Constitutional Convention Backers Want to Hijack the Tea Party Movement

[Ozwest]

Why do you guys want to keep shooting yourselves in the foot?

You're intellectual superiority excludes others?

That kind of attitude gets you nowhere.

Get used to spending time in the wilderness.

 

[Ozwest]

Everyone should be fully-versed in Austrian Economics. Be self-reliant, and know Ron Pauls Birthday.

 

[MsDoodahs]

Can someone clarify a point for me?

Is calling for a con-con the equivalent of an on paper disillusion of the union?

Meaning, if they can't come to agreement at the con-con, then ... poofola to the existing union?

Cause if that is what it means....I'm thinking I like it a whole bunch.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Coming from someone who has told me to shut and toe the line over and over and over again. What a joke.

You just have to make it personal, don't ya? I guess if all else fails...

 

[Ozwest]

What's the commitment count for New Hampshire?

Give me some#'s.

Maybe I'll re-settle, and bring my snow shovel.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I wasn't talking about him, no, and I had never heard him mention a Con-Con before Beck's show.

But yes, I am very disappointed in him right now.

Instead of trying to take this thread to a personal level, please stay focused on the facts of the issue. ie. the subject of the thread.

I honestly do not understand where you are getting your data from that id 2/3 of the states call for a Con Con that suddenly whatever the Con Con decides on is 'the new constitution.'

The Law simply does not work that way.

WHATEVER a hypothetical Con Con comes up with, still has to be ratified by 2/3 of the State's Assemblies; and historically ratification had been held up for as long as 5, 10 years on account of basic punctuation/grammar issues.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that they do hold a Con Con; and that this Con Con comes up and recommends lifetime President Obama; and permanent and complete Communism.

NOW that the Con Con is complete, whatever 'changes' they made have to be ratified by 2/3 of the State's Assemblies. There is simply no legal way around that requirement thank God.

I am not a proponent of holding a Con Con right now. But I do not believe that your alarm here is based on valid data.

You seem to think that once a Con Con is in session, they can just rewrite whatever they please; and once they adjourn then whatever they decided becomes law.

It just does not work that way!

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Remember guys, after the FIRST Con Con; the Constitution still had to be RATIFIED. The same would be true today. There is no legal way around it.

 

[asimplegirl]

Remember guys, after the FIRST Con Con; the Constitution still had to be RATIFIED. The same would be true today. There is no legal way around it.

qft

 

[LibertyEagle]

Remember guys, after the FIRST Con Con; the Constitution still had to be RATIFIED. The same would be true today. There is no legal way around it.

Gunny, they changed the ratification rules in the first Constitutional Convention. We were under the Articles of Confederation at the time and they should have been following THOSE ratification rules. They didn't. They rewrote them and used their new rules instead.

I'm not saying that this necessarily would be done again, but we need to be aware that it HAS happened before and it darn well could again.

Regardless, we're getting a bit off-track here. Even if they did follow the current rules for ratification, I don't particularly trust the states to have enough knowledge of the principles of liberty to know WHAT IN HELL THEY ARE LOOKING AT. Much less, what the ramifications of its content would be.

The bottom line is that even though you may want to hold a Constitutional Convention to change just one thing in the Constitution, once the Con-Con convenes, the delegates can construct an entirely new form of government. It in turn would have to be ratified. That is, unless they decide to change the ratification rules too, during the Convention.

Willing to take a chance?

 

[Nirvikalpa]

con con must be stopped

 

[GunnyFreedom]

The bottom line is that even though you may want to hold a Constitutional Convention

um. no. I. don't.

Haven't you been reading ANY of my posts to which you have been responding?

 

[Zippyjuan]

I honestly do not understand where you are getting your data from that id 2/3 of the states call for a Con Con that suddenly whatever the Con Con decides on is 'the new constitution.'

The Law simply does not work that way.

WHATEVER a hypothetical Con Con comes up with, still has to be ratified by 2/3 of the State's Assemblies; and historically ratification had been held up for as long as 5, 10 years on account of basic punctuation/grammar issues.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that they do hold a Con Con; and that this Con Con comes up and recommends lifetime President Obama; and permanent and complete Communism.

NOW that the Con Con is complete, whatever 'changes' they made have to be ratified by 2/3 of the State's Assemblies. There is simply no legal way around that requirement thank God.

I am not a proponent of holding a Con Con right now. But I do not believe that your alarm here is based on valid data.

You seem to think that once a Con Con is in session, they can just rewrite whatever they please; and once they adjourn then whatever they decided becomes law.

It just does not work that way!

Two thirds is the number of states you need to call the Con Con which can only propose amendments to the Constitution. Those will still need to be ratified by three fourths (not two thirds) of the states to be adopted.

Article Five of the US Constitution says:

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.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A5.html

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

I would say it would be VERY difficult to get any amendments ratified from a con con...that's why the damn congress continues to write unconstitutional legislation and we don't ddo anything about it. When the judge called for the con con..Beck said that the mass suggestion of a con con would freak congress out...I guess it's a bluff. I think the states should massively call for it...I honestly believe congress would go nutz. tones

 

[klamath]

No I don't trust a Con Con. With a democratic president with a 65% approval rating, 60 democratic Senators, a majority of democrats in the state houses and soon a majority of the SCOTUS, I am sure you could pretty much kiss the 2nd amendment goodbye by the time it was all done. What a stupid time to even think about opening up the constitution to rewriting!

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

that is probably true..bad timing..but why would the judge call for it? tones

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Two thirds is the number of states you need to call the Con Con which can only propose amendments to the Constitution. Those will still need to be ratified by three fourths (not two thirds) of the states to be adopted.

Article Five of the US Constitution says:

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A5.html

Yes, thank you. I was originally working from memory; but then re-reading Art 5 it was indeed 3/4 (which I addressed in subsequent posts to the one you responded)

 

[Zippyjuan]

Point is, which you were trying to make, is that even if a con con is called, it will be extremely difficult to get any proposed amendments to actually be added to the Constitution.

 

[Roonie]

Problem is, you can't specify that only one thing can be changed. Once a Con-Con is convened, it's ALL up for grabs.

Well, if you believe the "Friends of the Article V Convention" website (www.foavc.org), well over two-thirds of the states have filed 754 applications for a Con-Con over the years, meaning that we should have had one long ago.

One would think that if it was all up for grabs and the powers-that-be wanted to have a Con-Con, they would have used these applications to convene the convention. Problem is, the states had _specific_ changes they wanted to make to make to the constitution, so they don't all count together. (i.e. direct election of senators, balanced budget requirements . . .)

If it didn't make a difference what the states wanted in a Con-Con, then why would these applications not count towards the two-thirds requirement? Why haven't we had a Con-Con since 1787?

 

[axiomata]

It seems the fear of a out of control constitutional convention around Barnett's federalism amendments is unfounded.

In the latest version of Barnett's Bill of Federalism he includes a section that would explicitly limit the actions of a convened constitutional convention to propose any or all of the amendments he wrote up in their original language. Here is that section:

Second, that any previous memorial for a convention under Article V of the
Constitution of the United States by this legislature is hereby repealed and without
effect; and

Fourth, that this memorial for a convention is conditioned on the memorials of two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states proposing the exact same language contained in some or all of the following articles, and is to remain in effect unless repealed by resolution of this legislature prior to the memorials of two-thirds of the states being reported to Congress:

federalism amendment site: http://www.federalismamendment.com/

I'd like to see some further level-headed discussion on this topic.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Hhmm... I'm not seeing how that would keep a Con-Con from doing whatever the heck they wanted to. That's one of the problems with these things; you can't limit their agenda to a specific amendment.