trump or alike get elected. watch convention under article V

[Tickle]

I'm not giving out history lessons but notice the dates of the 15 stated that have passed the convention of states application and then notice the states where it passed in one chamber

This is why elections are important. Most of these states that passed convention during Trump's time. we need 2/3 of the states and if I understand things correctly, states will govern themselves and impose term limits on the federal government.
I don't know if this means we can go back to slavery, for example but everyone needs to get out and vote.

States that have passed the Convention of States application (15):

Georgia March 6, 2014

Alaska April 19, 2014

Florida April 21, 2014

Alabama May 22, 2015

Tennessee February 4, 2016

Indiana February 29, 2016

Oklahoma April 25, 2016

Louisiana May 25, 2016

Arizona March 12, 2017

North Dakota March 24, 2017

Texas May 4, 2017

Missouri May 12, 2017

Arkansas February 14, 2019

Utah March 5, 2019

Mississippi March 27, 2019


States where the Convention of States application has passed in one chamber but not the other (all time):

New Mexico, Iowa, South Dakota, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Wisconsin, New Hampshire

States considering the Convention of States resolution in 2022:

Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin

[BComplex]

1. Some of us never heard of "Convention of States".

[Tickle]

3. I didn't know much about it

until someone pointed it out to me. I only reacted the way I did when I noticed the dates that both chambers in each state voted for it.

Most was done during trump error basically its purpose is to rein in the federal government

[YP_Yooper]

2. "states will govern themselves and impose term limits on the federal government"

no, under a convention, state representatives that show up have the power to eliminate the Federal Government altogether and make up their own government without being held accountable to the Congress, President, or even the US Supreme Court.

[Tickle]

4. they can't eliminate the constitution

but they can amend it

[YP_Yooper]

5. No, absolutely wrong, and is why it's so dangerous

I wrote this elsewhere about how bad of an idea this is… and it was already done once

“It's why they [ALEC] have been working so hard to take over enough states to call a Constitutional Convention to rewrite our Constitution.”
THIS is the biggest threat to the country, push by ALEC. Once convened, those present can do whatever they want including eliminating the constitution itself.

Similarly, former Chief Justice of the United States Warren Burger wrote in 1988:

[T]here is no way to effectively limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda.

Why?
A convention could write its own rules.
A convention could set its own agenda, possibly influenced by powerful interest groups.
A convention could choose a new ratification process.
No other body, including the courts, has clear authority over a convention.

[link:https://www.cbpp.org/research/states-likely-could-not-control-constitutional-convention-on-balanced-budget-amendment-or|

A thought… Just like they did before in 1787, they could send state representatives to the convention, say 2 per state (as opposed to representation based on population) to eliminate the large, blue states, and write whatever ratification process they needed to overcome any objections.

...and ALEC are not that far away from succeeding

[link:?1639237853|

I referenced ALEC, but didn’t give background:
This group is LITERALLY a VIP list of all the most right-wing financiers, politicians and corporate entities who operate especially at the state level to push pro-corporate, pro-extremist legislation across the country.

[link:https://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed|

[Tickle]

6. next time someone

ask me why should I vote? this is why

[YP_Yooper]

7. Seriously

this is why state elections are so important.

[Angleae]

8. Under article V it still takes 3/4 of the states to ratify any such amendment.

Regardless of what amendment is proposed or how it is proposed, up to and including elimination of the constitution. Only an amendment changing article V can change that but even that would take 3/4 of the states. Also that is 3/4 of the states, not 3/4 of those that show up to the convention.

[YP_Yooper]

13. Not for a convention

because they can make new rules once convened.

[onenote]

15. You are completely wrong.

Here is Article V of the 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.

A constitutional convention under Article V can propose amendments, but it still takes ratification by 3/4 of the states for those amendments to change the Constitution.

[YP_Yooper]

20. Not arguing here at all against what you're saying

but the convention had more power than simply proposing amendments, and is why this is a bad route to go, especially when Repubs are moving to control the state legislatures.

[roamer65]

9. Secession amendment if they convene a convention.

Poison pill to the process, even though secession is perfectly constitutional presently.

[Angleae]

11. The supreme court, in Texas v White, says otherwise.

[roamer65]

12. The powers that are not specifically stated are reserved for the states via the 10th Amendment.

That said there needs to be a separation formula similar to Article 50 of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty.

The need for a such a formula will become much more apparent over the next few years, as the regional differences in the country become more stark.

[Spider Jerusalem]

21. No, it isn't, we had a civil war to decide that question (n/t)

[roamer65]

22. We are going to have another.

This country is near falling apart.

This decade is eerily similar to the 1850’s.

Climate change migration northward will definitely set one off.

[former9thward]

10. Why are people afraid of a Constitutional convention?

I have never understood that. I have seen post after post complaining about various sections of the Constitution. The Electoral College. The way the Senate is composed. Etc. How do people think any of that would ever been changed? It would have to be a Constitutional convention or amendment. It will NEVER happen through amendments. It is too difficult. A Constitutional convention would essentially be a massive House of Representatives and anything they agreed on would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. What is wrong with that?

[YP_Yooper]

14. Read post 5

Sure you can make amendments through a convention, but no one can control it once it's started.

Including eliminating the entire constitution altogether, and change the rules of ratification to exclude state that don't approve.

It happened before.

[onenote]

16. You continue to misstate Article V.

A Constitutional convention cannot change the Constitution. Under Article V it can propose amendments that then would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.

"It happened before" -- please elaborate.

[YP_Yooper]

18. This is true for an amendment, but opens a dangerous door

but once called, they are no longer restricted to just proposing an amendment:

The only national constitutional convention ever held — the 1787 assembly in Philadelphia that produced the current Constitution — disregarded its original charge, which was to amend the Articles of Confedera­tion to promote trade among the states. Instead it wrote an entirely new governing document, effectively abolishing the Articles of Confederation and superseding them with a new design of government. A convention held today could set its own agenda, too.

The 1787 convention also completely rewrote the Articles of Confederation’s amendment procedures in a way that made it much easier to secure adoption of the convention’s changes. Under the Articles of Confederation, proposed amend­ments had to be approved by Congress and then ratified by all 13 states to take effect. Rhode Island, which opposed the kinds of changes that the 1787 convention was called to propose, declined to send delegates to the convention, apparently confident that the requirement for unanimous state approval meant it could block any resulting proposals that harmed its interests.

Instead, the other states’ dele­gates bypassed Rhode Island and created a new ratification process that made the new Constitution effective with the consent of only nine states and cut Congress out of the amendment process entirely. Rhode Island opposed the new Constitution and resisted ratifying for several years. Eventually, however, left only with the choice of seceding or going along, it was forced to succumb. The current three-quarters requirement was imposed only for later constitutional amendments.

and from a recent article last month:
But like many provisions in the Constitution, Article V leaves much open to interpretation: Nothing in its 143 words describes the process by which a convention would be run or the delegates who would meet and vote on potential amendments. The founding document’s requirement that any new amendments be ratified by three-quarters of states was a requirement the last constitutional convention ignored.


“Congress can purport to make whatever rules it wants for the convention. The convention can then throw them in the trash, which is certainly what the convention in Philadelphia did in 1787,” said David Super, a constitutional law expert at Georgetown Law. “There’s no guarantee that they will follow the ratification procedures. The only precedent we do have, they didn’t follow the ratification procedures.”

[link:https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/584835-conservatives-prepare-new-push-for-constitutional-convention|

[onenote]

23. That argument proves too much or too little.

But I'll start at the end: the fact that the specific terms of the Articles of Confederation were ignored by the representatives that drafted the Constitution, if taken at face value, means that there is no need to pay any attention to anything in Article V and there is no need to meet the threshold specified therein to call a constitutional convention and completely rewrite the current constitution. In fact, if the words of Article V don't govern because the words of the Articles of Confederation weren't followed, then its anything goes -- what would be the legal impediment for a random group of individuals from various states getting together, drafting a new constitution and saying it replaces the current constitution when its ratified by two states (or some other random number)?

So, to reiterate, if a constitutional convention is called pursuant to Article V, it can't make changes to the Constitution without the concurrence of 3/4 of the states. It says so expressly in Article V itself.

But if there is another process not governed by Article V, that process could be whatever anyone wants to claim it its. There is no governing law to limit the process. A better argument is that there was a process for amending/replacing the Articles of Confederation but it wasn't strictly followed. It might follow that the Articles were never lawfully replaced and for the past 200+ years we've been mistakenly following an invalid Constitution. Or it could be that the flaws in the process by which the Articles were replaced were cured when, consistent with the requirement that changes to the Articles be ratified by all of the states, Rhode Island ratified the Constitution in 1790.

This latter theory is far more likely to gain acceptance than the former. After all, what body could have found that the Articles weren't legitimately altered? There was no judiciary under the Articles. But there is under the Constitution and its highly unlikely that the federal judiciary would conclude that the Constitution was ultra vires.

So back to the bottom line: either Article V governs or there is no need to even bother with the 2/3 requirement for a constitutional convention --- there are no stated rules as to how the constitution can be altered.

[former9thward]

26. We have had only one Constitutional convention.

So it has not happened before.

[Azathoth]

17. Because a Constitutional Covention is everything or nothing

The Constitution gets thrown out and rewritten according to whatever procedures the Covention chooses to adopt (yes subject to ratification by the states, presumably).

You might think you're just getting rid of the Electoral College, but you might also be getting a new Constitution that makes the US a "Christian Nation" and prescribes the death penalty for abortion, gays and liberal. And there's no appeal process if you don't like the results.

[onenote]

24. That is not true.

Whether or not it was true under the Articles of Confederation (and it would appear it wasn't true, but no one was in a position to challenge what was being done since there was no judiciary under the Articles) is irrelevant. The Constitution spells out quite clearly how a Constitutional Convention is to be convened and that any changes require 3/4 of the states to concur.


The alternative, that you state, is that there are no rules whatsoever, not merely for what a constitutional convention can do, but for what it required to call such a convention. So let's just get a bunch of folks together and have a convention, come up with our own constitution and declare that it becomes effective when two states ratify it. What governing legal document would that violate?

[48656c6c6f20]

25. And there's no appeal process if you don't like the results.

Yes there is. it's called war.

[WarGamer]

19. "I don't know if this means we can go back to slavery"

Really?