Does the Article V Convention...?

[JD1965]

I read it. I was not overly impressed. Semantics and fig leaves. Perhaps a thin legal justification over what was done, I am not a lawyer splitting hairs so I don't care much. What was done was done. Could it happen again? Perhaps the odds are low, but they are imho not zero.

In any case making changes is on the table, and tmk there isn't a limited agenda, so there could be changes I would find intolerable. This worries me.

And yes, you are being a bit snide, which is not the best way to convince someone who is undecided but not opposed to your pet advocacy. "Fiddling while Rome burns" was not a reference to my preferences, but to this forum in general... we argue passionately about X and Y as if it means anything, as if "winning the argument" will actually affect national policy, when in fact it will not. During my more active years here, I may have convinced a few dozen people to alter their attitude about a given subject to some degree... so what? Probably won't affect how most of them vote, and even if it did the effect on policy could not be measured with a micrometer. Thus, the "fiddling".

Not overly impressed? That's too bad. It's very complicated what happened, and the essay lays the truth of it bare.

75%+ is a political principle which mathematically precludes partisan nonsense and/or wedge issues from ever becoming high law. In other words, there is nothing you find intolerable that will ever come close to being ratified. You have worries, you shouldn't. Your worries should be where the country has gone and is still headed today--a form of corporate totalitarianism.

No, I wasn't being snide I was making a good-hearted rib--like, you're undecided about how to prevent Rome from burning? Nothing short of a convention is going to break the political status quo, and it's currently in the process building corporate slavery.

You may have convinced people about something, but it wasn't about the issue upon which all other issues rest. With this issue, all that matters is obtaining a tipping-point who are cognizant the process exists, and that it isn't dangerous. There is evidence as pointed out above to Harshaw that the government is taking steps to formally issue the call.

 

[JD1965]

Did I understand a previous post correct, that the required number of states has already petitioned for the Convention? And Congress has not responded?

Yes, the states have legally satisfied the clause a number of times over, Congressional Records show hundreds of applications:

Friends of the Article V Convention - Congressional Records

and yes, Congress is currently hiding behind the Clerk of the House who argued recently that there is no official rule to bring together a joint session to count and call.

 

[Rich2018]

The Article V Convention embodies our ultimate right of alter/abolish as handed down from the Declaration of Independence. Indeed it's how we reform without resorting to a bloody revolution. It is a peaceable reformation of the status quo.

You mean call a constitutional convention to do what exactly ?

 

[JD1965]

You mean call a constitutional convention to do what exactly ?

To take this huge regionalized country full of really smart and beautiful people and have them go through the process detailed in Article V.

 

[Rich2018]

To take this huge regionalized country full of really smart and beautiful people and have them go through the process detailed in Article V.

And re-write the entire Constitution ?

 

[JD1965]

And re-write the entire Constitution ?

The Article V Convention cannot write an entirely new constitution, it can only propose amendments to the one we have. As mentioned above, theoretically, it could propose a new Constitution, but in terms of practical politics such a proposal would never make it out of the convention to begin with.

 

[Rich2018]

The Article V Convention cannot write an entirely new constitution, it can only propose amendments to the one we have. As mentioned above, theoretically, it could propose a new Constitution, but in terms of practical politics such a proposal would never make it out of the convention to begin with.

But does not the Constitution provide this as the only way to replace it with a new constitution ?

 

[JD1965]

But does not the Constitution provide this as the only way to replace it with a new constitution ?

Congress or the Article V Convention, either/or, would have to formally propose an amendment allowing for replacement (and/or altering Article V itself), get that ratified by 75% of the states, then come back and propose a new constitution.

 

[Rich2018]

Congress or the Article V Convention, either/or, would have to formally propose an amendment allowing for replacement (and/or altering Article V itself), get that ratified by 75% of the states, then come back and propose a new constitution.

But my question was, is this not the ONLY process prescribed by the Constitution for replacing it ?

 

[JD1965]

But my question was, is this not the ONLY process prescribed by the Constitution for replacing it ?

There isn't a prescription for replacement in the Constitution, only amendment. Which, as mentioned, could theoretically become a de facto replacement.

 

[Glitch]

I want to reason with fellow Americans about why the Article V Convention exists and what will happen when one is called by the Congress.

Congress does not call for a Constitutional State Convention, 34 of the State legislatures make that call. When at least 34 State legislatures determine to hold a Constitutional State Convention it is only for the purpose of proposing changes to the US Constitution. Any proposed change to the US Constitution must be ratified by at least 38 of the State legislatures, just as they would for any other proposed amendment to the US Constitution. If at least 38 States ratify the proposed amendment then it becomes part of the Supreme Law of the Land and legally binds the federal government, including the courts.

It should be noted that the last (and the only) Constitutional State Convention occurred between May 1787 and September 1787 and produced the US Constitution.

 

[Rich2018]

There isn't a prescription for replacement in the Constitution, only amendment. Which, as mentioned, could theoretically become a de facto replacement.

So you're saying the Constitution doesn't give a process how it can be replaced ?


"When the original constitutional convention convened in May 1787, members were tasked, simply, with proposing amendments to the Articles of Confederation. But once they got going, they realized that the Articles were so flawed and they wanted to change so much that they would need to start from scratch...."


The U.S. Needs a New Constitution—Here's How to Write It - The Atlantic



So another Constitutional Convention (a ConCon II) could do the same.

 

[JD1965]

So you're saying the Constitution doesn't give a process how it can be replaced ?


"When the original constitutional convention convened in May 1787, members were tasked, simply, with proposing amendments to the Articles of Confederation. But once they got going, they realized that the Articles were so flawed and they wanted to change so much that they would need to start from scratch...."


The U.S. Needs a New Constitution—Here's How to Write It - The Atlantic



So another Constitutional Convention (a ConCon II) could do the same.

Incorrect, and I'm sorry to see you take your constitutional cues from a corporate rag.

This essay lays bare the situation if you care to reorient your understanding of the truth: http://www.foavc.org/reference/file12.pdf

 

[Rich2018]

Incorrect, and I'm sorry to see you take your constitutional cues from a corporate rag.

This essay lays bare the situation if you care to reorient your understanding of the truth: http://www.foavc.org/reference/file12.pdf

Would this be the way forward:


"...the Constitution has no provision, directly, for full-scale change. There is, however, the concept of the Amendment Convention as noted in Article 5. The power or limits of such a convention are unknown because there has never been one. It is thought, however, that a Convention would be able to propose any change to the Constitution it decided to, including full replacement."



Constitutional Topic: Rewriting the Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

[Integrityrespec]

I want to reason with fellow Americans about why the Article V Convention exists and what will happen when one is called by the Congress.

You mean if one gets called? The states would eventually have to ratify by a 2/3 majority. As the country is at this point divided on so many issues it may be difficult to get many passed depending on which side is proposing what. It will depend heavily upon conservative vs liberal voters on conservative vs liberal issues. Right now I think conservative states are in greater number.

 

[JD1965]

Congress does not call for a Constitutional State Convention, 34 of the State legislatures make that call. When at least 34 State legislatures determine to hold a Constitutional State Convention it is only for the purpose of proposing changes to the US Constitution. Any proposed change to the US Constitution must be ratified by at least 38 of the State legislatures, just as they would for any other proposed amendment to the US Constitution. If at least 38 States ratify the proposed amendment then it becomes part of the Supreme Law of the Land and legally binds the federal government, including the courts.

It should be noted that the last (and the only) Constitutional State Convention occurred between May 1787 and September 1787 and produced the US Constitution.

Incorrect on two counts, sir:

1) A simple reading of Article V shows that Congress has the duty of issuing the call.

2) There are hundreds of state applications already part of Congressional Records, meaning the states have already legally satisfied the convention clause many times over.

We're currently awaiting a tipping-point of Americans who are A) cognizant the provision for a non-binding deliberative assembly exists, and B) that it's not dangerous.

Once that happens Congress will issue the call. With the idea fast becoming mainstream, and with congressional records readily available, we could see the convention call any day.

 

[JD1965]

The power or limits of such a convention are unknown because there has never been one.

This is false. There are both legal checks and balances, not to mention matters of practical politics, i.e. 38 states are not going to ratify anything questionable because the 75%+ requirement for approval mathematically precludes it from happening.

 

[JD1965]

You mean if one gets called? The states would eventually have to ratify by a 2/3 majority. As the country is at this point divided on so many issues it may be difficult to get many passed depending on which side is proposing what. It will depend heavily upon conservative vs liberal voters on conservative vs liberal issues. Right now I think conservative states are in greater number.

The states ratify by 3/4.

Also, the legal requirement of 75%+ approval before any changes occur is a political principle which mathematically precludes partisan/wedge issue nonsense from ever becoming high law. Conservative or Liberal, a proposal must get all one side of the political spectrum signed on, plus at least half the other, or it goes where 10,000+ other proposed amendments have gone--the dustbin of history.

To be sure, there are non-partisan issues, and political polls of the past half century show what will be ratified: electoral reforms--the only thing the right and left agree on, and curiously the only thing Congress never discusses.

 

[Glitch]

Incorrect on two counts, sir:

1) A simple reading of Article V shows that Congress has the duty of issuing the call.

You clearly misread 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;...

(emphasis added)

There are only two processes by which an amendment may be proposed: 1) By Congress passing a proposed amendment with a two-thirds majority; or 2) By the introduction of the proposed amendment by the Constitutional State Convention by two-thirds of the State legislatures.

2) There are hundreds of state applications already part of Congressional Records, meaning the states have already legally satisfied the convention clause many times over.

We're currently awaiting a tipping-point of Americans who are A) cognizant the provision for a non-binding deliberative assembly exists, and B) that it's not dangerous.

Once that happens Congress will issue the call. With the idea fast becoming mainstream, and with congressional records readily available, we could see the convention call any day.

Also incorrect. The last Constitutional State Convention was in May 1787. The purpose of the Constitutional State Convention was to propose changes to the US Constitution in the event that Congress refused to do so. If Congress chooses, for example, not to propose an amendment to balance the federal budget then the State legislatures may do so through a Constitutional State Convention. In either case it still requires 38 States to ratify the proposed amendment.

 

[JD1965]

You clearly misread Article V.

(emphasis added)

There are only two processes by which an amendment may be proposed: 1) By Congress passing a proposed amendment with a two-thirds majority; or 2) By the introduction of the proposed amendment by the Constitutional State Convention by two-thirds of the State legislatures.

Also incorrect. The last Constitutional State Convention was in May 1787. The purpose of the Constitutional State Convention was to propose changes to the US Constitution in the event that Congress refused to do so. If Congress chooses, for example, not to propose an amendment to balance the federal budget then the State legislatures may do so through a Constitutional State Convention. In either case it still requires 38 States to ratify the proposed amendment.

I've been on this subject for twenty years, have read pretty much everything ever written about it, and I've never seen it referred to as a "Constitutional State Convention" anywhere, so not sure why you use a self-made term for it. Because it is the only convention of its kind and is found in a fifth article, the correct term is Article V Convention, capitalized as any proper noun is. This is the term the Congressional Research Service uses, and thus how all members of Congress refer to it: http://www.foavc.org/reference/R44435_20171115.pdf

Regarding Article V, you are reading it incorrectly. The words "shall call" refer to Congress. The states do not and cannot call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution.

 

[JD1965]

So you're saying the Constitution doesn't give a process how it can be replaced ?

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file12.pdf

"Convention opponents always overlook this constitutional protection requiring that an amendment becomes part of the Constitution rather than the Constitution becoming part of the amendment. The few words 'as part of this Constitution' in Article V dictate any amendment becomes part of the present Constitution thus permanently preventing the very action done by the Confederation Congress and the states in 1787 because no amendment proposal is allowed to replace the present Constitution. Thus amendments are limited in scope to amending a portion of the Constitution leaving the rest of the Constitution unaffected and untouched. A new Constitution, proposed by a convention or by Congress, therefore is impossible because it would have to replace the current Constitution and thus could not be 'part of this Constitution.' Such an act is therefore unconstitutional, as the original Constitution and its ratified amendments, as they have become 'part of this Constitution,' must always remain intact."

 

[Glitch]

I've been on this subject for twenty years, have read pretty much everything ever written about it, and I've never seen it referred to as a "Constitutional State Convention" anywhere, so not sure why you use a self-made term for it. Because it is the only convention of its kind and is found in a fifth article, the correct term is Article V Convention, capitalized as any proper noun is. This is the term the Congressional Research Service uses, and thus how all members of Congress refer to it: http://www.foavc.org/reference/R44435_20171115.pdf

Regarding Article V, you are reading it incorrectly. The words "shall call" refer to Congress. The states do not and cannot call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution.

You've been working this subject for twenty years yet failed to comprehend the meaning of the word "or" nineteen words into the article. Nor did you have a clue about the amendment process until I provided you that information for the very first time. Next you will be telling me all about your 23 PhDs and the brain surgery you have scheduled in the morning. LOL! Internet braggarts are so pathetically boring.

 

[JD1965]

You've been working this subject for twenty years yet failed to comprehend the meaning of the word "or" nineteen words into the article. Nor did you have a clue about the amendment process until I provided you that information for the very first time. Next you will be telling me all about your 23 PhDs and the brain surgery you have scheduled in the morning. LOL! Internet braggarts are so pathetically boring.

Not sure if you're drunk, on drugs, off meds, or what, but the Article V Convention is called by the Congress as Article V clearly reads. Nor did you provide any information I haven't long known, and I wasn't bragging. I was pointing out that you're confused. If you don't believe me, read the Congressional Research paper, it's all there.

http://www.foavc.org/reference/R44435_20171115.pdf

 

[Rich2018]

This is false. There are both legal checks and balances, not to mention matters of practical politics, i.e. 38 states are not going to ratify anything questionable because the 75%+ requirement for approval mathematically precludes it from happening.

I was actually quoting a source.

It was saying that there has never been a Constitutional Convention before and since the Constitution doesn't limit its constitutional powers, they are unknown.


Now you might be right about there being ratification procedure but the article said the Constitution doesn't place limits on what a convention can do. The convention may have the power to issue amendments or repeals or even tear up the existing Constitution and write a new one.

The 75% os states ratifying a change may not apply to such a convention as all states would be involved jointly.

 

[Rich2018]

"An Article V constitutional convention is a dangerous path that puts all of our cherished rights, civil liberties, and freedoms at risk. Other than the convention that drafted our Constitution, there has never been a constitutional convention in the nation’s history; there is nothing stopping a new convention from rolling back our constitutional rights and civil liberties. Our right to vote, our right to free speech, our reproductive rights, our citizenship rules, and more could all be up for grabs.

With no rules and complete uncertainty about the constitutional process, an Article V convention would cause political and economic chaos. There is no language in the U.S. Constitution to limit a convention to one issue, no guidelines for rules to govern a convention, no rules on who picks the delegates and how they are selected, no guarantee that the American people would be equally represented, and no limits on corporate special interest influence...."

Article V Convention - Common Cause