CONVENTION OF THE STATES - GET INVOLVED !

[Whirlaway]

Want change ?

Get involved.................make the Convention for proposing Amendments to the constitution a reality.

http://articlefive.staging.wpengine.com/

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Want change ?

Get involved.................make the Convention for proposing Amendments to the constitution a reality.

http://articlefive.staging.wpengine.com/

What happens if a group of liberal States get together and propose an Amendment that would abolish the 2d Amendment.

I think this is treading on dangerous ground. The Amendment Proccess that has always been used was deliberately made difficult so that the Constitution could not be changed for petty political whims of the moment.

That is one of the major things that separates our Government from Parlimentary GOvernments, where the Law of The Land tends to be what a majority can decide on at any given moment.

[Whirlaway]

Better minds than my own have given some considerable discussion to that issue..fear of a hijack or "runaway convention" is NOT a reason to not proceed. The constitution is being hijacked already.

The issue evolves around "who" gets to run a convention and how is the convention held....the answer lies with the States.

How do the States hold a Convention? The first hurdle to overcome in the process is for each State to “apply” to Congress to call for the convention. If every state calls for a different sort of convention, then they cannot meet the requirement to achieve the necessary two-thirds of the states needed to get Congress to call for the Convention.

Do you think Congress is going to be in such a hurry to give up power that they will pretend any and all applications are the same? Those two-thirds (which is thirty-three and one/third states – I do not see a provision for rounding in the Constitution, so I would make sure we get thirty-four states to be sure) of the States must apply for the same thing. If they have to apply for the same thing, they must get together somehow and draft such an “application.” Then they can all pass Resolutions requesting the same thing. These people are mostly lawyers. Exactness is their stock in trade.

So right away, just to get the ball rolling, the States have to ask for the same thing, meaning, “To send a delegation to a Convention for the purpose of amending the Constitution.” Here is where prudence will interject itself: each state will want to protect itself from the dangerous proposals of other states. Alabama and North Dakota, to name two examples of very Conservative states, can be counted on to protect themselves from the liberal tendencies of the Northeastern states to call for any amendment that they would not approve. So they will direct their delegation on what sort of amendments it will be empowered to discuss. Also, each state gets one vote, regardless of number of delegates.

Thus, if California and Maryland send a delegation empowered to discuss, “Free healthcare for anyone who lives in the United States,” then only the delegations so-empowered by their respective States will be able to vote on such a proposal. In other words, Alabama and North Dakota will be required to vote “no” or abstain. If a delegation exceeds its authority and decides to vote “yes” anyway, they can be dismissed immediately, which would render their votes null. How do I know this without being a lawyer? Because I would lobby for such a dismissal/nullification rule when meeting with my state representative, and I would make sure they included it in their application to Congress. They aren’t stupid. They’ll get it done.

Getting protection from hijackers is not going to be a huge uphill battle. The States’ legislatures exist to deal with State matters, not some huge, nationwide social experiment. Also, a sitting legislator who grants more power to the federal government is simultaneously making himself less powerful. They can definitely figure that out.

http://therightscoop.com/what-if-the...he-convention/

[JD Barleycorn]

Read Mark Levin's book, The Liberty Amendments. Individual state conventions could not have a runaway convention Lets say that California and New York proposed and passed an amendment that bans gun ownership. They still need 35 more states to pass the same bill. How likely is that to happen?

Using the state to pass amendment is one of four ways to amend the Consitution and has never been used. We could use it now to repeal the 17th amendment, install term limits, and require all elected representatives to live under the same laws they pass.

[TexTushHog]

Very dangerous. If put to a vote, I don't see many of the first ten amendments passing. Certainly freedom of speech and the press would fail. Same for right to trial by jury, right against self incrimination, excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishment, and unreasonable searches and seizures. I doubt the estsblishment clause would pass either.

[Randy4Candy]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Better minds than my own have given some considerable discussion to that issue..

Well, TrendAWAY, we hardly think the outcome of an argument among a few chemically challenged derelicts living under a bridge carries much weight.

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

What happens if a group of liberal States get together and propose an Amendment that would abolish the 2d Amendment.

I think this is treading on dangerous ground. The Amendment Proccess that has always been used was deliberately made difficult so that the Constitution could not be changed for petty political whims of the moment.

That is one of the major things that separates our Government from Parlimentary GOvernments, where the Law of The Land tends to be what a majority can decide on at any given moment.

Problem is, the majority party we currently have ignores the constitution when they want to, and uses it when it suits them. So any petty political movement of the right is checked by the constitution, but the left acts like a parliament does to change things, or the King just does it as needed, with no checks on his power. The left is afraid of a constitutional convention - doesn't that tell you we should have one?
If you are afraid of changing this mess we have now called the United States, just think in terms of hope and change we can believe in, only in a better direction.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

Well, TrendAWAY, we hardly think the outcome of an argument among a few chemically challenged derelicts living under a bridge carries much weight.

+ 1000

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

What happens if a group of liberal States get together and propose an Amendment that would abolish the 2d Amendment.

No chance of that, as the website reiterates this takes work. You won't see any of the entitlement sloths rising off the couch to participate.

[Yssup Rider]