Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Being conservative/libertarian minded myself, I believe this is the best way to get Washington under control. Conservative republicans in congress do not have the votes to impose their will there, but the states do en mass. Remember, the population of the state has NO bearing on how much power they wield at an article 5 convention, they are equal; meaning...............the population centers that have imposed goofy leftism have no more sway than a Montana, Iowa, or Nebraska.
Could you explain this in a little more detail providing some information on exactly how many delegates are authorized from each state? And in addition how those delegates are selected? Peferably not just an option, but citing the section of the Constitution or law which supports your postion.
**IF** delegates equal a fixed number per state, then what you say is "truer", on the other hand **IF** the number of delegates equals the number of representatives in Congress then your statement is less true since larger (more populous states) will have more votes.
If I remember correctly there were 13 colonies yet 55 delegates to the original Constitutional Convention meaning some colonies sent more, some less.
Let me clarify one thing.......after an article 5 meeting, the states must put up the agreed upon changes to the voters of its states. If enough states vote yes to the changes, then it becomes law, and the federal government MUST enforce that law.
This is why an article 5 can NOT get out of control, because the voters eventually decide the outcome, although it goes by state, 1 vote per state. It is also why it will work if not to sweeping of changes, because many of the blue states once there, will agree to changes that stop the federal government from imposing their will upon them too; especially if a repub gets elected in 16-)
And please cite the section of the Constitution where suggested amendments **MUST** be agreed to by the voters of the States. My reading of Article V is that proposed amendment must be approved by the Legislatures of the States. Now some states could put it on a ballot, but others could put it directly to the legislature.
>>>>
Wow, you ask alot, but I will research it closely and get back with you. I am positive though that each state has 1 vote in the changes, and that no state has more votes regardless of size in the process.
As far as them being forced to put it to a ballot vote, I must admit I have to go into the constitutional scholars writings to get you an answer.
Give me some time, I am going to the pool in a few, but I promise I will find the answer later.
And just so ya now, that was not an attempt at a "gotcha" question - you sounded very definitive on it so I'm truly interested on how a new Constitutional Convention would be structured.
In some way I think a new convention is a good thing, in other ways I'm very leery about it.
For example:
1. For example the questions already asked about number of delegates, if the requirement is a fixed number per state. That is one thing. On the other if the number is based on either population or number of Congressional seats (currently 535) then states with larger populations (California, New York, Florida, etc) will have a bigger impact on outcomes.
2. Secondly there is a question on subject matter that can be addressed within such a convention. And there are two lines of reasoning with that. Which I'll refer to as "limited" and "general".
General - lets say that Texas wants to address overriding supreme court decision and submits a convention request, Kentucky wants a balanced budget amendment, New York wants to limit the 2nd Amendment, North Dakota wants to make all abortions illegal, New Hampshire wants an amendment to protect abortion, and Maine wants an amendment to protect same-sex marriage. Under the general convention concept it is simply the application of 34 States that triggers a convention and there is no limit on what the convention produces. This is the "watch what you ask for" scenario since the convention can produce any proposed amendment then it's up to the states to address each individually. When it goes to the states there is no weight by population or congressional representation - there is one outcome from the legislature. However the threshold to have a convention is easier since it requries 34 states to ask for one, regardless of the reason a state may want one.
Limited - on the other hand a limited convention would be under the idea that the subject of the convention is limited to the purpose called for. If different states call for a convention for different reasons, that doesn't count toward the 34 state total. You would need 34 states to call for a convention for the same subject and agree to limit the conventions deliberations to that subject. If there is no limit on the subject, you really just have a "general" convention anyway - and the outcomes might not be what you really want.
>>>>
No they don't, the State legislatures can approve or not, just like any other Amendment. Or if enough States agree to the same language in State conventions there is no need for legislatures to vote, it becomes part of the Constitution as if it were ratified by the State legislatures.
^ thatWhen will Texas secede like they promised?
No they don't, the State legislatures can approve or not, just like any other Amendment. Or if enough States agree to the same language in State conventions there is no need for legislatures to vote, it becomes part of the Constitution as if it were ratified by the State legislatures.
You might want to check Article V again.
There is no provision for individual state conventions and bypassing the legislature's of the respective states. Amendments can be proposed in only 1 of 2 ways, Congress passing a proposed amendment and the legislatures calling for a Constitutional Convention. An amendment must then be approved by 3/4's of the State Legislatures.
>>>>
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 it's equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Any questions?
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 it's equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Any questions?
Oh, you were talking about ratification conventions. That is a different animal. Ratification conventions can only occur though until AFTER Congress passes an Amendment or a Constitutional Convention passes an amendment. Congress then determines the manner in which ratification occurs, if they limit ratification to legislative action - then there are no state level ratification conventions.
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 it's equal Suffrage in the Senate.
>>>>
You still don't get it, OKTexas. That's alright, because you misguided way cannot happen.
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 it's equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Any questions?
Oh, you were talking about ratification conventions. That is a different animal. Ratification conventions can only occur though until AFTER Congress passes an Amendment or a Constitutional Convention passes an amendment. Congress then determines the manner in which ratification occurs, if they limit ratification to legislative action - then there are no state level ratification conventions.
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 it's equal Suffrage in the Senate.
>>>>
Actually no, where does it say anything about a "ratification" conventions, it refers to State Constitutional conventions vs a centralized convention. Mark Levin explains the process pretty well in The Liberty Amendments.
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 it's equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Any questions?
Oh, you were talking about ratification conventions. That is a different animal. Ratification conventions can only occur though until AFTER Congress passes an Amendment or a Constitutional Convention passes an amendment. Congress then determines the manner in which ratification occurs, if they limit ratification to legislative action - then there are no state level ratification conventions.
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 it's equal Suffrage in the Senate.
>>>>
Actually no, where does it say anything about a "ratification" conventions, it refers to State Constitutional conventions vs a centralized convention. Mark Levin explains the process pretty well in The Liberty Amendments.
Ignoring Congress can pass and amendment to they put it for for ratification and the fact that it does not refer to "State Constitutional conventions" as those words do not appear together in the amendment. There are two types of conventions mentioned - which you have to use context to recognize. There is a Constitutional Convention (as we call it) when called by congress to which the state send delegates to. That convention then determines and agrees to an amendment. That amendment is then laid back before Congress.
Congress then issues the proposed amendment to the state and can specify the method of ratification (either by the State Legislature, a state convention, or leave it up to the state to decide). If Congress allows it, the second type of convention is - what I called the Ratification Convention - that can only address the amendment that congress has forwarded to the State.
The idea that individual states are going to just go out and have conventions, and it becomes part of the Constitutions is not based on what is written in Article V because Article V clearly assigned to Congress the authority to determine the method of ratification.
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 it's equal Suffrage in the Senate.
OKTexas, you are clearly no savant on the Constitution, merely a self embarrassment.
As you see it doesn't say "may be directed by congress", a proposal is a suggestion. If 3/4ths of the States agree to the language of an amendment, they can ratify it without involving congress at all and it will become part of the Constitution.
Hooray for Gov. Abbot. We have enough Republican governors to exact some much needed changes.
AUSTIN (CBSDFW.COM/AP) — Texas Governor Greg Abbott is joining the ranks of Republicans who are pushing for the first U.S. constitutional convention in more than 200 years.
Abbott on Friday called on Texas to take the leadin pushing for constitutional amendments that would give states power to ignore federal laws and override decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The idea isn’t new, and successfully assembling a constitutional convention is a long shot.
Doing so would require approval from 34 states, and over the past four decades, more than two dozen states have endorsed the idea at one time or another.
Texas Governor Calls For Convention Of States
time has run out for you guys on that
As you see it doesn't say "may be directed by congress", a proposal is a suggestion. If 3/4ths of the States agree to the language of an amendment, they can ratify it without involving congress at all and it will become part of the Constitution.
Sorry, that has already been settled. The case was United States v. Sprague where someone challenged an amendment. The court held that Congress has the sole responsibility for determining the method of ratification of an amendment.
FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.
>>>>
Sorry, that has already been settled. The case was United States v. Sprague where someone challenged an amendment. The court held that Congress has the sole responsibility for determining the method of ratification of an amendment.
FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.
>>>>
The Court is the problem, idjit. And, the Court can't change the terms of the Constitution at its whims. If there are terms in the US Constitution that say states can convene to ratify new amendments in 3/4 majority without Congress, then Congress is the only one who can change that. And they haven't. The Court needs its wings clipped, and how.
