Article V Convention - Will Ron Paul bring it up?
Submitted by Blacklight on Sat, 11/17/2007 - 23:43
I was reading an article today, and did some follow up research on what exactly an Article V convention is, and how it has been denied through attempts by all 50 state legislators by the congress. This is the wiki page for Article V:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_Stat...
And this article was what started my research this afternoon:
http://www.progress.org/2007/hirsch31.htm
It's not a "hit piece", but I feel it brings up something very important that I personally did not know anything about. I hope Dr. Paul gives this careful consideration. If there's one candidate that will step up, I bet it's him.
»
So many misinformed and brainwashed people!!!
It is hard to understand how Paul supporters can be so blind to the truth: all the corrupt forces controlling our government have prevented us -- we the people -- from having what the Founders thought we would need some day -- an Article V convention. If you really love and respect the Constitution then you should support having the FIRST Article V convention. And so should Paul. Learn the truth and the facts at www.foavc.org and recognize that if you are now against a convention you have been thoroughly brainwashed by all the corrupt forces you probably hate....
You get delusional prosperity in a delusional democracy
Watch what you wish for.
You just might get it.
These other writers are correct. Don't mess with what we have. The old document given to us by Madison, Washington, Hamiltion, and others is the best in the world. The only option is to get it back on track - one way or another.
Constitutional Convention is the most dangerous thing
Only Ron's detractors bring this up. The ConCon would be used to destroy the Constitution and that's why it's a bad idea.
Article 5 convention is dangerous.
There are numerous legal scholars (Harvard University Professor Lawrence Tribe, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger, Commission on the Bicentennial of the U. S. Constitution, U.S Supreme Court Justice Arthur J. Goldberg to name just a few) that feel an article 5 convention can't be limited in any way to just proposing amendments. In fact, "one big amendment" could be proposed that would supplant nearly the entire document. Even the ratification process could be changed so the new "constitution" could be ratified by the delegates to the convention themselves. The main problem with our current system stems from the fact that we "amended" the document in the first place in one particular area. That area happens to be the states suffrage in the Senate which was nullified by the supposed "17th amendment."
The solution to many of the problems of a runaway federal government is in fact an article 5 solution, but not the section of article 5 that has been proposed here. The solution to the 17th amendment lies in the last clause of article 5: "and that no state without it's consent shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." 10 states never ratified the 17th amendment and were thus deprived of their suffrage without their consent in violation of article 5 last clause. All that is needed is for one state that never consented to stand up and say so and state the 17th is not a valid amendment on those grounds.
What would the federal courts say about such a move? They couldn't say a word and here's why: Once a sovereign state declares the 17th invalid, based on the argument I've supplied here, the Senate would not be lawfully seated. Since appointments to the federal bench are confirmed by the U.S. Senate (a Senate which has just been invalidated by the declaration of the State that chooses to do so), any court appointments that were confirmed by that Senate would also be invalid. The state could rightfully argue that the case would be heard by a court system that does not have the states best interest at heart. They would simply ignore the jurisdiction of the courts to rule in this matter, select their Senators in the legislature as originally intended and send them to D.C. I have written an article on the subject which can be found here:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&frien...
Before making any arguments against what I've written here, especially if they are technical in nature (dealing with my interpretation of article 5 or how it applies to the courts) and not strategic, please read the article first. The reason for this reasonable request is that any technical argument one might make has probably already been made to me in the past, and I have answered them all in my article. I've brought this issue up in many debate forums in the past, and in my opinion, it has never been successfully challenged. By the way, what I've posted here is very germane to the RP campaign. On his wikipedia site, he apparently spoke against the 17th in a speech or interview in NH early in the campaign.
Even if there is a 95% chance the convention wouldn't become a "runaway" convention, the 5% chance that it could is still to great of a risk to those who truly value their freedoms as most RP supporters do, including myself. Tinkering with the constitution is a dangerous venture and should only be considered as an absolute last resort and the 17th amendment is a prime example of why this is so. The 17th completely wiped out the enforcement mechanism for the 10th amendment and we are witnessing the folly of this venture toward pure democracy today.
Sincerely,
Paul C. Hanson
I see the Article V stuff
but where is the documentation for the "All 50 States denied" allegation? I never recall "All 50 States" calling for constitutional amendment.
This is an incredible source of info so if you haven't seen it..
http://revolutioni.st/cclass.html
Instead of watching the garbage on tv check this out. Fantastic class that will explain everything you ever wanted to know about your rights (and how you've lost them) It's all great but part two will really get you thinking.
Class is taught by a libertarian Ron Paul supporter
Whoa
That is some heavy hitting stuff there. Only watched the first video, bookmarked the site for later listening. Good find, thanks.
Wow ,how hard did he have to
Wow ,how hard did he have to dig to come up with the "inconsistency".If you could even call it that..
I don't care if the constitution allows for it.Hand off! Those idiots on the hill would find a way to screw it up .
Do not Touch the constitution !
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms is ,as a last resort ,to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms is ,as a last resort ,to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-Thomas Jefferson
No, I don't think he should bring it up
It would be like opening a Pandora's box.
The Convention Alternative .--Because it has never successfully been invoked, the convention method of amendment is surrounded by a lengthy list of questions. 21 When and how is a convention to be convened? Must the applications of the requisite number of States be identical or ask for substantially the same amendment or merely deal with the same subject matter? Must the requisite number of petitions be contemporaneous with each other, substantially contemporaneous, or strung out over several years? Could a convention be limited to consideration of the amendment or the subject matter which it is called to consider? These are only a few of the obvious questions and others lurk to be revealed on deeper consideration. 22 This method has been close to utilization several times. Only one State was lacking when the Senate finally permitted passage of an amendment providing for the direct election of Senators. 23 Two States were lacking in a petition drive for a constitutional limitation on income tax rates. 24 The drive for an amendment to limit the Supreme Court's legislative apportionment decisions came within one State of the required number, and a proposal for a balanced budget amendment has been but two States short of the requisite number for some time. 25 Arguments existed in each instance against counting all the petitions, but the political realities no doubt are that if there is an authentic national movement underlying a petitioning by two-thirds of the States there will be a response by Congress.
Read more at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article05/02...
The problem with Article V
As I see it, an Article V Convention would have no predefined limits on what it could do. While there are many well intentioned advocates out there, would you trust the current crop of politicians, and their handlers, to limit themselves to action on only a single amendment, however good for individual liberty that proposed amendment might be?? While an Article V Convention is an option and should continue to be such, I do not believe that now, or even in the near future, could we trust those who would be in charge of such a convention.
Your Right!
We couldn't trust the jerks in congress to overhaul the constitution. Look what they are doing to it without having a convention!
NO to a constitutional convention.
***********Ron Paul for POTUS 2012***********
*************Obama Is A Communist!************
**********Repeal the 17th Amendment**********
Double the size of the House of Representatives
$$$$$$$$$AUDIT THE FEDERAL RESERVE$$$$$$$$$$
Hmmm..
I think the point is that it's a method AROUND the current congressional corruption.
Well, 2/3 of the states asked, but it was a LONG time ago
I'm sort of confused by all of this. See:
http://www.article-5.org/file.php/1/Articles/TheFrontPage_Th...
and then see:
http://www.article-5.org/file.php/1/Articles/Table_Summarizi...
for a list of states that have applied. But most of these dates are old. This is the FIRST date, but they don't give the latest date, and whether the request to have one of these things sort of just sits there without an expiration date.
I respect Hirschhorn, but this Article V argument I don't know about - it seems to me that intent would be that 2/3 of the states would ask for such a convention in real time, and pretty much at the same time, not 100 years ago.
Certainly it is not fair to diss Paul for "not honoring" the request for an Article V convention. The most I heard about this was relating to a gay marriage amendment, recently. But 2/3 of the legislatures asking to amend the Constitution now? It ain't happening that I know of.
Here is Article V:
"Article V of the U.S. Constitution: 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."
I wonder...
If there is a time limit on the requests, or they have to be done all at once. Since one has never been accepted, my guess is that they have to come in the same year.
I believe some of these arguments are incorrect
As the gentleman in the video states, only AMENDMENTS can be offered by a convention, not a complete rewrite of the constitution. It's no different than the congress, it's just a different method of offering amendments. Keep in mind, the requirements have been met several times over for one, all 50 states have requested it. But congress has turned it down. They are not allowed to do that, it's part of our Constitution. We are not allowed to pick and chose which parts of the Constitution we like and don't, it is a document which must be adhered to.
Have you considered what any "proposed amendments" might be?
How about an amendment that completely re-structures the constitution itself? All that is needed for it to "technically" be an amendment is to retain just one line of the original document. What if they retained just the line "We the people" and altered everything else including the ratification process in one huge amendment that even may include altering the bill of rights? It can be done and HAS been done. The precedent for this has been set by the the only convention that has ever been called. The original convention which was convened for the purpose of "proposing amendments" to the articles of confederation completely re-wrote those articles and delivered a document that was as close to perfect as it can get. To hope for the same from todays wrong-headed thinkers that would most likely be appointed as delegates to any such convention is a pure pipe dream.
Look it up and read what numerous legal scholars with a more grounded legal background than you or the misguided authors on various websites and videos have said about this issue (Harvard University Professor Lawrence Tribe, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger, Commission on the Bicentennial of the U. S. Constitution, U.S Supreme Court Justice Arthur J. Goldberg, start there). Even if there is only a 5% chance that convention could become a runaway convention, it is too great a risk to take with our freedoms.
Sincerely,
Paul C. Hanson
We the people,are the market
sorry,wrong thread....oops.
Dumb Idea
I understand their intent, but the odds that you would get a bunch of socialistic, totalitarian new amendments would be more likely than getting anything productive. The politicians aren't even following the Constitution as it is now. What makes you think changing it would do any good? The first step is to get men like Ron Paul in to power so we can shrink government down to its Constitutionally appropriate size. Once that happens, we can talk about amendments to reduce it more, but first thing first.
This is not the time
The good doctor has enough on his plate. To be considering such things at this time, I think it would be unfair considering his work schedule to expect him to add this to his agenda.
Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.
The problem with a
The problem with a constitutional convention is that once you start the convention, you open the whole constitution up to being destroyed or denigrated. A constitutional convention may be opened with the intent to change only one thing, but that is not what would happen in the end. A CC opens the complete consititution up for the ammending process. You think current laws destroy the constitution, go ahead and support a CC and see what happens. It is obvious to me that the writer of the article is making an attempt to divide and blacklist RP. As far as attaching appropriations spending for his district, what the heck do you think his job is. His job is to represent his district. Example, if I am elected to the congress as a pro-lifer but a vast majority of my constituents direct me to vote pro-abortion... I am obligated to introduce and/or vote in the way that a vast majority of my constituents want me to vote. Its called being part of a Representative Democracy operating within a United Republic. If I have a personal moral or ethical issue with the way my constituents want me to vote, I can state that during the time period that I am able to speak during the open session. In the end, I am still obligated to vote the way my employers want me to vote. If I dont like it, I remove myself from office.
This country does not need a constitutional convention, nor would I support anyone wanting to initiate a move to have one. It is obvious to me the writer is clueless and would rather continue living in a Fascist Country.
Tim
In the MILITARY? Join my Meet-Up group
http://ronpaul.meetup.com/1040/
http://www.rxforliberty.com/10/
Cedar Park, Texas
5 Aug 2007
I agree
Here's an article written in 1987, about opening up the Constitution to change by the means of Article V.
Might want to do a little research before jumping on the Con Con bandwagon.
And wikipedia would be the last place I would go to do any research. Just my opinion.
Combating Chicanery About the Constitution
The following is an address given be Phyllis Schlafly on August 9, 1987 at the American Bar Association's Bicentennial Showcase Program sponsored by the Section on Individual Rights and Responsibilities during the ABA Annual Convention in San Francisco.
Russian Roulette is a deadly game of risk. You put one bullet in a revolver, leaving five empty clambers, spin it, aim it at your head, and fire. The odds are very favorable; you have five chances out of six of living to laugh at the fun of it all, and only one chance out of six of killing yourself.
Despite the good odds, society labels it murder if you play such a risky game with life. Many of us feel it would be just as irrational to play such a risky game with the United States Constitution — our most precious document and the fountainhead of our unparalleled American freedom, independence, and prosperity. Our Constitution is a statement of principle and practicality that has lasted 200 years, longer than any constitution in the history of the world.
Article V of the U.S. Constitution requires us to call a new Constitutional Convention if two-thirds (or 34) of the states request it. The language of Article V is mandatory: it says that Congress "shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments" whenever requests are received from two-thirds of the states. Note that the word "amendments" is used in the plural. These are the only instructions we have about a Constitutional Convention. There are no other rules or guidelines.
We don't know how a Constitutional Convention would be apportioned, or how the delegates would be elected. We don't know what rules the Convention would operate under. We don't know whether amendments could be proposed by a simple majority or would require a super majority. We don't know if the agenda could be limited or would be wide open to any proposal.
We can anticipate that the Convention would be the target of legal challenges at every step of the way. We don't know if the Supreme Court would undertake to resolve these controversies, and if so how, or if the Supreme Court would pass the buck and label them "political questions."
The whole process would be a prescription for constitutional chaos, controversy and confrontation, along a road our nation has never traveled before, without any map or guidelines, and with no clear vision of our destination.
Read more at: http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1987/sept87/psrsept87.html
re
see below-all of my comments are posting twice now-does anyone know why?
Double click?
Make sure you're not double clicking submit or clicking it twice. That is likely it, I've done it before.
delete posts?
thanks-and is there a way to delete posts? i'm just not getting it!!!
No :(
Unfortunately not. You can delete entire threads if you make one (like I can delete this one because I made it), but you can't delete single posts, just edit them and clean them out.
I don't get it....
Well,the article did not state what this article 5 is-so i will read further on that. But,for some reason,the article randomly offered that RP requested 400 million dollars for his district,and that this is inconsistent with his belief in limited gvmt.
Duh! Obviously,while he does not want the taxing and programs,his district's citizens are currently being taxed,and therefore deserve,via his representation,access to some of that money/services/programs.
RP currently represents his district,and part of that representation includes funding.
RP can decide for himself to not participate in the congressional pension,etc.,but he has no right to decide that his citizens,who are paying taxes, will not take government services/money.
I really don't understand the motivation behind this article.
It seems like there is another agenda for it-
As well,maybe RP does not yet see the need for article 5 for his candidacy. The campaign is gaining momentum and getting alot of attention from the media.
Has anyone tried to ratify a constitution lately?
I agree-RP has enough on his plate! Besides,have you ever tried to ratify the constitution? I think this 'long-shot' campaign would be easier to do than that!!! LOL
We need efficiency and viability right now-time is of the essence.
The wiki article also goes into a whole lot of talk about working with congress. I'm thinking: would YOU want to work with this congress.(:
The fact that previous presidents supported it's use is great,but not always relevant to today's politics. Certain articles may have been more practical at that time,while others may be today.
I would not be surprised if there was not some sort of 'other article' that created a barrier for article 5,as well.
Those founding fathers-they were tricky in making sure nothing was too easy in terms of getting power over the people!
Meaning,article 5 may have been viable,but not easily so.
Ratification was meant to be work.
Again though,at that time,there were far fewer eligible voters and a much smaller population,making congress a smaller body and easier to work with in such a way.
That is my addendum on the matter.
One thing that I found interesting
Was this video. He's not completely eloquent, but he does make some rather good points:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBiUNVAqMRQ