Does the Article V Convention...?

[JD1965]

I'm familiar with the 1929 Wisconsin Application. Their list had a lot of wishful thinking.

All text associated with a state application is constitutional dicta and has no legal bearing on whether or not a convention is mandated. Why? Because there are no terms or conditions for on state applications. Arguments beyond that are legally invalid and run against the letter and spirit of Article V and the Constitution.

As mentioned before, it's clear what has happened, and what the correct response is. You respond by raising non-issues to prevent a convention, which is the response of a fascist.

 

[JD1965]

Absolutely, if enough States signed onto that kind of an application, there'd be no justification for the Congress to deny an Article V Constitution. My only argument is that there are a lot of moving parts to trying to hobble together that kind of a coalition.... different States have authored different applications for different reasons for the past 200+ years. If we're going to take the extraordinary step of convening such a convention, it's terms must be crystal-clear and unambiguous. There can no room for doubt as to it's legitimacy, it's limits (assuming some States will condition their application on such limits), and the subject areas it will address.

As to whether or not such a convention should be called... I couldn't disagree with you more. It's not that I think the Constitution we have now is perfect - it isn't. I just think the risk we'd running of invoking unforeseen and unintended consequences would be to great to justify it. If you go through the list of current Article V applications that are out there, it's almost like going through the attic. Some of things you find, you might consider to be lost treasures... but others are probably best described as best left in storage. If we go down the road of reopening some of those old wounds... I think we'll find the exercise extremely divisive and counter-productive.

The Article V Convention's terms are clear and unambiguous: propose amendments for ratification to the Constitution.

There are no risks at a convention because the convention does not ratify anything.

The purpose of a non-binding deliberative assembly is to build consensus as to what might be agreed upon across the land. 75%+ approval mathematically precludes partisan nonsense or any questionable ideas as DOA.

You have a bunch of imaginary boogeymen in your head.

 

[Cordelier]

All text associated with a state application is constitutional dicta and has no legal bearing on whether or not a convention is mandated. Why? Because there are no terms or conditions for on state applications. Arguments beyond that are legally invalid and run against the letter and spirit of Article V and the Constitution.

As mentioned before, it's clear what has happened, and what the correct response is. You respond by raising non-issues to prevent a convention, which is the response of a fascist.

The states are the ones filing the applications, JD... it's entirely up to them what terms and/or conditions they wish to apply to it. There's nothing within the text of the Constitution - least of all Article V - that prevents them from doing so.

 

[JD1965]

Another major question is; does a Constitutional Convention have the power to "rip up" the Constitution and replace it with an entirely new one ?

Article V is a single sentence long and states clearly that any amendments proposed (by Congress or convention) must become "part of this constitution."

This tells the story of why: http://www.foavc.org/reference/file12.pdf

 

[Divine_Wind]

Depends on the terms of the Application - if 34 States vote for a general convention with no limitations, they can pretty much do whatever they want. Whatever end result they come up with would still have to be ratified by 3/4 of either the Convention or the State Legislatures before it came into effect.

Correct. Good luck getting the 34 states just to agree on the agenda much less the 38 needed to ratify the amendment.

 

[JD1965]

Depends on the terms of the Application - if 34 States vote for a general convention with no limitations, they can pretty much do whatever they want. Whatever end result they come up with would still have to be ratified by 3/4 of either the Convention or the State Legislatures before it came into effect.

No they can't, for two reasons: 1) Article V doesn't allow delegates to do what they want, and 2) a nation of 300 million and three branches of government wouldn't let them. To suggest otherwise if fear mongering.

 

[JD1965]

The states are the ones filing the applications, JD... it's entirely up to them what terms and/or conditions they wish to apply to it. There's nothing within the text of the Constitution - least of all Article V - that prevents them from doing so.

To allow states to politicize applications leads to estoppel of the law. You are arguing against the functioning of the Constitution. Not very impressive.

 

[Cordelier]

The Article V Convention's terms are clear and unambiguous: propose amendments for ratification to the Constitution.

There are no risks at a convention because the convention does not ratify anything.

The purpose of a non-binding deliberative assembly is to build consensus as to what might be agreed upon across the land. 75%+ approval mathematically precludes partisan nonsense or any questionable ideas as DOA.

You have a bunch of imaginary boogeymen in your head.

Imaginary boogeymen in my head, huh? Be wary of unintended consequences. Once you open up the Constitution to wholesale changes, it opens a lot of cans of worms.

Don't take my word for it, though... why don't you read up on what happened in other countries when they decided to reopen their Constitutions. You want a reaction from someone? Go ask a Canadian about the Meech Lake Accord. They reopened their Constitution and it just about ended up splitting the country in two!

I'd call that a pretty significant unintended consequence, wouldn't you?

 

[JD1965]

Correct. Good luck getting the 34 states just to agree on the agenda much less the 38 needed to ratify the amendment.

You can believe whoever you want, but the states only need agree to a convention, not its agenda. That is for delegates to determine.

Cordelier is arguing the states need to agree on topic before Congress is forced to call a convention, that Congress will decide if a convention is ever called based on its own interpretation of applications. The convention is for proposing amendments, not an amendment, which is another reason why his argument is bogus.

The word peremptory was used to describe the convention call--done without debate. The exact opposite of what he's arguing.

 

[Cordelier]

No they can't, for two reasons: 1) Article V doesn't allow delegates to do what they want, and 2) a nation of 300 million and three branches of government wouldn't let them. To suggest otherwise if fear mongering.

I've got news for you, JD... You don't have to actually ratify your proposed changes for them to be extremely divisive.... all it takes to set off a firestorm is the possibility of the changes - and the ensuing rage when they fail.

It's not the Amendments themselves that cause the problems... it's the debate about the amendments. Do you really want to throw a Right to Life Amendment into the same brew with a Gun Banning Amendment? What about a No Immigration Amendment? You'd have ALL of these contentious issues coming to a boil at exactly the same time. It'd be like trying to cook yourself a nice big pot of gasoline stew over an open flame.

 

[Divine_Wind]

You can believe whoever you want, but the states only need agree to a convention, not its agenda. That is for delegates to determine....

Correct, but good luck getting them together for nothing in particular. Still, even if that happens, how long do you think it would take for 34 states to agree on an agenda? What topics do you think 38 states would agree upon to ratify?

 

[JD1965]

Imaginary boogeymen in my head, huh? Be wary of unintended consequences. Once you open up the Constitution to wholesale changes, it opens a lot of cans of worms.

Don't take my word for it, though... why don't you read up on what happened in other countries when they decided to reopen their Constitutions. You want a reaction from someone? Go ask a Canadian about the Meech Lake Accord. They reopened their Constitution and it just about ended up splitting the country in two!

I'd call that a pretty significant unintended consequence, wouldn't you?

The only thing of consequence and that can alter the Constitution is the agreement of 38 states, not a convention. You're saying that simply discussing something will result in its adoption, which of course is preposterous. This is the USA with an entirely unique Constitution and history. Seven out of ten Americans are not going to agree to the boogeymen in your head.

 

[JD1965]

Correct, but good luck getting them together for nothing in particular. Still, even if that happens, how long do you think it would take for 34 states to agree on an agenda? What topics do you think 38 states would agree upon to ratify?

The legal requirement has already been satisfied multiple times over, and they are not getting together for nothing in particular, they are doing so in order to formally discuss a corrupted Washington DC.

The states do not agree on the agenda, the convention does. Once it convenes it will look at all the applications, and state elections for delegates which will be mini-referendums on the agenda. A convention is a task-force for the purpose of breaking systems of corruption.

The only issue that always gets 80-90% approval is electoral reform. You heard it here first: the only thing we're getting from a convention is proposals concerned with electoral reform.

 

[JD1965]

I've got news for you, JD... You don't have to actually ratify your proposed changes for them to be extremely divisive.... all it takes to set off a firestorm is the possibility of the changes - and the ensuing rage when they fail.

It's not the Amendments themselves that cause the problems... it's the debate about the amendments. Do you really want to throw a Right to Life Amendment into the same brew with a Gun Banning Amendment? What about a No Immigration Amendment? You'd have ALL of these contentious issues coming to a boil at exactly the same time. It'd be like trying to cook yourself a nice big pot of gasoline stew over an open flame.

You obviously have never been part of a non-binding deliberative assembly. Once you enter the chamber you are actively seeking ideas that unite, not divide. It's part of human nature and practical politics. Delegates are not going to be oblivious to the fact that what they discuss must still be ratified by 75%+ approval. Right to Life and/or 2nd Amendment Repeal are DOA and would never make it out of the convention to begin with. All these issues are already on various levels of boil, and the process would only clarify what people are willing to discuss and what they would consider not worthy of discussion.

Mischaracterization and fear-mongering is all Anti-Conventionists and fascists have ever had.

 

[Cordelier]

You obviously have never been part of a non-binding deliberative assembly. Once you enter the chamber you are actively seeking ideas that unite, not divide. It's part of human nature and practical politics. Delegates are not going to be oblivious to the fact that what they discuss must still be ratified by 75%+ approval. Right to Life and/or 2nd Amendment Repeal are DOA and would never make it out of the convention to begin with. All these issues are already on various levels of boil, and the process would only clarify what people are willing to discuss and what they would consider not worthy of discussion.

Mischaracterization and fear-mongering is all Anti-Conventionists and fascists have ever had.

There's nothing deliberate about emotional issues, JD. You've got this vision of a convention being a gathering of the best and the brightest getting together and engaging one another in rational discussions. It won't be like that. It'll be a bunch of extremist firebrands using the forum to push ideas they've dedicated their lives to standing for. Logic isn't going to have a damn thing to do with it. It's going to be pure emotion. When you uncork that kind of a heady brew, there's no telling what the ramifications will be.

Common sense ought to tell us to weigh the risks we run in any endeavor against the possible rewards which may reasonably ensue. I think this prospect is fraught with dangers on all sides... with precious little to be actually gained for the effort.

 

[Divine_Wind]

The legal requirement has already been satisfied multiple times over, and they are not getting together for nothing in particular, they are doing so in order to formally discuss a corrupted Washington DC.

The states do not agree on the agenda, the convention does. Once it convenes it will look at all the applications, and state elections for delegates which will be mini-referendums on the agenda. A convention is a task-force for the purpose of breaking systems of corruption.

The only issue that always gets 80-90% approval is electoral reform. You heard it here first: the only thing we're getting from a convention is proposals concerned with electoral reform.

So 34 states have agreed to meet? Great! I'll be curious to know what they are doing. Any idea when this is happening?

 

[Rich2018]

Depends on the terms of the Application - if 34 States vote for a general convention with no limitations, they can pretty much do whatever they want. Whatever end result they come up with would still have to be ratified by 3/4 of either the Convention or the State Legislatures before it came into effect.

That is my understanding too.

It would be better to replace the entire constitution than tinkering with it by adding an amendment or two.

 

[Cordelier]

That is my understanding too.

It would be better to replace the entire constitution than tinkering with it by adding an amendment or two.

I think it'd be courting disaster to even attempt doing that. The French are on their 5th Republic now... how many of those transitions were bloodless?

 

[JD1965]

So 34 states have agreed to meet? Great! I'll be curious to know what they are doing. Any idea when this is happening?

It's happening as soon as we reach a tipping-point of Americans who are both aware of the provision, and that it's not complicated or dangerous in any way.

Maybe it will never happen, maybe something else will happen before it does. Regardless, if you're American and feel a certain amount of responsibility to the heritage and principles of the red/white/blue, then you should educate yourself enough to be able to share the idea with others. Check Page One

 

[Rich2018]

I think it'd be courting disaster to even attempt doing that. The French are on their 5th Republic now... how many of those transitions were bloodless?

That's true but one "Republic" some how allowed an emperor.

Maybe they're just bad a writing constitutions, or just get invaded a lot.

 

[JD1965]

That is my understanding too.

It would be better to replace the entire constitution than tinkering with it by adding an amendment or two.

Out of 100 Americans, how many do you think would agree with you, that it's time to replace the Constitution?

 

[Rich2018]

Out of 100 Americans, how many do you think would agree with you, that it's time to replace the Constitution?

I have no idea, I know that Thomas Jefferson stated that he thought the Constitution had a sell-by date and should be replaced every generation of so.


Maybe you could start a poll ?

 

[JD1965]

I think it'd be courting disaster to even attempt doing that.

I think it was House Resolution 1741 in the 115th Congress which would have tasked the director of the National Archives and Records Administration with enrolling all existing state applications as federal documents so that they can be officially counted. If that or something like it happens, we would hear news reports that Congress has discovered the convention call is mandated and has been issued with a date.

Once the call goes out, the first thing to happen is that everyone working in an official government capacity is going to blink because they'll know that it will be a months-long process of examining the Constitution.

The next thing to happen, simultaneously with politicians/judges beginning to walk/talk differently, is thousands of Americans in each of the fifty states on the phone to state houses asking who gets to be delegate, and how their state is going to respond to the call.

Next we'd get news reports of states declaring whether they are going to elect or select delegates (Michigan and Indiana have already declared such, respectively).

Next, in the states that elect delegates, we'll witness various campaign platforms. The interesting thing here, is that these elections will be centered on amendment language, not vague rhetoric about how someone will work really hard in DC.

By the time the nation actually convenes the elections will have become mini-referendums on the convention's focus and deliberations.

That doesn't sound like courting disaster to me, but to fascists I can see how it does.

 

[JD1965]

I have no idea, I know that Thomas Jefferson stated that he thought the Constitution had a sell-by date and should be replaced every generation of so.


Maybe you could start a poll ?

He may have, obviously, due to common sense, known governing law had to be amended with time, "because a boy will outgrow his jacket" as he once said.

But he did not mean that the basic principles of government needed to be reinvented every 25 years.

Here is the poll: Time To Replace Constitution?

 

[Cordelier]

That's true but one "Republic" some how allowed an emperor.

Maybe they're just bad a writing constitutions, or just get invaded a lot.

It's hard to figure why they'd be so bad at writing constitutions... considering the 1st Republic had 6 of them. You'd figure practice would make perfect, wouldn't you?