The convening would not have been harmless. The potential existed for enough states, 34, to issue a call for a federal convention, for one stated purpose, to propose a specific amendment, or specific amendments, all agreed to by 34 states in a call for a convention.
Once a call for a convention is submitted by 34 states, the convention is called.
There is controversy concerning whether or not the call must be based on the same exact amendment or amendments.
In other words each of 34 states would propose an amendment but each amendment (34) is different.
We think Shaffly is stretching to determine the call for a convention by the states can be based on different amendment proposals all according to Shaffly basically combined when the 33rd (Wyoming?) and 34th state such as Ohio propose an amendment and add to the 'collective' call for a convention by the states. Shaffly may also be dismissing as many others that a state can rescind a previous call. The Constitution is silent on details.
It's not that it would be impossible for all to converge so neatly, but it is unlikely the idea the Framers offered, states could propose an amendment or amendments to the Constitution, in a Convention of the required 3/4th of states, would enable amendments proposed by a state (and a call for a convention to offer them) some 30 or 100 years ago to be added make up the total of 34 calls for a convention.
But if states would call for a convention for the same exact amendment, say a bailout for themselves, (see Nancy Levant's piece) that presents little doubt a convention would be obligated to be called.
Upon the call and subsequent convening, delegates from the states could propose more than one amendment, a string of amendments, and potentially craft an entirely new Constitution.
The delegates could also alter the ratification process just as the framers of our United States Constitution did by altering the requirement contained in the Articles of Confederation.
The articles called for unanimous ratification of alteration of the Articles of the Confederation.
The Framers of the Constitution determined 3/4ths was adequate so only 9 of 13 states were needed to enact the Constitution of 1789.
Read our former site for more info about an Article V Convention.
http://members.tripod.com/~DIRTLINE/ArticleVbib.html
Net the Truth Online
BANKRUPTED STATES = CON-CON & NEWSTATE CONSTITUTION
By Nancy Levant
December 24, 2008
NewsWithViews.com
The strategically planned and forthcoming Constitutional Convention, which will address “a balanced budget,” is quite a cover story. Therefore, let us consider the truth behind this elaborate usurpation scheme.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Levant/nancy116.htm
Con Con Is a Terrible Idea
by Phyllis Schlafly December 19, 2008
The mind-boggling amounts of the bailouts Congress has passed and is still debating, plus shocking Wall Street frauds, seem to have plunged some lawmakers into a silly season. Ohio state legislators this month held a surprise hearing on a resolution calling for a national constitutional convention, and then canceled a vote after dozens of citizens showed up to speak against it.
We already have a U.S. Constitution that has withstood the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune for more than two centuries, and we don't need a new constitution. There is nothing wrong with the one we have except that politicians are not obeying it and judges are indulging in too much activism.
The idea that adding new words to the Constitution to require balancing the federal budget, or to give President Barack Obama a line-item veto so he can veto the extravagant spending he has already endorsed, is delusionary. The only thing more outlandish is the fanciful notion that a 2009 Con Con could adopt such requirements while avoiding other mistakes.
The most influential players in any new constitutional convention (colloquially known as a Con Con) would be Big Media giving us round-the-clock television coverage. The 2008 presidential campaign proved that the media consider themselves actors in the political process, not merely reporters.
Outside of a Con Con hall, demonstrators would hold court demanding constitutional changes. These would be staged by gay activists and their opponents, pro-abortionists and pro-lifers, radical feminists, the environmentalists, gun control advocates, animal rights extremists, D.C. Statehood agitators, those who want to relax immigration and those who would restrict it, mortgage defaulters, and the unions -- all demanding consideration of amendments to recognize their claimed rights.
Article V requires Congress to call a new Constitutional Convention to consider "amendments" (note the plural) if two-thirds (34) of the states pass resolutions calling for it. There are no other rules in the Constitution or in federal law to list or limit a Con Con's purpose, procedure, agenda, or election of delegates...
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2008/dec08/08-12-19.html
Just say no no to a Con Con
Posted: December 17, 2008
1:00 am Eastern © 2008
The mind-boggling amounts of the bailouts Congress has passed and is still debating, plus shocking Wall Street frauds, seem to have plunged some lawmakers into a silly season. Ohio state legislators this month held a surprise hearing on a resolution calling for a national Constitutional Convention, and then canceled a vote after dozens of citizens showed up to speak against it.
We already have a U.S. Constitution that has withstood the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune for more than two centuries, and we don't need a new constitution. There is nothing wrong with the one we have except that politicians are not obeying it and judges are indulging in too much activism.
The idea that adding new words to the Constitution to require balancing the federal budget, or to give President Barack Obama a line-item veto so he can veto the extravagant spending he has already endorsed, is delusional. The only thing more outlandish is the fanciful notion that a 2009 Constitutional Convention (colloquially known as a Con Con) could adopt such requirements while avoiding other mistakes.
The most influential players in any new Con Con would be Big Media, giving us round-the-clock television coverage. The 2008 presidential campaign proved that the media consider themselves actors in the political process, not merely reporters.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83785
No comments:
Post a Comment