Does the Article V Convention...?

[Rich2018]

Why be an idiot?

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers." - quote attributed to Socrates

Why ask questions that with a moment or two of reflection and/r investigation will make clear what's what.

You think a convention of delegates are going to declare they're making null and void the Constitution, and the three branches of government and the American people are going to go along?

I didn't say they would, I was asking if they could.

 

[JD1965]

Now you are making false accusations. The fact I don't agree that a Convention of States will be a magic wand to solve our problems rather than use the same Congressional system we've used for going into four centuries (18th-21st) doesn't give you a right to lie about me.

The fact remains I wished you luck but feel the same problems in the Congressional system will be seen in the Convention of States so you threw a tantrum. Sad.

When fact and law shows you're wrong on all counts, not to mention the political writing on the wall of the past quarter century-plus, yet you persist in a belief no longer having any basis in reality, that makes you part of the problem, and responsible. You and "Americans" like you are part of the problem. Believe what you want, but it's not my opinion calling you the problem and responsible, but fact and law that is doing so. Meaning, it's the truth. You don't deserve to enjoy what you're currently enjoying.

The Constitution currently mandates a convention. It's the law. When the law is being broken, and someone says, I'll sit and wait to see what happens. What do they call that?

 

[JD1965]

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers." - quote attributed to Socrates




I didn't say they would, I was asking if they could.

It wasn't slander, but the truth. It's not my opinion calling someone the problem, but fact and law that's doing so.

The Constitution currently mandates a convention. It's the law. When the law is being broken, and someone says, I'll sit and wait to see what happens. What do they call that?

 

[JD1965]

I didn't say they would, I was asking if they could.

Why ask if you won't listen? Or is that your job here?

 

[Rich2018]

It wasn't slander, but the truth....

In your vocabulary stunted opinion

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers." - Socrates

The Constitution currently mandates a convention. It's the law. When the law is being broken, and someone says, I'll sit and wait to see what happens. What do they call that?

No it doesn't, it simply gives Congress the option of calling one
Learn the difference

Why ask if you won't listen? Or is that your job here?

Debate often corrects those that pound the table that they're right


"There is an old adage among lawyers that says, "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table."


Your swollen fist must be quite sore by now.

 

[JD1965]

In your vocabulary stunted opinion

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers." - Socrates


No it doesn't, it simply gives Congress the option of calling one
Learn the difference

Debate often corrects those that pound the table that they're right

"There is an old adage among lawyers that says, "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table."

Your swollen fist must be quite sore by now.

Slander is making false statements about someone. I was making an observation of someone based on fact and law.

Congress does not have the option. The call is ministerial, non-discretionary, note the word shall rather than may.

I'm not pounding the table, and my fist isn't sore. Stupidity and mischaracterization is all you have--unless you're an operative, then it's not stupidity, it's deceit.

 

[Rich2018]

I was making an observation of someone based on fact and law.

That would be YOUR opinion on what is a fact AKA: slander

Congress does not have the option. The call is ministerial, non-discretionary, note the word shall rather than may.

I think you're using more than a little editing

Which clause are you referencing so I can get the full text ?

I'm not pounding the table, and my fist isn't sore....

:violin


You're such a brave boy.

 

[JD1965]

That would be YOUR opinion on what is a fact AKA: slander

I think you're using more than a little editing

Which clause are you referencing so I can get the full text ?

If someone is a member of society, and that society is governed by a law that is being broken, you can't then say you're going to sit back and wait to see what happens with the pretense that it's not something you're responsible for.

Article V is a single sentence long:

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 its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Congress does not have the option, so you're wrong.

Characterizing me as you do is just more stupidity and evasion from the truth.

 

[Rich2018]

If someone is a member of society, and that society is governed by a law that is being broken, you can't then say you're going to sit back and wait to see what happens with the pretense that it's not something you're responsible for.

Article V is a single sentence long:

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 its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Congress does not have the option, so you're wrong.

Your references says that Congress does have the option, so it is you who is wrong.

BOTH houses of Congress have to "deem it necessary" to call a convention. The Constitution doesn't say they have to do this at all.

QED: The Constitution doesn't say what you want it to say, so you look foolish by continuing to demand the presence of something that doesn't exist.

Characterizing me as you do is just more stupidity and evasion from the truth.

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers" - quote attributed to Socrates.

 

[JD1965]

Your references says that Congress does have the option, so it is you who is wrong.

BOTH houses of Congress have to "deem it necessary" to call a convention. The Constitution doesn't say they have to do this at all.

QED: The Constitution doesn't say what you want it to say, so you look foolish by continuing to demand the presence of something that doesn't exist.

If Congress had an option, the legal language would be MAY (discretionary), not SHALL (ministerial). I thought you might be sensible, but maybe not.

 

[Tahuyaman]

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.

What makes you believe this will happen?

 

[Aberration]

I didn't say they would, I was asking if they could.

They can not declare it. They, like Congress, have only the power to PROPOSE. To the States. Any proposal requires 3/4 of the State’s to ratify.

 

[Rich2018]

If Congress had an option, the legal language would be MAY (discretionary), not SHALL (ministerial). I thought you might be sensible, but maybe not.

What part of "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary,..." do you not understand ?

So if 2/3 of both houses don't vote for it, then it won't be called.


So, a convention shall be called only if both houses vote for it by at least a 2/3 majority.

 

[Rich2018]

They can not declare it. They, like Congress, have only the power to PROPOSE. To the States. Any proposal requires 3/4 of the State’s to ratify.

That might be a moot point.

If a proposed new constitution only requires a majority of state to vote for it...then 26 is enough.

 

[Aberration]

That might be a moot point.

If a proposed new constitution only requires a majority of state to vote for it...then 26 is enough.

If? Where does this if come from?

 

[Aberration]

What part of "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary,..." do you not understand ?

So if 2/3 of both houses don't vote for it, then it won't be called.


So, a convention shall be called only if both houses vote for it by at least a 2/3 majority.

or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments

If 2/3rds of State legislatures have applied for a convention, it’s not up to the Congress. They are no longer part of the process at that point.

 

[JD1965]

Your references says that Congress does have the option, so it is you who is wrong.

BOTH houses of Congress have to "deem it necessary" to call a convention. The Constitution doesn't say they have to do this at all.

QED: The Constitution doesn't say what you want it to say, so you look foolish by continuing to demand the presence of something that doesn't exist.

It appears you're incapable of deciphering which clause of the sentence refers to which subject.

You're still wrong, and it's not just me who is saying so.

 

[JD1965]

What makes you believe this will happen?

In 2010, during the 110th Congress, the Tea Party Congress read the Constitution first day from the floor of the House. Before reading, sponsor Goodlatte from Virginia noted that because the Constitution had been amended, members would be reading what the Congressional Research Service deemed valid. They skipped over the convention clause of Article V, did not read it. Then in 2012 the CRS issued a two-part white paper all about the Article V Convention. So how is it that the CRS is at once telling members of Congress not to read the convention clause, and two years later writing a paper all about it?

That paper has been updated multiple times, most recently 2017: http://www.foavc.org/reference/R44435_20171115.pdf

That paper spawned a rule which has the House now officially counting state applications and posting them as PDFs: Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives

In addition to that, over the past ten years, in the comment section to blogs and op-eds focused on the Article V Convention, it has gone from roughly 75% against a convention, to today where it's roughly 75% for a convention. All the above says we will get the call, and we will go through the process.

 

[Rich2018]

If 2/3rds of State legislatures have applied for a convention, it’s not up to the Congress. They are no longer part of the process at that point.

So even if congress doesn't want to call a convention, if 2/3 of the state legislatures do, then one is called regardless ?

 

[Rich2018]

It appears you're incapable of deciphering which clause of the sentence refers to which subject.

You're still wrong, and it's not just me who is saying so.

"Congress may submit a proposed constitutional amendment to the states, if the proposed amendment language is approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses.

Congress must call a convention for proposing amendments upon application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states (i.e., 34 of 50 states).

Amendments proposed by Congress or convention become valid only when ratified by the legislatures of, or conventions in, three-fourths of the states (i.e., 38 of 50 states)."


Note: Congress MUST, not shall but must.


Amending the U.S. Constitution


Does that make it clear to you ?

 

[JD1965]

"Congress may submit a proposed constitutional amendment to the states, if the proposed amendment language is approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses.

Congress must call a convention for proposing amendments upon application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states (i.e., 34 of 50 states).

Amendments proposed by Congress or convention become valid only when ratified by the legislatures of, or conventions in, three-fourths of the states (i.e., 38 of 50 states)."


Note: Congress MUST, not shall but must.


Amending the U.S. Constitution


Does that make it clear to you ?

The word peremptory was used by the Framers and known to everyone alive at that time, regarding the convention clause. The call is based on reason and logic, i.e. the Congress may become the problem needing to be addressed. Therefore, upon completion of a numeric count, the "national legislature" shall call a convention for proposing amendments.

Shall and Must have the same legal meaning: non-discretionary, done without debate, ministerial in nature.

Recap: there are no terms or conditions on any state applications currently part of public record. They are all valid applications and the 116th Congress is the latest legislative session to pretend the situation does not exist. The Constitution mandates a convention call presently.

Is that clear enough? Will you admit you're wrong in asserting that Congress has a choice in the matter?

 

[Rich2018]

The word peremptory was used by the Framers and known to everyone alive at that time, regarding the convention clause. The call is based on reason and logic, i.e. the Congress may become the problem needing to be addressed. Therefore, upon completion of a numeric count, the "national legislature" shall call a convention for proposing amendments.

Shall and Must have the same legal meaning: non-discretionary, done without debate, ministerial in nature.

Recap: there are no terms or conditions on any state applications currently part of public record. They are all valid applications and the 116th Congress is the latest legislative session to pretend the situation does not exist. The Constitution mandates a convention call presently.

Is that clear enough? Will you admit you're wrong in asserting that Congress has a choice in the matter?

Yes I will admit error.

In fairness I was commenting on Congress' evaluation that there was a possible need to calling a convention, not that the states, as a whole could overrule them.

 

[JD1965]

Yes I will admit error.

In fairness I was commenting on Congress' evaluation that there was a possible need to calling a convention, not that the states, as a whole could overrule them.

Thanks for being honest, much appreciated.

You raise an interesting point: Anti-Conventionists always say the forces that control Congress now will take over the Article V Convention. If that's true, then those forces can call a convention right now, as they have been able to do for the past fifty-plus years, based on the legal requirement having been met.

The truth is, those forces do not want a few hundred Americans from across a huge regionalized nation to assemble for the purpose of deliberating over amendments because those discussions will inevitably focus on them.

 

[Rich2018]

Thanks for being honest, much appreciated.

You raise an interesting point: Anti-Conventionists always say the forces that control Congress now will take over the Article V Convention. If that's true, then those forces can call a convention right now, as they have been able to do for the past fifty-plus years, based on the legal requirement having been met.

The truth is, those forces do not want a few hundred Americans from across a huge regionalized nation to assemble for the purpose of deliberating over amendments because those discussions will inevitably focus on them.

Who do you think would be nominated to attend a "Con-Con II" and who'd nominate them ?

 

[JD1965]

Who do you think would be nominated to attend a "Con-Con II" and who'd nominate them ?

The great state of Michigan has already passed legislation to the effect, that when the AVC is called, it shall elect its delegates from the same districts it elects its members of Congress. The somewhat lame state of Indiana has already done the same to the effect that its state legislature will select delegates.

Regarding the former, it will require elections, and those elections will be apples to oranges alongside electing a member of Congress. The campaign platforms will not be "It's time to clean up DC." They will be "If you elect me delegate I'll make sure to caucus with other delegates of like mind to see that an amendment concerned with electoral reform is passed." Members of Congress get elected as a career move. Delegates are elected as a national task force to discuss the problem, make recommendations, and go back to pursuing their happiness. Any idiot campaigning on a wedge issue likely won't make it to the AVC.

A number of years ago we had a special election for governor here in California. The newspapers had fifty different candidates that were narrowed down with ranked-choice voting. Elections for Article V Delegates will be the same and from them will emerge fully capable and vetted Americans saying what we all know is true: stuff like the Federal Reserve shouldn't be coining our money, elected office shouldn't be a celebrity contest, and three or for USSC rulings ought to be reversed.