Glenn Beck / Judge Napolitano push for Constitutional Convention?

[GunnyFreedom]

Gunny, I realize that the way things stand, the states have to ratify whatever the Con-Con produces. That is, if they don't also rewrite the rules for ratification, LIKE THEY DID in the first Constitutional Convention.

doesn't matter; the 'new rules for ratification' still have to be RATIFIED under the existing system before taking effect.

 

[LibertyEagle]

doesn't matter; the 'new rules for ratification' still have to be RATIFIED under the existing system before taking effect.

Was that done when the first Con-Con met? Did they follow the Articles of Confederation's ratification rules to ratify the Constitution, or did they entirely change those rules?

 

[Alawn]

to alter abolish or add new amendments requires 2/3 approval of the 50 States Assemblies, no? Contrary to so many of the ConCon fears here seem to forget that. I mean, it's not like a couple hundred people could get together and pop out a week later with a new Constitution. If they could have done that it would have been done long long ago.

I just don't see 34 State's assemblies voting to revoke the Constitution.

People don't any of you have any idea how amendments to the constitution work? Stop saying 2/3!

It takes 3/4 to ratify any changes. 2/3 to get a convention but anything decided on in the convention requires 3/4 to be made part of the constitution.


The Constitution spells out four paths for an amendment (2 ways to propose and 2 ways to ratify):
* Proposal by convention of states (2/3), ratification by state conventions (3/4) (never used)
* Proposal by convention of states (2/3), ratification by state legislatures (3/4) (never used)
* Proposal by Congress (2/3), ratification by state conventions (3/4) (used once)
* Proposal by Congress (2/3), ratification by state legislatures (3/4) (used all other times)

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Was that done when the first Con-Con met? Did they follow the Articles of Confederation's ratification rules to ratify the Constitution, or did they entirely change those rules?

an article 5 convention has a series of limits imposed by the very Article 5 that allows it to be called.

"...shall call a convention for proposing amendments..."

clearly stated as the ONLY legal purpose of an Article 5 convention. Not for making a new Constitution, but ONLY for proposing amendments.

Further, said proposed Amendments:

"...shall be ... part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the Several States..."

or in case of legislative obstructionism, at THIS point, the people can take charge and hold separate conventions in every state to ratify -- which of the 2 methods is chosen by the US Congress.

I mean; the text of Article 5 is pretty clear to me LE.

1) the convention ONLY proposes amendments
2) proposed amendments still have to be legally ratified
3) Congressional and Convention proposed amendments are both ratified the same way

 

[GunnyFreedom]

People don't any of you have any idea how amendments to the constitution work?

It takes 3/4 to ratify any changes. 2/3 to get a convention but anything decided on in the convention requires 3/4 to be made part of the constitution.


The Constitution spells out four paths for an amendment:
* Proposal by convention of states (2/3), ratification by state conventions (3/4) (never used)
* Proposal by convention of states (2/3), ratification by state legislatures (3/4) (never used)
* Proposal by Congress (2/3), ratification by state conventions (3/4) (used once)
* Proposal by Congress (2/3), ratification by state legislatures (3/4) (used all other times)

OK sorry, I was most;y working from memory -- but 3/4 is an even TOUGHER hurdle; yes.

You read Art 5 the same way I do.

 

[MsDoodahs]

Thanks, Gunny.

So...do you think the idea has merit?

 

[LibertyEagle]

States have to ratify, unless they also change the ratification process

It's already been done once. In the first Constitutional Convention.

Drafting and ratification requirements

In September 1786, commissioners from five states met in the Annapolis Convention to discuss adjustments to the Articles of Confederation that would improve commerce. They invited state representatives to convene in Philadelphia to discuss improvements to the federal government. After debate, the Congress of the Confederation endorsed the plan to revise the Articles of Confederation on February 21, 1787.[6] Twelve states, Rhode Island being the only exception, accepted this invitation and sent delegates to convene in May 1787.[6] The resolution calling the Convention specified that its purpose was to propose amendments to the Articles, but through discussion and debate it became clear by mid-June that, rather than amend the existing Articles, the Convention decided to propose a rewritten Constitution.[7] The Philadelphia Convention voted to keep the debates secret, so that the delegates could speak freely. They also decided to draft a new fundamental government design, which eventually stipulated that only nine of the thirteen states would have to ratify for the new government to go into effect (for the participating states).[7] Current knowledge of the drafting and construction of the United States Constitution comes primarily from the diaries left by James Madison, who kept a complete record of the proceedings at the Constitutional Convention.[8]

Ratification of the Constitution

Contrary to the process for "alteration" spelled out in Article 13 of the Articles, Congress submitted the proposal to the states and set the terms for representation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Drafting_and_ratification_requirements

Whether they changed the ratification rules or not, do you honestly trust your state legislatures enough not to be bought off, or to have a deep enough understanding of the principles of liberty, to fully understand what they are reviewing. Do you think they'll read THIS one first, before they vote?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Was that done when the first Con-Con met? Did they follow the Articles of Confederation's ratification rules to ratify the Constitution, or did they entirely change those rules?

In order to do that a Con Con would

1) propose that Article 5 be amended to permit the ratification of Amendments given a simple majority.

2) submit proposal to US Congress.

3) US Congress decides whether to send to States Legislatures (probably) or to form several state conventions (HIGHLY unlikely)

4) Somewhere between 5 and 15 years later, said amendment officially fails to achieve ratification in 3/4 of the state's assemblies, and fails; OR said amendment officially succeeds in ratification by 3/4 of the State's Legislatures;

AND ONLY THEN

does the 'simple majority' bit become law.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

It's already been done once. In the first Constitutional Convention.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Drafting_and_ratification_requirements

Whether they changed the ratification rules or not, do you honestly trust your state legislatures enough not to be bought off, or to have a deep enough understanding of the principles of liberty, to fully understand what they are reviewing. Do you think they'll read THIS one first, before they vote?

Given that that assembly took place BEFORE the US Constitution was written, then that assembly would not qualify as an Article 5 Convention.

Article 5 Conventions have Constitutionally delineated rules, that can't just be ignored because the Delegates want them to be.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Thanks, Gunny.

So...do you think the idea has merit?

Meh. I question the motives of MOST of the folks calling for one. Not all, but most. And if, in my view, most of the people calling for one have questionable motives, then I doubt that any kind of good can come of it.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Given that that assembly took place BEFORE the US Constitution was written, then that assembly would not qualify as an Article 5 Convention.

Article 5 Conventions have Constitutionally delineated rules, that can't just be ignored because the Delegates want them to be.

You sure about that?

We were under the Articles of Confederation at the time. The point is that its ratification requirements were ignored when it came around to ratifiying the output of the 1st Constitutional Convention. Which was supposed to be all about amending the Articles of Confederation. Instead, we ended up with a totally different foundational document and a totally different form of government; also with new ratification rules. Which they used to ratify the Constitution.

I'm just saying that we have a precedent here.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

You sure about that?

1,000,000,000 %

The plain text of Art 5 is brutally clear.

We were under the Articles of Confederation at the time. The point is that its ratification requirements were ignored when it came around to ratifiying the output of the 1st Constitutional Convention. Which was supposed to be all about amending the Articles of Confederation. Instead, we ended up with a totally different foundational document and a totally different form of government; also with new ratification rules. Which they used to ratify the Constitution.

I'm just saying that we have a precedent here.

Just because people are calling it the same NAME does not give it the same legal status.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Just because people are calling it the same NAME does not give it the same legal status.

The point is that the ratification rules put in place by the current system of government at the time were ignored. I'm not sure why you think it couldn't or wouldn't, happen again.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

The point is that the ratification rules put in place by the current system of government at the time were ignored. I'm not sure why you think it couldn't or wouldn't, happen again.

The 3/4 ratification rule in Art 5 has never been ignored. Maybe slightly blurred for the 16th Amend, but that's about it.

The text of Art 5 is blatantly clear.

 

[Dieseler]

I don't trust Beck period.
He is sensationalist drama Queen taking full advantage of anything he can to achieve ratings.
That is his job.

Should I continue to hold Judge Andrew Napolitano in the highest of regard?
Edit: I really, really like the judge.
This Con Con idea scares the bejeezus out of me.

 

[Matt Collins]

Napolitano's political residency at Fox News has always been suspicious to me. Actions speak louder than words, but his words calling for a constitutional convention reaffirm my suspicions of him.

Have you read the Judge's books? Have you watched his videos and speeches? Do you know him personally? Would you consider yourself friends with him? I can answer yes to all of the above.

You're right that we should follow ideas, not people, but I can vouch for the Judge; he's the real deal.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't trust Beck period.
He is sensationalist drama Queen taking full advantage of anything he can to achieve ratings.
That is his job.

Should I continue to hold Judge Andrew Napolitano in the highest of regard?
Edit: I really, really like the judge.
This Con Con idea scares the bejeezus out of me.

I don't really like the idea of a Con Con either; but an Art 5 Convention,even if /called/ a "Constitutional Convention" is really not an Constitutional Convention in the sense of the one we had in 1782. There is not even a fraction as much danger as LE suggests.

 

[LibertyEagle]

The 3/4 ratification rule in Art 5 has never been ignored. Maybe slightly blurred for the 16th Amend, but that's about it.

The text of Art 5 is blatantly clear.

We have never had a Constitutional Convention since the Constitution was written, either. Again, in the first Con-Con they rewrote the rules for ratification, rather than follow the rules in effect from the Articles of Confederation. Why do you keep ignoring this fact?

In addition, I simply do not understand why you also seem to ignore the reality that there are no restraints on how much of the Constitution is changed during a Con-Con. Once it is convened, the delegates can rewrite the whole damn thing, if they so desire.

Then, to ratification. Will they rewrite those rules like they did in the first Con-Con? If not, and it goes to the states for ratification, who do you trust to know history and the principles of liberty enough to fully comprehend what has been proposed? Do you trust those people to have your liberty at the forefront, instead of some special interests, including filling their own pockets?

Would it go down this way? Who knows? Neither you or I do. The fact however, is that IT COULD.

With that in mind, everyone will have to decide for themselves if they believe this is the best mechanism to use to restore liberty.

 

[braumstr]

Its a good thing for us, that this con con idea will never happen in our lifetime.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

We have never had a Constitutional Convention since the Constitution was written, either. Again, in the first Con-Con they rewrote the rules for ratification, rather than follow the rules in effect from the Articles of Confederation. Why do you keep ignoring this fact?

In addition, I simply do not understand why you also seem to ignore the reality that there are no restraints on how much of the Constitution is changed during a Con-Con. Once it is convened, the delegates can rewrite the whole damn thing, if they so desire.

Then, to ratification. Will they rewrite those rules like they did in the first Con-Con? If not, and it goes to the states for ratification, who do you trust to know history and the principles of liberty enough to fully comprehend what has been proposed? Do you trust those people to have your liberty at the forefront, instead of some special interests, including filling their own pockets?

Would it go down this way? Who knows? Neither you or I do. The fact however, is that IT COULD.

With that in mind, everyone will have to decide for themselves if they believe this is the best mechanism to use to restore liberty.

Apparently I am incapable of explaining this to you.

Article 5 of the US Constitution is really NOT ambiguous. The English is plain, the syntax is clear.

If an Article 5 Convention is called (it is NOT a "Constitutional Convention" although that seems to be the popular name for it) then Article 5 governs it's actions. Given that article 5 governs it's actions, and within Article 5 it lays out the need for a 3/4 ratification; then clearly for any Amendments PROPOSED by an Article 5 Convention must be ratified in THE EXACT SAME WAY that amendments proposed by Congress are.

The ONLY difference between Amendments proposed by Congress and Amendments proposed by an Article 5 Convention; is that in the first on Congress Critters and lobbyists write the Amendment, and in the second, whomever is selected as delegates to the Convention write the Amendment.

I mean, I don't know how Article 5 could possibly be any clearer.

Maybe if they broke out some of the prepositional phrases into independent sentences, maybe it would be easier to understand?

And Congress has a penchant for violating the FUNCTION of Constitutional law, while honoring the FORM of Constitutional law. Fortunately, it is the FORM of Article 5 that protects us from the nightmares you have been weaving for us on this matter.

Regardless, the law is not written here in a way that can be easily misconstrued. There is NOTHING that ANYBODY at an Article 5 Convention could possibly do to circumvent the traditional ratification process.

Legislation does not become law until AFTER it is ratified. I honestly feel like Alice through the looking-glass here. Have Ron Paulers now gone off to follow their gut instead of their minds? How many times do I have to say, "the grass is green and the sky is blue" before others stop trying to convince me that the sky is mauve and the grass orange?

This is what gets me. Article 5 of the US Constitution is extremely clear. Please, everybody read it for yourself and discuss what it means. I'm open to rational arguments as to why I am misunderstanding Article 5, or as to why 3/4 of the states will suddenly decide to adopt the Communist Manifesto as the new Constitution.

But I don't see 38 states legislatures suddenly taking that kind of a departure out of the blue; and I don't see where I am misreading Article 5.

It's not quite as simple as "see spot run. run spot run." but it's not that far, either.