Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

O.K. K.K. Okie Dokey; CONVENTION OF STATES


Del Rio Pete

Recommended Posts

How many of you are in favor of calling a Convention of States?   Pros?  Cons?

 

How can it help us preserve out 2nd Amendment rights?

 

Purpose?

1.  Term Limits

2.  Balanced Budget
3.  Limit Government Power

 

Article V of the U.S. Constitution gives states the power to call a Convention of States to propose amendments. It takes 34 states to call the convention and 38 to ratify any amendments that are proposed. Our convention would only allow the states to discuss amendments that, “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, impose fiscal restraints, and place term limits on federal officials.”

 

(I realize this may get deleted, but I think it is a very important subject.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your comment.

I am sure you are more knowledgeable than I am.

 

It appears the people asking for a Convention of States are conservative and probably more pro gun, don’t you think?

 

Do you think Term Limits would solve most of our issues eventually?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 said:

Unfortunately, once a Constitutional Convention is convened, it opens the door to other issues - like repeal of the 2nd Amendment.  Leave well enough alone, and work for your issues on a lesser scale.

 

LL


Agree 100%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the present time,  there is no assurance that an Article V Convention could be limited to a single subject or set agenda.  Legal opinions vary on that.  I envision this whole idea being battled out in the courts before finally being resolved.  All it takes is one of the 34 state legislatures insisting that a "Gun Control" mandate be put forward, and this whole thing devolves into a circus.

 

I would venture that the reason the Article V Convention process has never been used to amend the Constitution, is that its next to impossible to get that many politicians, at least thirty four State Assemblies, to agree on anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people yammering for a Convention of States are laboring under the delusion that a strict agenda can be set before the start and that there can be no deviation from that agenda  Unfortunately, it is not written that way in the Constitution.  

As Mr. Larue, Esq. pointed out once once a CoS is convened everything, including the Constitution itself and the limits it places on the government, is on the table. Given that such a convention would be dominated by California, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Texas.  Do you want to give that much power to CA, NY, PA, and IL?  Power to remake our republic into a mobocracy? Power to make the federal government all powerful and remove all limitations on it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

The people yammering for a Convention of States are laboring under the delusion that a strict agenda can be set before the start and that there can be no deviation from that agenda  Unfortunately, it is not written that way in the Constitution.  

As Mr. Larue, Esq. pointed out once once a CoS is convened everything, including the Constitution itself and the limits it places on the government, is on the table. Given that such a convention would be dominated by California, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Texas.  Do you want to give that much power to CA, NY, PA, and IL?  Power to remake our republic into a mobocracy? Power to make the federal government all powerful and remove all limitations on it?

 

^^^^THIS^^^^

Not even God can save us if a  Convention of States happens.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think dirty dealing, foreign influence, leverage money, 'Arkancides', sudden unexplained wealth, organized violent protests, partisan bickering, lying, backstabbing, corkscrewing, and down right dirty dealing plays a part in U.S. politics now, how much do you think it would find its way into a convention that could change the entire U.S. system of government?

 

The Framers had the advantage in that they were writing the Constitution pretty much in secret, without the media, and with an honor system that is notable (and somewhat surprising) when it shows up in contemporary government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sedalia Dave said:

 

^^^^THIS^^^^

Not even God can save us if a  Convention of States happens.

 

A civil war would be a certainty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 9:34 AM, Pat Riot, SASS #13748 said:


Agree 100%

+1 When other things don't, the one thing that keeps me awake at night is the possibility of calling a "con-con"!  As far as term limits are concerned, the office of president is already term-limited.  Many states have passed term limits on state and local offices.  IMNSHO, term limits are an excuse for lazy voters.  If you don't like the job the incumbents are doing, get together with your neighbors and vote them out! If whoever is doing a good job, why not keep them in office?  Besides, the way most political parties work, if someone is term-limited, the party will just run somebody similar in their place...who may be worse!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Constitution provides for no authority above that of a constitutional convention.  This makes it unlikely that the courts or any other institution could intervene if a convention failed to limit itself to the language of state resolutions calling for a convention or to the congressional resolution establishing the convention.

Moreover, even if the courts determined that they had the authority to rule, they would be unlikely to intervene if a convention veered away from its original charge.  Article V contains only two limited restrictions on the scope of constitutional amendments (one of which expired two centuries ago).  Absent guidance from the Constitution’s text, the Supreme Court likely would regard this as a “political question” inappropriate for judicial resolution (consistent with how the Court has treated other highly charged matters on which the Constitution provides no judicially enforceable standard).  A court would have great difficulty explaining why a convention should be bound by state resolutions, given that the 1787 convention disregarded both its own stated purpose and the Articles of Confederation’s amendment procedures. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

After three years of watching the various stooges, commies, deep-staters and assorted traitors undermine our democracy, I want to give them a free shot to change the Constitution at will? I don't think so. With a few exceptions the "government" has lost my trust. They're gonna have to EARN that back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/23/2019 at 9:11 AM, Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 said:

Unfortunately, once a Constitutional Convention is convened, it opens the door to other issues - like repeal of the 2nd Amendment.  Leave well enough alone, and work for your issues on a lesser scale.

 

LL

I agree.  Not need to open the door to anti gun (and most anything else) crap like is being pushed today....and tomorrow....and the next and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many of us can point to one constitutional provision or another that we believe we could improve upon if given a chance. But a convention could do great damage to a charter that, on balance, has worked pretty well for a pretty long time. To take such a risk on behalf of a stupendously unworthy causes especially in a country so divided would be foolhardy in the extreme.  Nearly everything about this powerful process would be uncertain. Convention rules, which would be written ad hoc, could be manipulated to favor one party, region or interest group over another.  It is not even certain that three-fourths of the states would have to approve the convention’s work for it to become the law of the land, as the Constitution currently prescribes. The 1787 constitutional convention ditched preexisting ratification rules; who is to say a 2019 or 2020 convention could not? , so again I fell that nearly everything about this powerful process would be uncertain and foolhardy in the extreme.

 

JMHO

Charlie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I almost forgot to add that as stated, It would take the votes of 34 state legislatures to call a constitutional convention to order. A majority of legislatures already have voted to do so.  Bear this in mind while you contemplate the gravity of this: "Such calls remain valid indefinitely" — until 34 states have joined in a particular cause or the states rescind their appeals.  To date only Maryland’s House of Delegates and Nevada’s Senate, rescinded their calls for a federal constitutional convention decades after approving them.  Currently, the claims are that 28, of the minimum required 34 state legislatures, have called for an Article V Convention, (which prior to Maryland’s and Nevada’s rescinding we were at 30)  so we are closer than most people think.

 

 

Again, JMHO

Charlie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Charlie T Waite said:

. The 1787 constitutional convention ditched preexisting ratification rules;

 

If I recall my history lessons correctly, that Convention tossed out the unbreakable Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.  
I'll note that the 1787 Convention did not include wording that made the Union "perpetual" and did not include wording that prevent any state or states from leaving the Union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

If I recall my history lessons correctly, that Convention tossed out the unbreakable Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.  
I'll note that the 1787 Convention did not include wording that made the Union "perpetual" and did not include wording that prevent any state or states from leaving the Union.

Correct in part - additionally 

Once the immediate task of winning the war had passed, states began to look to their own interests rather than those of the whole country. By the mid-1780s, states were refusing to provide Congress with funding, which meant the Confederation government could not pay the interest on its foreign debt, pay soldiers stationed along the Ohio River or defend American navigation rights on the Mississippi River against Spanish interference.  In 1782, Rhode Island vetoed an amendment that would have allowed Congress to levy taxes on imports in order to pay off federal debts. A second attempt was made to approve a federal impost in 1785; however, this time it was New York which disapproved.  The Confederation Congress also lacked the power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce. Britain, France and Spain imposed various restrictions on American ships and products, while the US was unable to coordinate retaliatory trade policies.  (essentially they couldn't govern under Articles of Confederation.

 

The first thing the Convention did was choose a presiding officer, unanimously electing George Washington president of the Convention.  The Convention then adopted rules to govern its proceedings. The rules gave each state delegation a single vote either for or against a proposal in accordance with the majority opinion of the state's delegates.  This rule increased the power of the smaller states.  When a state's delegates divided evenly on a motion, the state did not cast a vote. Throughout the Convention, delegates would regularly come and go, with only 30–40 being present on a typical day, and each state had its own quorum requirements. Maryland and Connecticut allowed a single delegate to cast its vote. New York required all three of its delegates to be present. If too few of a state's delegates were in attendance, the state did not cast a vote. After two of New York's three delegates abandoned the Convention in mid July with no intention of returning, New York was left unable to vote on any further proposals at the Convention, although Alexander Hamilton would continue to periodically attend and occasionally to speak during the debates.  The rules allowed delegates to demand reconsideration of any decision previously voted on. This allowed the delegates to take straw votes in order to measure the strength of controversial proposals and to change their minds as they worked for consensus.  It was also agreed that the discussions and votes would be kept secret until the conclusion of the meeting.  Despite the sweltering summer heat, the windows of the meeting hall were nailed shut to keep the proceedings a secret from the public.  Although William Jackson was elected as secretary, his records were brief and included very little detail. Madison's Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, supplemented by the notes of Robert Yates, remain the most complete record of the Convention.[30] Due to the pledge to secrecy, Madison's account was not published until after his death in 1836.

 

Just a bit of history here....Love It!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The situation with the U.S. government was pretty much as Clausewitz said about alliances -- as long as there was motivation to work together, the states cooperated (mostly). But once the original motivation was resolved, each looked to their own interests. Most people don't realize how close the U.S. came to not happening, and Washington's role in keeping the new government from snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

Even though the Revolutionary War was essentially over when Cornwallis was defeated at Yorktown in 1781, the British did not pull their troops out of the U.S. until after the 1783 Treaty of Paris but instead kept a force quartered in New York. Because of this, the Continental Army was kept together at a nearby place called Newburgh, in case the treaty negotiations fell through and the British decided to go for a rematch.

 

But the state representatives in the confederation government couldn't get their act together to pay or properly supply the soldiers. Because of that, senior officers in the Continental Army began a conspiracy to organize the army under their own leadership, and take the soldiers and their families west into the Ohio territory to form their own nation, leaving the states to the mercy of the British. They tried to keep it secret from Washington, but he found out and called a meeting of all officers, where he put his own credibility on the line to get them to hold off. You can google 'newburgh conspiracy' if you want more in-depth details.

 

Thing is, we don't have any Washingtons right now, The fact is that much of the government's overreach comes through un-elected bureaucrats. There are far too many people who should be doing their job the same way without regard as to who is in office but instead use their power to push their own political ideology.  This is part of the reason 'draining the swamp' became a motivator for voters to choose someone who wasn't a long-time Washington operative, even if they didn't think much of how he conducts his personal life.

 

A convention of states isn't the way to fix problems -- it's like burning the house down because you don't like the paint color and you have rats, and you're too lazy to do the work to fix things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A convention of states isn't the way to fix problems -- it's like burning the house down because you don't like the paint color and you have rats, and you're too lazy to do the work to fix things.

 

Agree 100%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.