necessitating what James Madison referred to as government's ability "to originate the amendment of errors." They believed that new amendments might be necessary due to changed circumstances, to clarify ambiguities or to restrain the federal government should it abuse or exceed its powers. From the very beginning, the states demonstrated their endorsement of the amendment process and asserted their authority over Congress when they refused to ratify the Constitution until they received assurances that a Bill of Rights would be added, which comprised the first 10 amendments.
Article V of the Constitution therefore provides both Congress and the states with the exact same authority: to "propose" new amendments. When two — thirds of the states apply to Congress for an Article V convention for proposing amendments, the convention is nothing more than a drafting body, acting on behalf of its constituent states. Whether proposed by Congress or through state convention, amendments must then be ratified by at least three — fourths of the states before becoming law.
A historical perspective
Our early government leaders recognized the limitations of the Articles of Confederation. Prior to our first and only Constitutional Convention held in 1787, it was decided that it would be better to write a constitution than to attempt to renovate the Articles. Their convention was not a "runaway," and delegates did not overstep their authority or usurp the government. They met with a defined mandate from Congress: to write the Constitution that would replace the Articles and "establish in these states a firm national government."
Our founders recognized the need for and encouraged the use of state — proposed amendments. James Madison, in Federalist No. 43, wrote about this important Article V authority, equally shared between Congress and the states, that should be used to correct errors in our government and Constitution "It, moreover, equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other."
Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist No. 85, wrote about how state legislatures should be trusted to hold back an out — of — control central government: "We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority."
In 1788, George Washington wrote that the "constitutional door is open for such amendments as shall be thought necessary by nine States" [or two — thirds of the original thirteen.]
John Dickinson, in the "Fabius" essays, warned the states about negative consequences if they did not use their authority to restrain an overbearing federal government: "It will be their own faults, if the several States suffer the federal sovereignty to interfere in the things of their respective jurisdictions."
The long historical use of an Article V type authority can be traced back as far as seventeenth — century England. The Framers gave the states this crucial constitutional authority to pass amendments in order to restrain the federal government, should it abuse or exceed its power, and to solve problems that Washington could not or would not address.
Needed reforms
For well over 30 years, one of the most popular amendment proposals has been for a balanced federal budget, a requirement that most state governments must also fulfill. In the 1980s, the applications to Congress fell two states short of the required two — thirds needed to call for a convention for proposing a balanced federal budget amendment. In response to state pressure, in the mid 1990s, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a balanced budget amendment, which failed in the Senate by just one vote. According to the congressional record, since that vote the words "balanced budget amendment" have been stated almost 1,900 times on the floors of Congress.
Our $14 Trillion national debt is staggering, and growing by $4 Billion per day. The federal government has repeatedly demonstrated its inability or unwillingness to make tough, fiscally responsible choices. Even with considerable public and political support, it has been nearly impossible to enact federal accountability and needed fiscal restraints.
But balancing the budget is politically distasteful in Washington, because it reduces congressional power by imposing a fiscal restraint that doesn't currently exist. Additionally, it may anger constituents, who fear changes to their entitlements, and it will impose long overdue fiscal responsibility on programs such as Social Security, Medicare, welfare, military spending, education, and farm and corporate subsidies. Unless we mandate fiscal restraint, America faces economic collapse, or as John Adams predicted, "Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a Democracy that did not commit suicide."
Who do you trust, Congress or the states?
With greater regularity, Congress has produced mind — numbingly long pieces of legislation containing huge expansions of government, power grabs, earmarks, and political paybacks. Members vote on these 2,000-page leviathans without ever bothering to read the fine print or understand the scope or details of the legislation. These bills increase Washington's control and power over the nation, while sheltering and granting immunity to the government from the very laws they impose upon the rest of us.
During the 1995 balanced budget amendment process, Congress proved that it cannot be trusted to propose amendments that are free of legal loopholes and exemptions for their special interests. Congress will never willingly enact essential restraints of its own increasing power, or place mandates upon itself to run government more prudently, which leaves these important, neglected responsibilities to the states and to the people.
Unfounded fears of wielding constitutional authority
In the 1980s, an Article V convention for proposing a balanced federal budget amendment fell two states short of being convened. Since that time, groups like Phyllis Schlafly's "Eagle Forum," the John Birch Society, and others have lobbied state legislators not to use Article V authority, for fear that a convention for proposing amendments would somehow become a "con — con," or runaway "constitutional convention," of which no mention, process, or mechanism exists within the U.S. Constitution. They're afraid that numerous harmful amendments could be ratified, or that the Constitution could even be rewritten.
According to Professor Robert G. Natelson, "The Founders created the state — application — and — convention process primarily as a way to rectify federal abuses of power. The charge [that a Convention to Propose Amendments is a 'con — con' that could result in a 'runaway'] apparently originated among convention opponents in the nineteenth century, who rested their case on the (substantially false) belief that the 1787 constitutional convention had been a 'runaway.' Their argument did not gain much traction at the time, but in the 1960s a group of left — wing law professors and judges promoted the charge to frighten people away from trying to reverse activist Supreme Court decisions."
Nick Dranias of the Goldwater Institute states that "Article V of the U.S. Constitution gives a super-majority of state legislatures the power to call a convention to restrain an overreaching federal government through targeted constitutional amendments. There is no reason to worry about a 'runaway' convention because three — fourths of the states — 38 states — would have to ratify whatever amendment might be proposed. Moreover, nothing in the nation's history justifies fear of a 'runaway' convention. It is a myth that the U.S. Constitution was born of a 'runaway' convention. The truth is the Convention of 1787 had an incredibly broad mandate from Congress — to establish 'in these states a firm national government . . . [and] render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government and the preservation of the Union.' In proposing the Constitution to amend the Articles of Confederation, the 1787 convention stayed well within the congressional call, as well as within the commissions of most delegates."
Opponents also argue that before introducing new amendments, Congress should be forced to abide by our current Constitution. It is true: Congress needs to be held to a higher standard and forced to abide by the Constitution and their defined enumerated powers.
However, never in their wildest dreams would the Framers have guessed that our reckless federal government would amass over $134 Trillion in national debt and unfunded entitlements, thus saddling each taxpayer with $1.2 Million in federal debt. New amendments are needed whenever the Constitution does not directly address problems that government creates or refuses to resolve, such as our unrestrained borrowing and spending. Congress cannot be trusted to police itself when it routinely violates its own laws, such as "Pay — Go," which requires all new legislation be "deficit neutral." A "Debt Ceiling" restraint was enacted to control federal spending, but in the last 10 years, Congress has raised the debt ceiling 10 times, sometimes twice in the same year, and 98 times since 1940. Raising the debt ceiling once again illustrates Congress's inability to restrain and manage itself prudently.
If in fact the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was a "runaway" where delegates exceeded their mandates and authority, then why did George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and the fifty-two other respected delegates include Article V convention authority in the Constitution, and why did the states ratify a constitution with that provision? If it had actually been a runaway (which is a bad thing), steps would have been taken to ensure that it never happened again, which would have also been reflected in the historical record.
These unfounded fears of a runaway convention have no legal or historical basis in fact. More importantly, they damage our nation by impeding the states from exercising their constitutional authority to enact needed federal reforms, which would greatly benefit our nation.
Checks and balances
The irrational fear of using Article V by the states is simply unfounded. Here are some of the checks and balances that protect the Constitution and the amendment process, and ensure that conventions are limited in scope:
Application: Prior to convening a convention for proposing amendments, a supermajority (two — thirds) of the state legislatures must approve and submit applications to Congress for a convention, and specify the subject of the proposed amendment(s). If, for example, the subject is a "balanced federal budget," then Congress could possibly reject any approved amendment(s) that come out of the convention that do not match or that exceed the scope of the state-approved application(s) to Congress.
Delegates: The convention delegates are chosen to represent the specific instructions and the will of their respective states. The states will select intelligent delegates who are loyal to the wishes of their state, and obligated to respect the purpose of the convention, and the amendment subject, as defined in the state- approved application(s) to Congress.
Ratification: Regardless of whether an amendment was proposed by Congress or through state convention, three — quarters of the states must ratify all amendments before they become law. The states are morally obligated to only ratify amendments that are legal and improve the nation.
Repeal: By utilizing Article V, either Congress or the states can always propose new amendment(s) that repeal unwanted, outdated, or defective amendment(s).
Conclusion:
The Founders would be shocked to learn that in the past 200 years, the states have never fully exercised their constitutional authority to propose amendments and hold back an increasingly powerful and irresponsible central government. Only Congress has proposed amendments, including some that have greatly increased congressional power. And since 1789, Congress has almost never proposed an amendment restraining its own power, with the exception of the Bill of Rights and the repeal of Prohibition. Against the Founders' stated wishes for a limited central government, an imbalance now exists which renders the federal government with more and more power, compared with the states and the people.
The states were given this crucial Article V constitutional authority to hold the federal government to a higher standard and to impose reforms and accountability upon Washington. State-proposed amendments, such as a balanced federal budget, would dramatically improve the lives of current and future generations of Americans, while safeguarding our nation against third-world economic collapse.
According to John Adams, "The people should never rise without doing something to be remembered — something notable and striking." State legislators, who selflessly demonstrate both leadership and individual bravery, are desperately needed to assume this historic challenge of repairing our ailing Constitutional Republic. If they accept the challenge, history will remember them and their achievements as being both notable, and striking.
Robert J. Thorpe is a former UCLA Ext. instructor, a Constitutional lecturer and author of "Reclaim Liberty: 3 — Step Plan for Restoring our Constitutional Government." Thorpe is a member of a national team of constitutional scholars, academics, experts, and lawmakers who volunteer their time assisting state legislators by promoting Article V education, solutions, and several important amendments. Learn more at www.ReclaimLiberty.us "Laus Deo" Copyright © 2011 Robert J. Thorpe
http://www.renewamerica.com/article/110223
February 23, 2011 Robert J. Thorpe
The Framers anticipated that the U.S. Constitution would need to be amended from time to time, necessitating what James Madison referred to as government's ability "to originate the amendment of errors." They believed that new amendments might be necessary due to changed circumstances, to clarify ambiguities or to restrain the federal government should it abuse or exceed its powers. From the very beginning, the states demonstrated their endorsement of the amendment process and asserted their authority over Congress when they refused to ratify the Constitution until they received assurances that a Bill of Rights would be added, which comprised the first 10 amendments.
Article V of the Constitution therefore provides both Congress and the states with the exact same authority: to "propose" new amendments. When two — thirds of the states apply to Congress for an Article V convention for proposing amendments, the convention is nothing more than a drafting body, acting on behalf of its constituent states. Whether proposed by Congress or through state convention, amendments must then be ratified by at least three — fourths of the states before becoming law.
A historical perspective
Our early government leaders recognized the limitations of the Articles of Confederation. Prior to our first and only Constitutional Convention held in 1787, it was decided that it would be better to write a constitution than to attempt to renovate the Articles. Their convention was not a "runaway," and delegates did not overstep their authority or usurp the government. They met with a defined mandate from Congress: to write the Constitution that would replace the Articles and "establish in these states a firm national government."
Our founders recognized the need for and encouraged the use of state — proposed amendments. James Madison, in Federalist No. 43, wrote about this important Article V authority, equally shared between Congress and the states, that should be used to correct errors in our government and Constitution "It, moreover, equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other."
Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist No. 85, wrote about how state legislatures should be trusted to hold back an out — of — control central government: "We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority."
In 1788, George Washington wrote that the "constitutional door is open for such amendments as shall be thought necessary by nine States" [or two — thirds of the original thirteen.]
John Dickinson, in the "Fabius" essays, warned the states about negative consequences if they did not use their authority to restrain an overbearing federal government: "It will be their own faults, if the several States suffer the federal sovereignty to interfere in the things of their respective jurisdictions."
The long historical use of an Article V type authority can be traced back as far as seventeenth — century England. The Framers gave the states this crucial constitutional authority to pass amendments in order to restrain the federal government, should it abuse or exceed its power, and to solve problems that Washington could not or would not address.
Needed reforms
For well over 30 years, one of the most popular amendment proposals has been for a balanced federal budget, a requirement that most state governments must also fulfill. In the 1980s, the applications to Congress fell two states short of the required two — thirds needed to call for a convention for proposing a balanced federal budget amendment. In response to state pressure, in the mid 1990s, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a balanced budget amendment, which failed in the Senate by just one vote. According to the congressional record, since that vote the words "balanced budget amendment" have been stated almost 1,900 times on the floors of Congress.
Our $14 Trillion national debt is staggering, and growing by $4 Billion per day. The federal government has repeatedly demonstrated its inability or unwillingness to make tough, fiscally responsible choices. Even with considerable public and political support, it has been nearly impossible to enact federal accountability and needed fiscal restraints.
But balancing the budget is politically distasteful in Washington, because it reduces congressional power by imposing a fiscal restraint that doesn't currently exist. Additionally, it may anger constituents, who fear changes to their entitlements, and it will impose long overdue fiscal responsibility on programs such as Social Security, Medicare, welfare, military spending, education, and farm and corporate subsidies. Unless we mandate fiscal restraint, America faces economic collapse, or as John Adams predicted, "Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a Democracy that did not commit suicide."
Who do you trust, Congress or the states?
With greater regularity, Congress has produced mind — numbingly long pieces of legislation containing huge expansions of government, power grabs, earmarks, and political paybacks. Members vote on these 2,000-page leviathans without ever bothering to read the fine print or understand the scope or details of the legislation. These bills increase Washington's control and power over the nation, while sheltering and granting immunity to the government from the very laws they impose upon the rest of us.
During the 1995 balanced budget amendment process, Congress proved that it cannot be trusted to propose amendments that are free of legal loopholes and exemptions for their special interests. Congress will never willingly enact essential restraints of its own increasing power, or place mandates upon itself to run government more prudently, which leaves these important, neglected responsibilities to the states and to the people.
Unfounded fears of wielding constitutional authority
In the 1980s, an Article V convention for proposing a balanced federal budget amendment fell two states short of being convened. Since that time, groups like Phyllis Schlafly's "Eagle Forum," the John Birch Society, and others have lobbied state legislators not to use Article V authority, for fear that a convention for proposing amendments would somehow become a "con — con," or runaway "constitutional convention," of which no mention, process, or mechanism exists within the U.S. Constitution. They're afraid that numerous harmful amendments could be ratified, or that the Constitution could even be rewritten.
According to Professor Robert G. Natelson, "The Founders created the state — application — and — convention process primarily as a way to rectify federal abuses of power. The charge [that a Convention to Propose Amendments is a 'con — con' that could result in a 'runaway'] apparently originated among convention opponents in the nineteenth century, who rested their case on the (substantially false) belief that the 1787 constitutional convention had been a 'runaway.' Their argument did not gain much traction at the time, but in the 1960s a group of left — wing law professors and judges promoted the charge to frighten people away from trying to reverse activist Supreme Court decisions."
Nick Dranias of the Goldwater Institute states that "Article V of the U.S. Constitution gives a super-majority of state legislatures the power to call a convention to restrain an overreaching federal government through targeted constitutional amendments. There is no reason to worry about a 'runaway' convention because three — fourths of the states — 38 states — would have to ratify whatever amendment might be proposed. Moreover, nothing in the nation's history justifies fear of a 'runaway' convention. It is a myth that the U.S. Constitution was born of a 'runaway' convention. The truth is the Convention of 1787 had an incredibly broad mandate from Congress — to establish 'in these states a firm national government . . . [and] render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government and the preservation of the Union.' In proposing the Constitution to amend the Articles of Confederation, the 1787 convention stayed well within the congressional call, as well as within the commissions of most delegates."
Opponents also argue that before introducing new amendments, Congress should be forced to abide by our current Constitution. It is true: Congress needs to be held to a higher standard and forced to abide by the Constitution and their defined enumerated powers.
However, never in their wildest dreams would the Framers have guessed that our reckless federal government would amass over $134 Trillion in national debt and unfunded entitlements, thus saddling each taxpayer with $1.2 Million in federal debt. New amendments are needed whenever the Constitution does not directly address problems that government creates or refuses to resolve, such as our unrestrained borrowing and spending. Congress cannot be trusted to police itself when it routinely violates its own laws, such as "Pay — Go," which requires all new legislation be "deficit neutral." A "Debt Ceiling" restraint was enacted to control federal spending, but in the last 10 years, Congress has raised the debt ceiling 10 times, sometimes twice in the same year, and 98 times since 1940. Raising the debt ceiling once again illustrates Congress's inability to restrain and manage itself prudently.
If in fact the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was a "runaway" where delegates exceeded their mandates and authority, then why did George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and the fifty-two other respected delegates include Article V convention authority in the Constitution, and why did the states ratify a constitution with that provision? If it had actually been a runaway (which is a bad thing), steps would have been taken to ensure that it never happened again, which would have also been reflected in the historical record.
These unfounded fears of a runaway convention have no legal or historical basis in fact. More importantly, they damage our nation by impeding the states from exercising their constitutional authority to enact needed federal reforms, which would greatly benefit our nation.
Checks and balances
The irrational fear of using Article V by the states is simply unfounded. Here are some of the checks and balances that protect the Constitution and the amendment process, and ensure that conventions are limited in scope:
Application: Prior to convening a convention for proposing amendments, a supermajority (two — thirds) of the state legislatures must approve and submit applications to Congress for a convention, and specify the subject of the proposed amendment(s). If, for example, the subject is a "balanced federal budget," then Congress could possibly reject any approved amendment(s) that come out of the convention that do not match or that exceed the scope of the state-approved application(s) to Congress.
Delegates: The convention delegates are chosen to represent the specific instructions and the will of their respective states. The states will select intelligent delegates who are loyal to the wishes of their state, and obligated to respect the purpose of the convention, and the amendment subject, as defined in the state- approved application(s) to Congress.
Ratification: Regardless of whether an amendment was proposed by Congress or through state convention, three — quarters of the states must ratify all amendments before they become law. The states are morally obligated to only ratify amendments that are legal and improve the nation.
Repeal: By utilizing Article V, either Congress or the states can always propose new amendment(s) that repeal unwanted, outdated, or defective amendment(s).
Conclusion:
The Founders would be shocked to learn that in the past 200 years, the states have never fully exercised their constitutional authority to propose amendments and hold back an increasingly powerful and irresponsible central government. Only Congress has proposed amendments, including some that have greatly increased congressional power. And since 1789, Congress has almost never proposed an amendment restraining its own power, with the exception of the Bill of Rights and the repeal of Prohibition. Against the Founders' stated wishes for a limited central government, an imbalance now exists which renders the federal government with more and more power, compared with the states and the people.
The states were given this crucial Article V constitutional authority to hold the federal government to a higher standard and to impose reforms and accountability upon Washington. State-proposed amendments, such as a balanced federal budget, would dramatically improve the lives of current and future generations of Americans, while safeguarding our nation against third-world economic collapse.
According to John Adams, "The people should never rise without doing something to be remembered — something notable and striking." State legislators, who selflessly demonstrate both leadership and individual bravery, are desperately needed to assume this historic challenge of repairing our ailing Constitutional Republic. If they accept the challenge, history will remember them and their achievements as being both notable, and striking.
Robert J. Thorpe is a former UCLA Ext. instructor, a Constitutional lecturer and author of "Reclaim Liberty: 3 — Step Plan for Restoring our Constitutional Government." Thorpe is a member of a national team of constitutional scholars, academics, experts, and lawmakers who volunteer their time assisting state legislators by promoting Article V education, solutions, and several important amendments. Learn more at www.ReclaimLiberty.us "Laus Deo" Copyright © 2011 Robert J. Thorpe
http://www.renewamerica.com/article/110223
Radio Host Mark Levin suggests the States call an Article Five Amendment Convention
July 16, 2013 By: Theodore Koehl Top conservative radio talk show host, attorney and constitutional scholar Mark Levin announced the pending release of his new book, "The Liberty Amendments, Restoring the American Republic," this past Wednesday, July 10, 2013, during his regular broadcast. The book due out on or about August 13th of this year is sure to be well received and thoughtful exegesis regarding our Constitution, and in keeping with his best selling, "Liberty and Tyranny," as well as the more recent, "Ameritopia."
Levin previewed an argument under Article Five of the United States Constitution which expresses how the Constitution can be changed through the amendment process by using the traditional passage of a proposed amendment by two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate; then on to the several states for ratification. Once three-fourths of the states have ratified the proposed amendment, the approved Amendment becomes part of our United States Constitution.
What Levin also said was that the States could also propose a convention to add a specific amendment or reject a current amendment by calling an Amendment Convention. This convention would have no bearing on the existing framework of the Constitution, but would only affect the addition or subtraction of an amendment at hand.
Levin reported that under Article V of the Constitution, two-thirds of the several states could form a convention on their own through actions initiated through their own state legislatures. Once an amendment is successfully proposed, it could be ratified by approval of three-fourths of the legislatures of the several states, and then imparted into the Constitution.
The Founders placed this alternative method of amending the Constitution as an end-around the possible tyranny of an all-powerful federal government. The Founders knew the federal leviathan could never be completely trusted with policing itself and therefore gave ultimate authority to the states to make changes when they deemed it necessary.
Mr. Levin is correct in his assessment of the rights of the several states and their people to control their government, at every level. This contributor suggested a similar course of action in an article published by American Thinker on July 7, 2013 titled, " How to Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments," where the proposal was made that the several states could initiate repeal of amendments by their respective legislatures voting to de-ratify or otherwise invalidate those current amendments.
Again, when two-thirds of the several states have filed an instrument to invalidate either the 16th or 17th Amendments, another vote takes place in many or all the states to approve or disapprove the amendment. Once three-fourths of the several states have voted to approve the proposed change, notification is presented to the Archivist of the National Archives for inclusion into the Constitution.
While some have expressed concern that a full Constitutional Convention is needed to effect changes outside the traditional Congressional process, Levin demonstrates this theory is not necessary and may be done by state's initiatives through their various legislatures in keeping with the people's wishes. An Article Five Amendment Convention is possible and maybe needed if the federal system continues to act outside its limited and strictly enumerated authority.
This author submits that accepting differences in paperwork processing, the states de-ratifying of any existing amendments are tantamount to the same as an Article Five Amendment Convention.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/07/radio_host_mark_levin_suggests_the_states_call_an_article_five_amendment_convention.html
Levin previewed an argument under Article Five of the United States Constitution which expresses how the Constitution can be changed through the amendment process by using the traditional passage of a proposed amendment by two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate; then on to the several states for ratification. Once three-fourths of the states have ratified the proposed amendment, the approved Amendment becomes part of our United States Constitution.
What Levin also said was that the States could also propose a convention to add a specific amendment or reject a current amendment by calling an Amendment Convention. This convention would have no bearing on the existing framework of the Constitution, but would only affect the addition or subtraction of an amendment at hand.
Levin reported that under Article V of the Constitution, two-thirds of the several states could form a convention on their own through actions initiated through their own state legislatures. Once an amendment is successfully proposed, it could be ratified by approval of three-fourths of the legislatures of the several states, and then imparted into the Constitution.
The Founders placed this alternative method of amending the Constitution as an end-around the possible tyranny of an all-powerful federal government. The Founders knew the federal leviathan could never be completely trusted with policing itself and therefore gave ultimate authority to the states to make changes when they deemed it necessary.
Mr. Levin is correct in his assessment of the rights of the several states and their people to control their government, at every level. This contributor suggested a similar course of action in an article published by American Thinker on July 7, 2013 titled, " How to Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments," where the proposal was made that the several states could initiate repeal of amendments by their respective legislatures voting to de-ratify or otherwise invalidate those current amendments.
Again, when two-thirds of the several states have filed an instrument to invalidate either the 16th or 17th Amendments, another vote takes place in many or all the states to approve or disapprove the amendment. Once three-fourths of the several states have voted to approve the proposed change, notification is presented to the Archivist of the National Archives for inclusion into the Constitution.
While some have expressed concern that a full Constitutional Convention is needed to effect changes outside the traditional Congressional process, Levin demonstrates this theory is not necessary and may be done by state's initiatives through their various legislatures in keeping with the people's wishes. An Article Five Amendment Convention is possible and maybe needed if the federal system continues to act outside its limited and strictly enumerated authority.
This author submits that accepting differences in paperwork processing, the states de-ratifying of any existing amendments are tantamount to the same as an Article Five Amendment Convention.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/07/radio_host_mark_levin_suggests_the_states_call_an_article_five_amendment_convention.html
How to Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments
July 7, 2013
By Theodore Koehl
Americans may be able to regain control over their federal government by moving their respective individual state legislatures to invalidate the 16th and 17th Amendments to the United States Constitution. Essentially, this is a vote to reverse ratification of an Amendment without a Constitutional Convention.
Repeal of the 16th Amendment starves the federal beast by depriving it of its consumption of money from the states and the taxpayers through income taxes. States could exercise better control over how or even if their money is spent.
Repeal of the 17th Amendment makes United States senators directly appointed by the state legislatures, as they were at our nation's founding, and representative of the will of each state and its citizens. This action would check the federal government's proclivity to pass laws binding the states to unfunded mandates. It would increase the sovereignty of the several states and restore true federalism back into our system of government.
The states can do this by individual vote; this way, a Constitutional Convention and the subsequent dangers presents to liberty can be avoided. Three-fourths of the state legislatures would have to vote to repeal each or any Amendment. Once each state votes to invalidate an Amendment, the vote is sent to the Archivist of the National Archives. The result would be a return to the Constitution as it existed before the now repealed Amendments were included.
The United States of America was founded as a representative republic, where several sovereign states voluntarily joined under a common federal sovereign to better guarantee the unalienable rights of "We the People." This federal government was to be strictly limited to the enumerated powers given to it under the Constitution of the United States by the sovereignty of the several states and the people, who themselves are sovereign individuals.
The federal government is supposed to be strictly limited in power to only those things authorized in the Constitution. The several states were to always enjoy plenary power -- that is, power over everything not specifically given over to the federal government. Any powers not delegated to the several states were to be with the people as individuals.
Today, the federal government has been allowed to grow in size and scope of authority where it now imposes its will in every way over our individual daily lives. It has usurped the plenary powers of the several states. Every issue making news today seems to have a federal solution proposed or enacted instead of allowing the states, which are closer to the people within them, to address those issues.
The root of the current problem is that the federal government bends and contorts and stretches the plain meaning of the U.S. Constitution. It is allowed to do this, in part, by its taxing authority. The federal government taxes almost everything, taking the wealth of each state and of every individual for its own use.
The federal government redistributes this wealth as it sees fit to enact controls over the several states and the people through various administrative agencies, policies, and programs. The purported original need for an administrative agency, policy, or program is rarely, if ever, met.
In fact, the original need becomes modified with other causes and objectives requiring these agencies to grow; new policies and programs must be promulgated to better meet real or imagined demands.
Thus, the system is self-perpetuating. Without proper checks by the Congress, the administrative state becomes all-encompassing, oppressive, and in some respects, tyrannical.
But Congress has repeatedly failed to act. It benefits as an institution because the money the government gets is first distributed by its own members. This is properly so if each respective branch of our government works according to separation of powers as intended by the Framers.
Too often, the "separate powers" of the federal government seem to work in unison against the will of the American people. It is in those times that the Framers asserted the American people must respectfully move to regain control and place each house in proper order.
An effective method of dealing with this is for the several states to "starve" the federal Leviathan by reducing or denying its lifeblood-money. Prior to the enactment of the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution, taxes were paid to the federal government by apportionment based on population, and through certain direct fees (taxes) on customs, alcohol, and other select commodities.
The 16th Amendment allows the federal government the authority to directly tax the incomes of all individuals by whatever type and means necessary. Repeal of this amendment is necessary for the several states to regain financial control over federal spending. Cutting the money tap will in effect reduce or eliminate federal borrowing and annual debt. It will also bring the power that comes with distributing that money back to the influence of the states, closer to the people.
With monies reduced, administrative bureaucracy, unnecessary policies, and unneeded programs will also reduce. Some may be eliminated. A strictly limited federal government exercising only its constitutionally permitted powers restores trust and is beneficial to the American people.
Likewise, the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution now allows for the direct election of United States senators. The Senate was originally the part of Congress that represented the several states and their respective state's interests.
The House of Representatives originally, as today, were the part of Congress elected directly by the people. With the Senate directly elected by the people instead of appointed by each state's legislature, the Senate has become a de facto extended-term House of Representatives.
Senators rarely represent the interests of their home state today, as demonstrated by their voting for huge indebtedness as a national issue and voting for unfunded mandates adversely affecting the state they purport to represent, among many other self-interest issues.
The United States Constitution can have amendments added to it via two methods: the first is by a proposed amendment approved by two-thirds of the House of Representatives and approved by two-thirds of the Senate. The proposed amendment then goes before each state's legislature for majority approval. When three fourths of all states (38) ratify the proposed amendment, the amendment then becomes part of the United States Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land. The votes of each of the legislatures of the several states submit their letter of decision to the Archivist of the United States, in the National Archives. This method has been used exclusively since the first Constitutional Convention, and it includes all amendments (27) in existence today.
The second method is for two thirds of the states (33) to call a Constitutional Convention, propose an amendment, and then have it successfully ratified by a minimum of three fourths of the several states (38). The amendment then becomes part of the United States Constitution. The votes of each of the legislatures of the several states submit their letter of decision to the Archivist of the United States, in the National Archives.
The problem with the second method is the lack of control that might be exhibited by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. A group intent on radically changing our Constitution could do away with many protections we enjoy today or grant certain offices or persons in government additional powers and authority never intended. Even though any proposed amendment proceeding forth would still have to be ratified by three-fourths of all the states to become part of the constitution, the danger to this republic is unknown.
A unique consideration would cause the legislatures of the several states to vote to de-ratify or nullify the 16th and then 17th Amendments. This should be accomplished with little danger to the republic in that once three fourths of the several states (38) vote to de-ratify an amendment, the Constitution would return to its former status as to law.
Since the action would not involve a Constitutional Convention, there would be no new amendment(s). Any changes would be perceived by the legislatures of the several states and would be close to the people for comment and redress of grievances.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/how_to_repeal_the_16th_and_17th_amendments.html#ixzz2ZLi3UtgT
By Theodore Koehl
Americans may be able to regain control over their federal government by moving their respective individual state legislatures to invalidate the 16th and 17th Amendments to the United States Constitution. Essentially, this is a vote to reverse ratification of an Amendment without a Constitutional Convention.
Repeal of the 16th Amendment starves the federal beast by depriving it of its consumption of money from the states and the taxpayers through income taxes. States could exercise better control over how or even if their money is spent.
Repeal of the 17th Amendment makes United States senators directly appointed by the state legislatures, as they were at our nation's founding, and representative of the will of each state and its citizens. This action would check the federal government's proclivity to pass laws binding the states to unfunded mandates. It would increase the sovereignty of the several states and restore true federalism back into our system of government.
The states can do this by individual vote; this way, a Constitutional Convention and the subsequent dangers presents to liberty can be avoided. Three-fourths of the state legislatures would have to vote to repeal each or any Amendment. Once each state votes to invalidate an Amendment, the vote is sent to the Archivist of the National Archives. The result would be a return to the Constitution as it existed before the now repealed Amendments were included.
The United States of America was founded as a representative republic, where several sovereign states voluntarily joined under a common federal sovereign to better guarantee the unalienable rights of "We the People." This federal government was to be strictly limited to the enumerated powers given to it under the Constitution of the United States by the sovereignty of the several states and the people, who themselves are sovereign individuals.
The federal government is supposed to be strictly limited in power to only those things authorized in the Constitution. The several states were to always enjoy plenary power -- that is, power over everything not specifically given over to the federal government. Any powers not delegated to the several states were to be with the people as individuals.
Today, the federal government has been allowed to grow in size and scope of authority where it now imposes its will in every way over our individual daily lives. It has usurped the plenary powers of the several states. Every issue making news today seems to have a federal solution proposed or enacted instead of allowing the states, which are closer to the people within them, to address those issues.
The root of the current problem is that the federal government bends and contorts and stretches the plain meaning of the U.S. Constitution. It is allowed to do this, in part, by its taxing authority. The federal government taxes almost everything, taking the wealth of each state and of every individual for its own use.
The federal government redistributes this wealth as it sees fit to enact controls over the several states and the people through various administrative agencies, policies, and programs. The purported original need for an administrative agency, policy, or program is rarely, if ever, met.
In fact, the original need becomes modified with other causes and objectives requiring these agencies to grow; new policies and programs must be promulgated to better meet real or imagined demands.
Thus, the system is self-perpetuating. Without proper checks by the Congress, the administrative state becomes all-encompassing, oppressive, and in some respects, tyrannical.
But Congress has repeatedly failed to act. It benefits as an institution because the money the government gets is first distributed by its own members. This is properly so if each respective branch of our government works according to separation of powers as intended by the Framers.
Too often, the "separate powers" of the federal government seem to work in unison against the will of the American people. It is in those times that the Framers asserted the American people must respectfully move to regain control and place each house in proper order.
An effective method of dealing with this is for the several states to "starve" the federal Leviathan by reducing or denying its lifeblood-money. Prior to the enactment of the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution, taxes were paid to the federal government by apportionment based on population, and through certain direct fees (taxes) on customs, alcohol, and other select commodities.
The 16th Amendment allows the federal government the authority to directly tax the incomes of all individuals by whatever type and means necessary. Repeal of this amendment is necessary for the several states to regain financial control over federal spending. Cutting the money tap will in effect reduce or eliminate federal borrowing and annual debt. It will also bring the power that comes with distributing that money back to the influence of the states, closer to the people.
With monies reduced, administrative bureaucracy, unnecessary policies, and unneeded programs will also reduce. Some may be eliminated. A strictly limited federal government exercising only its constitutionally permitted powers restores trust and is beneficial to the American people.
Likewise, the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution now allows for the direct election of United States senators. The Senate was originally the part of Congress that represented the several states and their respective state's interests.
The House of Representatives originally, as today, were the part of Congress elected directly by the people. With the Senate directly elected by the people instead of appointed by each state's legislature, the Senate has become a de facto extended-term House of Representatives.
Senators rarely represent the interests of their home state today, as demonstrated by their voting for huge indebtedness as a national issue and voting for unfunded mandates adversely affecting the state they purport to represent, among many other self-interest issues.
The United States Constitution can have amendments added to it via two methods: the first is by a proposed amendment approved by two-thirds of the House of Representatives and approved by two-thirds of the Senate. The proposed amendment then goes before each state's legislature for majority approval. When three fourths of all states (38) ratify the proposed amendment, the amendment then becomes part of the United States Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land. The votes of each of the legislatures of the several states submit their letter of decision to the Archivist of the United States, in the National Archives. This method has been used exclusively since the first Constitutional Convention, and it includes all amendments (27) in existence today.
The second method is for two thirds of the states (33) to call a Constitutional Convention, propose an amendment, and then have it successfully ratified by a minimum of three fourths of the several states (38). The amendment then becomes part of the United States Constitution. The votes of each of the legislatures of the several states submit their letter of decision to the Archivist of the United States, in the National Archives.
The problem with the second method is the lack of control that might be exhibited by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. A group intent on radically changing our Constitution could do away with many protections we enjoy today or grant certain offices or persons in government additional powers and authority never intended. Even though any proposed amendment proceeding forth would still have to be ratified by three-fourths of all the states to become part of the constitution, the danger to this republic is unknown.
A unique consideration would cause the legislatures of the several states to vote to de-ratify or nullify the 16th and then 17th Amendments. This should be accomplished with little danger to the republic in that once three fourths of the several states (38) vote to de-ratify an amendment, the Constitution would return to its former status as to law.
Since the action would not involve a Constitutional Convention, there would be no new amendment(s). Any changes would be perceived by the legislatures of the several states and would be close to the people for comment and redress of grievances.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/how_to_repeal_the_16th_and_17th_amendments.html#ixzz2ZLi3UtgT
The U.S Capitol Dome in Washington, D.C. The progressive group Friends of the Article V Convention argues a constitutional convention could benefit liberal causes. (KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images)
|
Article V Constitutional Convention Could Offer Advantage For Progressive Causes
Posted: 04/01/2013 1:38 pm EDT | Updated: 04/01/2013 2:00 pm EDT
Conservative politicians and groups are largely behind a renewed push to have the states call a constitutional convention, but a nonpartisan group dedicated to advancing the idea says progressives should be taking up the cause as well. Byron DeLear, a co-founder of Friends of the Article V Convention, told The Huffington Post that the idea of a state-called convention, |
which is allowed for in Article V of the Constitution, is a "transpartisan idea" that only recently has become a tool for conservatives to push for change.
“Most of the energy on Article V is on the right side of the aisle -- people who want to shut down the Obama administration and think he is a tyrant," DeLear said. "When Bush was in office, the left was energized and the peace movement was energized."
Under the terms of Article V, a constitutional convention can be called if two-thirds of state legislatures file petitions with Congress. Most of such petitions offered in recent years have called for a balanced budget amendment, while two states currently pushing petitions -- Indiana and Kansas -- are seeking to reduce the powers of the federal government.
But DeLear, a Democrat who unsuccessfully challenged former Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) for Congress in Missouri, said liberals could use an Article V convention to push for several issues important to them: overturning the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, ending the definition of corporate personhood, addressing the push in some states for greater voting restrictions, and advocating a balanced budget amendment. While a balanced budget amendment is primarily backed by conservative groups, DeLear said liberals could use such a rule to reduce debt spending and refocus federal funds on services.
Still, DeLear said his group does not favor the current trend of states calling for an Article V convention to petition on discrete issues. Forty-nine states have made specific Article V applications to Congress, but no one topic has received the backing of the two-thirds of states required to trigger a convention.
"In the case of an Article V convention it would be difficult to get a call for a convention if it didn’t have a general mandate," DeLear explained. "It can’t be constrained or limited to one particular initiative.”
Opponents of an Article V convention -- as well as those seeking to limit its address to one topic -- have suggested such a gathering could become a "runaway convention" that could make significant changes to the Constitution. DeLear argued against that concern, noting that any amendments passed by a convention would need to be ratified by three-quarters of the states.
That same argument is being advanced by Kansas state Rep. Brett Hildabrand (R-Shawnee), who is pushing his state's latest Article V application. The Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force, which also is pushing for a constitutional convention, has suggested blocking the possibility of overzealous revision by passing state laws that would prevent delegates from deviating from such a meeting's original intent.
DeLear said the purpose of a convention is to promote a grassroots discussion of the Constitution and give supporters a chance to end what he sees as the undue influence of corporate interests within the federal government.
“There is an intrinistic civic value in calling the nation’s first Article V convention: to encourage civic engagement," DeLear said. "The founders designed a bottom-up solution to a runaway federal government. The actual supreme law of the land can be changed outside of Washington.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/01/article-v-constitutional-convention_n_2992831.html
“Most of the energy on Article V is on the right side of the aisle -- people who want to shut down the Obama administration and think he is a tyrant," DeLear said. "When Bush was in office, the left was energized and the peace movement was energized."
Under the terms of Article V, a constitutional convention can be called if two-thirds of state legislatures file petitions with Congress. Most of such petitions offered in recent years have called for a balanced budget amendment, while two states currently pushing petitions -- Indiana and Kansas -- are seeking to reduce the powers of the federal government.
But DeLear, a Democrat who unsuccessfully challenged former Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) for Congress in Missouri, said liberals could use an Article V convention to push for several issues important to them: overturning the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, ending the definition of corporate personhood, addressing the push in some states for greater voting restrictions, and advocating a balanced budget amendment. While a balanced budget amendment is primarily backed by conservative groups, DeLear said liberals could use such a rule to reduce debt spending and refocus federal funds on services.
Still, DeLear said his group does not favor the current trend of states calling for an Article V convention to petition on discrete issues. Forty-nine states have made specific Article V applications to Congress, but no one topic has received the backing of the two-thirds of states required to trigger a convention.
"In the case of an Article V convention it would be difficult to get a call for a convention if it didn’t have a general mandate," DeLear explained. "It can’t be constrained or limited to one particular initiative.”
Opponents of an Article V convention -- as well as those seeking to limit its address to one topic -- have suggested such a gathering could become a "runaway convention" that could make significant changes to the Constitution. DeLear argued against that concern, noting that any amendments passed by a convention would need to be ratified by three-quarters of the states.
That same argument is being advanced by Kansas state Rep. Brett Hildabrand (R-Shawnee), who is pushing his state's latest Article V application. The Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force, which also is pushing for a constitutional convention, has suggested blocking the possibility of overzealous revision by passing state laws that would prevent delegates from deviating from such a meeting's original intent.
DeLear said the purpose of a convention is to promote a grassroots discussion of the Constitution and give supporters a chance to end what he sees as the undue influence of corporate interests within the federal government.
“There is an intrinistic civic value in calling the nation’s first Article V convention: to encourage civic engagement," DeLear said. "The founders designed a bottom-up solution to a runaway federal government. The actual supreme law of the land can be changed outside of Washington.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/01/article-v-constitutional-convention_n_2992831.html
ARTICLE V STATE AMENDMENT IS THE ONLY OPTION LEFT AS THE SUPREME COURT HAS KILLED THE 10TH AMENDMENT POWERS – A CONVERSATION
• Posted by Mangus Colorado on November 9, 2012
As the national debt continues to grow, states are looking for ways to rein in Washington's out of control spending. Article V of the U.S. Constitution gives states the power to call an amendments convention. If at least 34 states call for a convention, they could consider the National Debt Relief Amendment. The NDRA contains 18 simple, yet extremely powerful words — "An increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the legislatures of the separate States.” Three-fourths of the states, 38 of them, would have to vote to approve the NDRA or any amendment considered at an amendments convention.
Through historical texts and records the Goldwater Institute's constitutional scholars have determined that fears of an Article V amendments convention "running away" are unfounded. The U.S. Constitution would not be rewritten by delegates to such a convention. The Goldwater Institute has studied and written extensively about Article V and the National Debt Relief Amendment. We've also cited original sources from the Founders that show their approval of and advocacy for an amendments convention, as well as articles from other sources that have also researched Article V. A complete list follows.
Goldwater Institute Sources:
Senior Fellow Robert G. Natelson looks at the history of Article V and how states can use it to call an amendments convention in this series:
Amending the Constitution by Convention: A Complete View of the Fou...
Learning from Experience: How the States Used Article V Application...
Amending the Constitution by Convention: Practical Guidance for Cit...
You've heard that an amendments convention can lead to drastic changes to the Constitution. Here the Goldwater Institute sets the record straight:
Goldwater Institute Constitutional Attorney Nick Dranias wrote a series of Daily Emails which explore the use of Article V, the National Debt Relief Amendment, how states can call an amendments convention, and why they should:
States can seek constitutional amendment to end federal debt binge {Link}
No matter who controls Congress, the federal government has been incapable of putting its fiscal house in order.
States must not ignore powerful avenue for bringing back federalism {Link}
When it comes to the balance of power between the federal and state governments, the feds have a stronghold. Though no single avenue exists that would return power to the states, one potent remedy must not be ignored.
Founders prepared path to restrain runaway federal government {Link}
The Founding Fathers put a fail-safe mechanism in the Constitution that gives states the power to rein in an out-of-control federal government--Article V. It is high time for the states to use it.
Debunking myth of the ‘runaway’ convention {Link}
If the states choose to exercise their authority over the federal government through the Article V amendment process, history shows a “runway” convention just won’t happen.
Need national debt relief? {Link}
Thomas Jefferson worried that one thing missing from the newly minted Constitution was some kind of limit on federal debt. Fortunately, President Jefferson’s wish can be a reality through the use of Article V.
Amendment to limit national debt will appeal to states {Link}
Any effort to call for an amendments convention under Article V of the U.S. Constitution must “make the sale” to 34 state legislatures and “close the deal” with 38 states to ratify any amendment. Resolutions to apply for a convention must consider the political appeal of potential suggestions. The National Debt Relief Amendment sets the standard for a highly marketable idea.
The National Debt Relief Amendment Gains Momentum {Link}
As America's debt approaches $14 trillion, it may seem like there is nothing that can be done to stop and reverse the mounting crisis. But 18 words could change all that.
My New Year’s Resolution: A Dynamic Balance of Power {Link}
Nick Dranias has just one New Year's resolution this year. He wants to see an amendments convention that would reign in the federal government's out-of-control spending.
States have same power as Congress to propose amendments to the Con... {Link}
Congress is driving our nation toward a financial cliff and the states must take the wheel. The best way is for states to use their power to call an amendments convention and consider the National Debt Relief Amendment to help end out-of-control spending.
Does the Arizona Legislature Really Believe in State Sovereignty? {Link}
The National Debt Relief Amendment would empower the states to control federal spending. So why are some of the most conservative lawmakers in the Arizona legislature refusing to allow a full vote on the NDRA? It's because they have been given bad information.
Nick Dranias was part of a news conference in which it was announced that the Arizona legislature would be joining other states in considering calling for an Article V amendments convention.
Restoring Freedom Sources:
RestoringFreedom.org is a Texas-based non-profit formed in 2009 that wrote the language for the National Debt Relief Amendment.
About Restoring Freedom.org and the National Debt Relief Amendment:
RestoringFreedom.org: The National Debt Relief Amendment {Link}
Read the model legislation state legislatures can adopt to call for an amendments convention:
RestoringFreedom.org: Model legislation {LINK}
Goldwater Institute experts discuss their thoughts on RestoringFreedom's National Debt Relief Amendment: (video)
Still have questions about the National Debt Relief Amendment? RestoringFreedom answers them in their FAQ's section:
RestoringFreedom.org: Frequently Asked Questions about the National... {Link}
Original Sources:
Perhaps the most convincing evidence that an Article V amendments convention can be a safe and effective way to control the national debt is by looking at original sources written by the Founders. Their intent for Article V is clear.
The plain language of Article V of the U.S. Constitution on the states' right to call an amendments convention is very distinct:
U.S. Constititution Article V {Link}
Proof that an Article V convention is not a general constitutional convention (Founders’ repeated rejection of open convention language for Article V during 1787 Constitutional Convention):
Report of Proceedings on September 15, 1787 in Elliot’s Debates (19... {Link}
and:
Report of Proceedings on September 15, 1787 in Farrand’s (1911), at... {Link}
In James Madison's Federalist No. 43 he writes "It, moreover, equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other":
Federalist No. 43
In Federalist No. 85, Alexander Hamilton writes "We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority":
Federalist No. 85
RestoringFreedom.org is a Texas-based non-profit formed in 2009 that wrote the language for the National Debt Relief Amendment.
About Restoring Freedom.org and the National Debt Relief Amendment:
RestoringFreedom.org: The National Debt Relief Amendment {Link}
Read the model legislation state legislatures can adopt to call for an amendments convention:
RestoringFreedom.org: Model legislation {LINK}
Goldwater Institute experts discuss their thoughts on RestoringFreedom's National Debt Relief Amendment: (video)
Still have questions about the National Debt Relief Amendment? RestoringFreedom answers them in their FAQ's section:
RestoringFreedom.org: Frequently Asked Questions about the National... {Link}
Original Sources:
Perhaps the most convincing evidence that an Article V amendments convention can be a safe and effective way to control the national debt is by looking at original sources written by the Founders. Their intent for Article V is clear.
The plain language of Article V of the U.S. Constitution on the states' right to call an amendments convention is very distinct:
U.S. Constititution Article V {Link}
Proof that an Article V convention is not a general constitutional convention (Founders’ repeated rejection of open convention language for Article V during 1787 Constitutional Convention):
Report of Proceedings on September 15, 1787 in Elliot’s Debates (19... {Link}
and:
Report of Proceedings on September 15, 1787 in Farrand’s (1911), at... {Link}
In James Madison's Federalist No. 43 he writes "It, moreover, equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other":
Federalist No. 43
In Federalist No. 85, Alexander Hamilton writes "We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority":
Federalist No. 85
In a letter from George Washington to John Armstrong, the future first president writes "It should be remembered that a constitutional door is open for such amendments as shall be thought necessary by nine States":
Washington's Letter to Armstrong
In James Madison's Report On The Virginia Resolutions, House of Delegates (pg 501-02), he writes "...or two thirds of themselves (states), if such had been their opinion, might, by an application to Congress, have obtained a convention for the same object":
Report On The Virginia Resolutions, House of Delegates
James Madison's letter on Nullification also made reference to the Article V amendment process when he writes "the final resort within the purview of the Constitution lies in an amendment of the Constitution, according to a process applicable by the states":
Other Sources:
Along with the Goldwater Institute, Restoring Freedom, and the Founding Fathers themselves, other organizations have weighed in on the Article V amendments convention process.
Heritage Foundation: Amending the Constitution by the Convention Me...
The idea of an Article V amendments convention is nothing new. In 1988 the Heritage Foundation published a report showing numerous safeguards are in place that would keep such a convention from "running away." In fact, Heritage calls a state-called amendments convention safer than Congress proposing amendments.
U.S. Justice Department: Legal opinion that Article V authorizes a ...
In 1979, the U.S. Justice Department wrote a legal opinion that Article V of the Constitution authorizes a limited subject amendments convention.
James Madison and the Constitution’s “Convention for Proposing Amen...
Goldwater Institute Senior Fellow Robert G. Natelson explores James Madison's view that an Article V convention was a powerful and constitutional way to guard against federal governmental excesses.
USDebtClock.org: National debt
Is it really that important that we get federal spending under control? Just one look at the U.S. Debt Clock and the answer is an obvious 'yes'.
This method has been used before - it was used to revoke the 18th amendment because the Federal Congress could not get enough support for fear of losing elections to place the issue before the States so they ask the 3/4 of the State legislatures to vote for approval of the revocation and then return it to Congress so they could send it back to the States for ratification. Which the State legislatures timely ratified and the 21st amendment was passed into law.
Some have tried to use fear and confusion to speak against the Article V method and used the term run away CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION - there is no such thing in the document there is no convention as we think of them now - the definition in the time of the founders was a meeting of two or more people. There is no mechanism to open it up to change the entire Constitution and even if there was the amendment must be sent back to the many States for Ratification so if the item is modified the State legislatures can just say no.
Media Sources:
Politico:
Tea party split on constitutional convention {Link}
Associated Press:
ND House to Congress: Ask states permission to raise federal debt
World Net Daily:
Solution to federal debt binge: Article V {Link}
For further information about an Article V amendments convention, please contact Nick Dranias at ndranias@goldwaterinstitute.org. {Link}
For those that read Phyllis Schlafly, this should offset her preached fears that I have read for her published works. This lady is just not correct in her "OPINION" - AGAIN I would ask that those that have interest read the Goldwater Institution's numerous papers on the subject of the Con Con - [note: there is no such item in the constitution so where is she coming from?]
Please keep in mind that the "RUNAWAY CONVENTION" is a red herring because even if it did go wacky; there is little or no risk because 3/4th or 38 State legislatures must ratify the work or it is void. Those that fear this concept are those that have a vested interest in the supreme Federal Government we now have - the three branches of government have usurped the powers they now wield without authority in the Constitution.
Indeed what the three branches has done is to change the meaning of words and altered punctuations to create new powers that are just not there. They have even just said that the Constitution was just an outline for government, they also said it was a living document and should be modernized every so often by Congress and the Courts. Well these are just flat out lies - there is no evidence in any of the Founders Papers nor does the Constitution contain language that would support these beliefs.
Washington's Letter to Armstrong
In James Madison's Report On The Virginia Resolutions, House of Delegates (pg 501-02), he writes "...or two thirds of themselves (states), if such had been their opinion, might, by an application to Congress, have obtained a convention for the same object":
Report On The Virginia Resolutions, House of Delegates
James Madison's letter on Nullification also made reference to the Article V amendment process when he writes "the final resort within the purview of the Constitution lies in an amendment of the Constitution, according to a process applicable by the states":
Other Sources:
Along with the Goldwater Institute, Restoring Freedom, and the Founding Fathers themselves, other organizations have weighed in on the Article V amendments convention process.
Heritage Foundation: Amending the Constitution by the Convention Me...
The idea of an Article V amendments convention is nothing new. In 1988 the Heritage Foundation published a report showing numerous safeguards are in place that would keep such a convention from "running away." In fact, Heritage calls a state-called amendments convention safer than Congress proposing amendments.
U.S. Justice Department: Legal opinion that Article V authorizes a ...
In 1979, the U.S. Justice Department wrote a legal opinion that Article V of the Constitution authorizes a limited subject amendments convention.
James Madison and the Constitution’s “Convention for Proposing Amen...
Goldwater Institute Senior Fellow Robert G. Natelson explores James Madison's view that an Article V convention was a powerful and constitutional way to guard against federal governmental excesses.
USDebtClock.org: National debt
Is it really that important that we get federal spending under control? Just one look at the U.S. Debt Clock and the answer is an obvious 'yes'.
This method has been used before - it was used to revoke the 18th amendment because the Federal Congress could not get enough support for fear of losing elections to place the issue before the States so they ask the 3/4 of the State legislatures to vote for approval of the revocation and then return it to Congress so they could send it back to the States for ratification. Which the State legislatures timely ratified and the 21st amendment was passed into law.
Some have tried to use fear and confusion to speak against the Article V method and used the term run away CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION - there is no such thing in the document there is no convention as we think of them now - the definition in the time of the founders was a meeting of two or more people. There is no mechanism to open it up to change the entire Constitution and even if there was the amendment must be sent back to the many States for Ratification so if the item is modified the State legislatures can just say no.
Media Sources:
Politico:
Tea party split on constitutional convention {Link}
Associated Press:
ND House to Congress: Ask states permission to raise federal debt
World Net Daily:
Solution to federal debt binge: Article V {Link}
For further information about an Article V amendments convention, please contact Nick Dranias at ndranias@goldwaterinstitute.org. {Link}
For those that read Phyllis Schlafly, this should offset her preached fears that I have read for her published works. This lady is just not correct in her "OPINION" - AGAIN I would ask that those that have interest read the Goldwater Institution's numerous papers on the subject of the Con Con - [note: there is no such item in the constitution so where is she coming from?]
Please keep in mind that the "RUNAWAY CONVENTION" is a red herring because even if it did go wacky; there is little or no risk because 3/4th or 38 State legislatures must ratify the work or it is void. Those that fear this concept are those that have a vested interest in the supreme Federal Government we now have - the three branches of government have usurped the powers they now wield without authority in the Constitution.
Indeed what the three branches has done is to change the meaning of words and altered punctuations to create new powers that are just not there. They have even just said that the Constitution was just an outline for government, they also said it was a living document and should be modernized every so often by Congress and the Courts. Well these are just flat out lies - there is no evidence in any of the Founders Papers nor does the Constitution contain language that would support these beliefs.
Numbers and words…that is what you hear for every problem facing this country reduced to on all morning-noon-and nighttime news reports. Debt numbers - clock ticking. Job numbers - reported and unreported. 50% voted for this, 50% did not. Millions and millions - they will cut/will not cut? For a certainty, millions of dollars they will waste. 20-something? days to the fiscal cliff - 16+ TRILLION dollars in debt-taxes, entitlements; negotiations or none.
Republicans needed 6 senators in the last election - we didn’t get them. At least 2 Supremes will be appointed under this POTUS - these are lifetime appointments….the next election cannot change that. Regulations to circumvent the legislative process. Presidential (executive orders) need to be challenged, but how ? They keep running for the end-zone, we get no turn or say in carrying the ball, the refs are in-the-tank...how do you see the score at the end of this game?
Four more years….where will we be then…the last six have been just about more than we can take….numbers and words. The numbers are so high, the faces of the people those numbers represent get lost behind all the zeros (and this is meant mathematically and metaphorically). Every day we can choose to either listen to the numbers and the words - and helplessly watch our lives change in ways we do not want….or we can listen to just four words…“38 states - Article V”.
Article V in 38 states will change the course of America’s future.
That one simple sentence 2 numbers - 2 words…can change every other number from every other statistic…and restore your voice and mine. We The People can take back our Country….while there is still time - it is what we must do! Article V is the treasure in the Constitution that our Founders left for us to discover and implement for just such a time as this. It is the process that shackles a government that has ceased to obey the will of the governed. It is the peaceful and lawful rebellion that Yesterday’s Patriots paid for in blood, for their children - Today’s Patriots to have the wisdom and the courage to use.
The election of 2012 changed the course of our Nation. Three days after, I sat down at my keyboard…and for the first time in my adult life I found I could not write. What could I say - what was to become of us - what in the HECK !!! Were we ever going to be able to change this Country?..... At a conservative site late that night two good friends shared a link. I followed it ....and what I found there told me how we could still make a PROFOUND difference.
Working to make Article V a reality is why I have joined/and now work with this effort. We are hoping that you will educate yourself and let the promise of restoring the state powers be your goal and hope for the future as well. Hope for the future…..those dark days after the election... I had little of that and sought a direction for effective action.
I have committed to offer the talents and work ethic that I have to this cause and I earnestly ask that you learn for yourself and the sake of our Country about Article V and join us. 38 States plus you and me = The US MAKING THE DIFFERENCE THAT WILL COUNT. We need Patriots willing to help us start an effort in their state…we hope you are here.
I offer the following: the Constitution allows us this right and process! Let us develop the method and promote the issue. Organize and implement efficient use of our combined knowledge and strengths. The out-numbered Patriots of old took on a king and his army with muskets and worn-out boots.
Look at the many regulations and mandates that have been forced upon us circumventing the law now. If the federal government can conduct itself in such a manner, over-riding the peoples’ will and implementing their policies unchallenged...down which path do you see us heading? We can no longer pretend or assume it will all work out. Doing nothing is not an option.
Let us not ask that we can/may try it?…Let us...DO IT... and enforce our LAWFUL will and voice. Tick…tick…tick…we can attempt to kill the federal beast with a death by a thousand knives (all worthy but time-consuming)…. let us not waste our efforts or any more precious time...UNITE...and accomplish all…. with one (1) Fatal Shot.
Restore State Powers through Article V. A closed agenda - specifically worded - proposed 28th Amendment - repealing the 14th-16th, and 17th amendments of the Constitution which have become the tools used to usurp the Bill of Rights and only serve to grow and empower the federal government.
**Footnote:
Article V of the Constitution is the original language of the Founders. It is the process by which the states can apply to the Congress to propose a new amendment. The LEGISLATURES OR conventions [definition of convention in 1828 Webster is a meeting to two or more people not like the DNC of RNC show boat] to offer this new amendment in the states would have a specific 'suggested agenda' limited to only this amendment proposal. No other suggestions for amendment would be recognized from the floor. Therefore; there is no open forum for further considerations and no danger of 'a runaway - change the whole ball of wax scenario, where the entire U.S. Constitution is at risk.
The 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments changed the balance of power which was originally intended by the Founders in the 10th amendment. It is only they-that are considered, and it is easier to offer a new amendment that repeals all three than three amendments to repeal each. If we could accomplish this, State powers would be restored. The Congress has to recognize the application from the states. If the language is ratified by 38 states it becomes the law of the land and not the Congress, or the Supreme Court or the President of the United States can subvert it.
All States are Separate Republics contracted under one COMPACT. We call that compact the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA.
The text of 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.
Thank you for reading.
A5
Republicans needed 6 senators in the last election - we didn’t get them. At least 2 Supremes will be appointed under this POTUS - these are lifetime appointments….the next election cannot change that. Regulations to circumvent the legislative process. Presidential (executive orders) need to be challenged, but how ? They keep running for the end-zone, we get no turn or say in carrying the ball, the refs are in-the-tank...how do you see the score at the end of this game?
Four more years….where will we be then…the last six have been just about more than we can take….numbers and words. The numbers are so high, the faces of the people those numbers represent get lost behind all the zeros (and this is meant mathematically and metaphorically). Every day we can choose to either listen to the numbers and the words - and helplessly watch our lives change in ways we do not want….or we can listen to just four words…“38 states - Article V”.
Article V in 38 states will change the course of America’s future.
That one simple sentence 2 numbers - 2 words…can change every other number from every other statistic…and restore your voice and mine. We The People can take back our Country….while there is still time - it is what we must do! Article V is the treasure in the Constitution that our Founders left for us to discover and implement for just such a time as this. It is the process that shackles a government that has ceased to obey the will of the governed. It is the peaceful and lawful rebellion that Yesterday’s Patriots paid for in blood, for their children - Today’s Patriots to have the wisdom and the courage to use.
The election of 2012 changed the course of our Nation. Three days after, I sat down at my keyboard…and for the first time in my adult life I found I could not write. What could I say - what was to become of us - what in the HECK !!! Were we ever going to be able to change this Country?..... At a conservative site late that night two good friends shared a link. I followed it ....and what I found there told me how we could still make a PROFOUND difference.
Working to make Article V a reality is why I have joined/and now work with this effort. We are hoping that you will educate yourself and let the promise of restoring the state powers be your goal and hope for the future as well. Hope for the future…..those dark days after the election... I had little of that and sought a direction for effective action.
I have committed to offer the talents and work ethic that I have to this cause and I earnestly ask that you learn for yourself and the sake of our Country about Article V and join us. 38 States plus you and me = The US MAKING THE DIFFERENCE THAT WILL COUNT. We need Patriots willing to help us start an effort in their state…we hope you are here.
I offer the following: the Constitution allows us this right and process! Let us develop the method and promote the issue. Organize and implement efficient use of our combined knowledge and strengths. The out-numbered Patriots of old took on a king and his army with muskets and worn-out boots.
Look at the many regulations and mandates that have been forced upon us circumventing the law now. If the federal government can conduct itself in such a manner, over-riding the peoples’ will and implementing their policies unchallenged...down which path do you see us heading? We can no longer pretend or assume it will all work out. Doing nothing is not an option.
Let us not ask that we can/may try it?…Let us...DO IT... and enforce our LAWFUL will and voice. Tick…tick…tick…we can attempt to kill the federal beast with a death by a thousand knives (all worthy but time-consuming)…. let us not waste our efforts or any more precious time...UNITE...and accomplish all…. with one (1) Fatal Shot.
Restore State Powers through Article V. A closed agenda - specifically worded - proposed 28th Amendment - repealing the 14th-16th, and 17th amendments of the Constitution which have become the tools used to usurp the Bill of Rights and only serve to grow and empower the federal government.
**Footnote:
Article V of the Constitution is the original language of the Founders. It is the process by which the states can apply to the Congress to propose a new amendment. The LEGISLATURES OR conventions [definition of convention in 1828 Webster is a meeting to two or more people not like the DNC of RNC show boat] to offer this new amendment in the states would have a specific 'suggested agenda' limited to only this amendment proposal. No other suggestions for amendment would be recognized from the floor. Therefore; there is no open forum for further considerations and no danger of 'a runaway - change the whole ball of wax scenario, where the entire U.S. Constitution is at risk.
The 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments changed the balance of power which was originally intended by the Founders in the 10th amendment. It is only they-that are considered, and it is easier to offer a new amendment that repeals all three than three amendments to repeal each. If we could accomplish this, State powers would be restored. The Congress has to recognize the application from the states. If the language is ratified by 38 states it becomes the law of the land and not the Congress, or the Supreme Court or the President of the United States can subvert it.
All States are Separate Republics contracted under one COMPACT. We call that compact the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA.
The text of 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.
Thank you for reading.
A5