Constitutional Convention back on burner....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution says "3/4 of the states". The Federal Government has no say in who and how many are represented in the convention of the states. I think there are many misconceptions regarding the convention of the states (not that I know all, or even very much). I believe the writers of the second greatest document ever written covered the bases back then for now. Article 5 is relevant now.
 
full case load said:
Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution says "3/4 of the states"....
Click to expand...
Let's look at what Article V actually says (emphasis added):
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.
Click to expand...

So --

  1. If two thirds of the States call for a Constitutional Convention, Congress must convene a Constitutional Convention ("shall" is mandatory).

    • There is nothing that suggests an application for, or call of, a convention can limit the scope or subject matter of amendments to be considered.

    • There is nothing to suggest that any purported limitations on scope of subject matter would be binding on a convention.

  2. It is clear that any proposed changes to the Constitution must be ratified by the legislatures or conventions in three-fourths of the States. So no proposed amendments could change that unless/until they were thus ratified, but --

    • The reference to "conventions in three-fourths" of the States is unclear. What "conventions" and how would they be called an authorized to act? Would this turn into a bitter political fight in each State?

    • While Article V says that Congress may propose a method of ratification, it's not clear that such proposal would be binding.

  3. Ratification of proposed changes to the Constitution through a Constitutional Convention would become an exercise in politics and persuasion. Given the increasing polarization of the American political scene, that process could become long, bitter and decisive.
 
Even still, I see no other peaceful way. My Representative has been voting wrong and he is Republican. Tells me I just don't understand the dynamics. I know I am more of a subject than I want to be or ever thought I might be.
 
full case load said:
...My Representative has been voting wrong...
Click to expand...
He has been voting wrong for you. Obviously he's been voting right for enough of his constituents to be elected.

We live in a pluralistic society. People have varying beliefs, values, needs, wants and fears. People have differing views on the proper role government. So while we may be using the tools the Constitution, our laws and our system give us to promote our vision of how things should be, others may and will be using those same tools to promote their visions.

The Constitution, our laws, and our system give us recource and remedies. We can associate with others who think as we do and exercise what political power that association gives us to influence legislation. We have the opportunity to try to join with enough other people we can elect legislators and other public officials who we consider more attuned to our interests. And we can seek redress in court. And others who believe differently have the same opportunities.

We are "the system." If we think the system is broken, it's because we are. We elect our representatives. We have the final say at the ballot box. If some of us aren't happy with how things are working it means we're failing to get enough people to go along with our values and beliefs. We're failing to inspire. The Constitution does not bestow wisdom. It's up to the body politic to be wise.

And if our side apparently lacks the savvy to operate within the existing political process to better further our interests and values, what makes us think that we will be able to successfully do so in that political maelstrom of a Constitutional Convention.

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves."
 
At the end of Politico's publication of EveryTown's diatribe in helping Obama draft his new Executive Order on gun control next week, came the chilling closing:

“Setting cultural norms," said Everytown research director Ted Alcorn, "is something that laws do."

Two observations:

1. I was unaware that Law was supposed to used to "set" cultural norms. I had previously (and naively) thought it was the other way around.

2. If the cultural "norm" for an out-of-control Administration was to simply & blatantly ignore existing Law, what would lead us to believe they wouldn't ignore a new set of Constitutional Law ?

.
 
Last edited:
Great idea, let's have a new Council of Nicaea also.

Having a Constitutional convention is a fantasy if you think America will become conservative and gun heaven. As far as having a civil war after the Convention, I'll pass on that.
 
Is the document alive or an irrelevant dead historic document?

No one in power at the national level wants to mess with anything. A concon is the only way to sort these issues out. There are many issues that need to be put on the table.

If this civil war comes, your handguns and rifles aren't going to do a bit of good against tanks, artillery, aircraft and trained ground troops.
Click to expand...
You are obviously ignorant of both history and current events. Hint:Google Taliban.
A real mess, but even a small percentage of the populace actively resisting is nearly impossible to defeat. 10% of the US population is more than the entire population of Afghanistan.
 
10% of the US population is more than the entire population of Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

To be fair, they were seasoned fighters who'd cut their teeth in combat over a couple of decades. Most of them had only known the harsh realities of war all their lives. They were also working in their own backyard that was more alien to the NATO troops operating there.

I take your whole point, but just that the Taliban are perhaps not the best comparison, IMHO.
 
You are obviously ignorant of both history and current events. Hint:Google Taliban.
Click to expand...

I'm not ignorant of history nor current events. The "Taliban" that you refer to has a centuries long tradition of living without the comforts we enjoy from our own infrastructure.

A civil war would eventually destroy that infrastructure, and I stand on my statement that we would become that ineffectual band of guerillas that relied on marauding to get anything.

Are you going to play "Red Dawn" against government forces? Are you going to hide out in the hills with a band of guys with ARs and maybe a few thousand rounds between them?

In that sense, I think you are obviously naïve about all the ramifications of a civil war in this country. If you really think you would stand a chance against tanks, artillery, air power and trained military units, well, I wish you good luck. Remember: These are going to be fights on familiar territory, not some obscure foreign country. There will be American troops on American soil with a very short supply line that doesn't have to be airlifted halfway around the globe.

A civil war in this country is no joke, and I hope to God that we have enough sense to avoid one.

If you disagree with my thinking, that's fine, but do not call me ignorant.
 
...Unfortunately...
^^^^ This^^^^

Again, think Germany in the `30s
Everything was done... "legally"

Remember, the price of civilization is order
And the price of order ...is a sense of compliance.
 
Are you going to play "Red Dawn" against government forces? Are you going to hide out in the hills with a band of guys with ARs and maybe a few thousand rounds between them?
Click to expand...
No. For starters, it would be hard for me to pick between a side led by Hillary and a side led by Trump. I do think the two are representative of the two political factions in the US right now. Really not very interested in giving my life for either's ideology. Neither side respects the constituton or citizens in general. I've witnessed domestic "regime change" of sorts up close and personal. Without all the niceties offered by US military logistics. I plan to take an extended vacation. Possibly lobby the French for assistance:)

In your "Red Dawn" scenario the foreign invaders have clear advantages of the US populace that would not be present for a US military.

You make some great points about the Taliban advantages, but ignore the US military's logistical disadvantages when deprived a secure manufacturing base and rear staging area. It has been a long long time since the US military fought a war without a flood of supplies from a secure area that was used to attempt to overwhelm the enemy. Helicoptering in fuel for tanks in remote locations at a cost $500 a gallon is a mainstay of US military doctrine. Good luck when the enemy owns the oil well, lives along the pipeline, works in your refineries, and manufactures the parts on that helicopter.
Do you really think an 18 year old out of Detroit is any more familiar with the Appalachian mountains than the hills of Afghanistan? How many soldiers from those areas would stay with their units when facing friends and family?

Anyone with a brain realizes this can't go on forever. Like most world powers the US will almost certainly destroy itself from within at some point in the future. It could start just as easily in the inner cities when the welfare checks bounce as in the hills of WV when a firearms confiscation law is passed. Plus an election cycle changes who is supposedly in control of the military. I don't think it will be any time soon for either or any other scenario, but it will almost certainly happen. Hopefully, after I have died.

There isn't going to be a CONCON. No one really seems sure what it takes to call one. Is a 50 year old call from a state still valid if it wasn't rescinded? These questions give plenty of wiggle room for those in power to avoid one and they have no interest in seeing one.
 
Along with all that Obama is doing to harm this country this sounds like another "fundamental transformation of America" to me.:mad: And it's coming from the Republicans? :mad::mad:
 
Anyone really interested in this issue should check out the congressional records listed on the following site:
http://www.article-5.org/file.php/1/Amendments/index.htm
Also, please see the following Congressional Record which clearly demonstrates that the requisite number of states (i.e. two thirds or more) have already requested an Article V Convention, and Congress on has ignored their peremptory duty to call an Article V Convention:

CR 071 Pg 03369 Yr 1929-Summary 35 Article V Applications from 35 different states
Click to expand...
As explained on that site, congress simply files the state calls away and ignores them. Its like the change.org of congress.
 
JohnWillaims said:
http://www.article-5.org/file.php/1/Amendments/index.htm
Click to expand...
> The monumental difference between congressional handling of memorials regarding
> ratification versus a convention shows that Congress only respects one of the two
> methods specified in Article V for proposing constitutional amendments: proposals
> coming from Congress but not from a convention of state delegates. In acting this way
> Congress has intentionally violated the Constitution and the intent of the Founders

Legal finagling worthy of Henry V* aside, what might happen if enough states actually gathered, and held a CONCON on their own dime.

How might you think it would turn out?

- "Congress" declares it unlawful (and ignores both it and its output) ?
- "Congress" declares it unlawful and passes its own law that it should forcefully disbanded ?
- The "President" declares it unlawful (and ignores both it and its output) ?
- The "President" declares it unlawful and acts without Congress to disband it ?
- The "Supreme Court" declares it unlawful (and ignores both it and its output) ?
- The "Supreme Court" declares it unlawful and orders it disbanded ?




* (read Henry V, Act 1 sometime)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top