• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Congressional Conspiracy

The critical distinction is that there are two ways to propose an amendment, but only one way to ratify it.

The states have legally satisfied the convention clause of Article V and everyone in Congress pretends the mandate doesn't exist. That's the conspiracy--to deny the American people of the several states to their right to formally discuss and propose things that politicians never will.

Congress has concluded that there are not a sufficient number of active petitions. Not one of the states whose petition has been dismissed due to the conditions already being satisfied has ever objected.
 
Congress has concluded that there are not a sufficient number of active petitions. Not one of the states whose petition has been dismissed due to the conditions already being satisfied has ever objected.


They don't petition, they cast applications. A petition and an application have two different legal meanings. The letter and spirit of the law (the single sentence which makes of the fifth article) is written to deny Congress the ability to debate validity. Why? Because if they're allowed to debate something they're obligated to do, it will never happen.

Congress has never discussed or addressed existing applications, meaning none have ever been dismissed. Meaning there is a congressional conspiracy to deny the people the Article V Convention as plainly described in the Constitution.
 
It would be if our Constitution were more ambiguous than it is.

The OP was clear. The link shows a state declaring to Congress that the states have legally satisfied the clause and that it's time to carry out its constitutional obligation and issue the call. They haven't and they don't talk about it, that's the conspiracy.
 
The OP was clear. The link shows a state declaring to Congress that the states have legally satisfied the clause and that it's time to carry out its constitutional obligation and issue the call. They haven't and they don't talk about it, that's the conspiracy.

Taking it to Court should be an option. Why has that not happened? That is what I don't understand.
 
Taking it to Court should be an option. Why has that not happened? That is what I don't understand.

It did happen in 2007. The solicitor general, representing Congress, did not dispute that the states had satisfied the clause, but argued the convention call is a political question and up to Congress to decide.
 
It did happen in 2007. The solicitor general, representing Congress, did not dispute that the states had satisfied the clause, but argued the convention call is a political question and up to Congress to decide.

The requisite number of States passing such an amendment would be enough to make it federal doctrine until Congress does their job.
 
The requisite number of States passing such an amendment would be enough to make it federal doctrine until Congress does their job.

The link that started this thread shows a state asking Congress to recognize that more than enough state applications exist on record to mandate a convention call.

This is the conspiracy upon which all others rest.
 
The link that started this thread shows a state asking Congress to recognize that more than enough state applications exist on record to mandate a convention call.

This is the conspiracy upon which all others rest.

The real conspiracy is what actual powers are being asked for in that amendment. Why were all the other amendments passed.
 
Or proposed and ratified by the legislatures of the several States.

If you read Article V it is a single sentence long. At the part where is says "or, upon the application of 2/3 of the states, shall call a convention" you'll note it does not say, "upon the application within ten years" or "upon the application for the same subject" rather, it states clearly that the only term/condition placed on an application is that it be cast. There are no same-subject/contemporaneous requirements. Why? Because obviously, if the states are going to meet in convention, there is no reason to agree to anything before doing so, it's a non-binding deliberative assembly. Also, there could be a situation where three states want one type of amendment, three states want another type, but upon assembling it's discovered a different amendment altogether will solve both complaints. And that's what an application should be viewed as--a complaint. Once Congress receives enough complaints, it goes to the cleaners. If the purpose of a convention is to build consensus, why would you unnecessarily require members to agree beforehand? If the spirit of the convention clause is to force Congress to legally sanction a discussion about Congress, you would base it on an objective numeric count, that way Congress can't debate whether or not it's time for the call.

Over the years, states being states, have done things a little differently, and these differences in the texts of applications, what is known as constitutional dicta, have become the focus of politicians and political pundits, to confuse people. The only requirement is numeric count and there are hundreds of applications strewn across congressional records.
 
If you read Article V it is a single sentence long. At the part where is says "or, upon the application of 2/3 of the states, shall call a convention" you'll note it does not say, "upon the application within ten years" or "upon the application for the same subject" rather, it states clearly that the only term/condition placed on an application is that it be cast. There are no same-subject/contemporaneous requirements. Why? Because obviously, if the states are going to meet in convention, there is no reason to agree to anything before doing so, it's a non-binding deliberative assembly. Also, there could be a situation where three states want one type of amendment, three states want another type, but upon assembling it's discovered a different amendment altogether will solve both complaints. And that's what an application should be viewed as--a complaint. Once Congress receives enough complaints, it goes to the cleaners. If the purpose of a convention is to build consensus, why would you unnecessarily require members to agree beforehand? If the spirit of the convention clause is to force Congress to legally sanction a discussion about Congress, you would base it on an objective numeric count, that way Congress can't debate whether or not it's time for the call.

Over the years, states being states, have done things a little differently, and these differences in the texts of applications, what is known as constitutional dicta, have become the focus of politicians and political pundits, to confuse people. The only requirement is numeric count and there are hundreds of applications strewn across congressional records.

A Convention is not Congress. A Convention can insist upon Congressional recognition.
 
It did happen in 2007. The solicitor general, representing Congress, did not dispute that the states had satisfied the clause, but argued the convention call is a political question and up to Congress to decide.

That reasoning is in legal error in my opinion. Our Tenth Amendment must give States legal standing on sovereign State issues with the general government of the Union.
 
That reasoning is in legal error in my opinion. Our Tenth Amendment must give States legal standing on sovereign State issues with the general government of the Union.

I forget the name of the case the USSC ruling came out of, but they did rule that something clearly meant to be ministerial in nature, was from that ruling on, discretionary.
 
I forget the name of the case the USSC ruling came out of, but they did rule that something clearly meant to be ministerial in nature, was from that ruling on, discretionary.

There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine. If, it can be deemed optional for Congress due to politics, the several and sovereign States can hold their own Convention and simply inform Congress of their Amendment to our federal Constitution. A failure of Congress to propose any solution means the several States must do so in their collective severalty.
 
There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine. If, it can be deemed optional for Congress due to politics, the several and sovereign States can hold their own Convention and simply inform Congress of their Amendment to our federal Constitution. A failure of Congress to propose any solution means the several States must do so in their collective severalty.

Theoretically yes, but in terms of practical politics today? If it was to ever happen there would need to be something to precede that convention.

A few years back, when talk of the Article V Convention was at its peak in state legislatures, there was a group of state legislators called ASL, and they assembled to talk about what the rules would be when a convention is called.

Perhaps it would be shrewd to draft a compact resolution to the effect that any state passing it will commit to sending delegates, and as soon as 2/3 do so, two months from that date a convention is held to discuss Article V and the fact Congress won't call a convention. The assembly would not draft anything for ratification, but simply make the facts clear--including the sham ruling declaring the call discretionary--and all the applications on record--and make recommendations based on them. That should get some attention, perhaps enough to make Congress finally issue the call.
 
Theoretically yes, but in terms of practical politics today? If it was to ever happen there would need to be something to precede that convention.

A few years back, when talk of the Article V Convention was at its peak in state legislatures, there was a group of state legislators called ASL, and they assembled to talk about what the rules would be when a convention is called.

Perhaps it would be shrewd to draft a compact resolution to the effect that any state passing it will commit to sending delegates, and as soon as 2/3 do so, two months from that date a convention is held to discuss Article V and the fact Congress won't call a convention. The assembly would not draft anything for ratification, but simply make the facts clear--including the sham ruling declaring the call discretionary--and all the applications on record--and make recommendations based on them. That should get some attention, perhaps enough to make Congress finally issue the call.

I agree that this would probably be a last resort and may be problematic if not unanimous among the several States. A Convention to merely censure the responsible house of Congress may be more appropriate in some political cases.
 
I agree that this would probably be a last resort and may be problematic if not unanimous among the several States. A Convention to merely censure the responsible house of Congress may be more appropriate in some political cases.

It is both houses that are responsible. A couple of years ago we got the House parliamentarian to admit there is no official rule to call a joint session to count the applications and issue the call, i.e. Congress hiding behind bureaucracy of sorts. Ultimately, it is a tipping-point of Americans that will make them call it. More know about it than ever before. I read a quote by a state legislator that his constituents bring it up all the time. Convention Of States (COS) a group calling for a convention says they have over three million members, and I see them lobby pretty well whenever there is a blog post about the Article V Convention with a comment section. If you create a Google Alert for "Article V Convention" you'll see how it pops up once or twice a week somewhere in states.
 
It is both houses that are responsible. A couple of years ago we got the House parliamentarian to admit there is no official rule to call a joint session to count the applications and issue the call, i.e. Congress hiding behind bureaucracy of sorts. Ultimately, it is a tipping-point of Americans that will make them call it. More know about it than ever before. I read a quote by a state legislator that his constituents bring it up all the time. Convention Of States (COS) a group calling for a convention says they have over three million members, and I see them lobby pretty well whenever there is a blog post about the Article V Convention with a comment section. If you create a Google Alert for "Article V Convention" you'll see how it pops up once or twice a week somewhere in states.

It may also depend on what the States want to accomplish. Is there any existing method to accomplish something similar?
 
Back
Top Bottom