| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Did Michigan just trigger 'constitutional convention'? Bid gains steam |
| 2014-04-03 |
| Momentum is building behind what would be an unprecedented effort to amend the U.S. Constitution, through a little-known provision that gives states rather than Congress the power to initiate changes. At issue is what's known as a "constitutional convention," a scenario tucked into Article V of the U.S. Constitution. At its core, Article V provides two ways for amendments to be proposed. The first -- which has been used for all 27 amendment to date -- requires two-thirds of both the House and Senate to approve a resolution, before sending it to the states for ratification. The Founding Fathers, though, devised an alternative way which says if two-thirds of state legislatures demand a meeting, Congress "shall call a convention for proposing amendments." The idea has gained popularity among constitutional scholars in recent years -- but got a big boost last week when Michigan lawmakers endorsed it. Michigan matters, because by some counts it was the 34th state to do so. That makes two-thirds. In the wake of the vote, California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter pressed House Speaker John Boehner on Tuesday to determine whether the states just crossed the threshold for this kind of convention. Like Michigan lawmakers, Hunter's interest in the matter stems from a desire to push a balanced-budget amendment -- something that could potentially be done at a constitutional convention. "Based on several reports and opinions, Michigan might be the 34th state to issue such a call and therefore presents the constitutionally-required number of states to begin the process of achieving a balanced budget amendment," Hunter wrote. "With the recent decision by Michigan lawmakers, it is important that the House -- and those of us who support a balanced budget amendment -- determine whether the necessary number of states have acted and the appropriate role of Congress should this be the case." |
| Posted by:Beavis |
| #14 The text for the US Constitutin already says that the US or its lawful Polity.AUthority must pay its debts, which IMO already infers a Constitutional or lawful requirement for a "balanced budget" - IMO again, this requirement is also supoorted or complemented by already pre-existing myriad Fed statute. Its a Political + National shame that we have to come up wid yet another new law to "clarify" the issue. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2014-04-03 23:04 |
| #13 Yep, junk can come out,but..again, remember it still requires the amendments to go back to the states and the usual 3/4ths approval. The urban dominated big states aren't going to get that level of support for the blue agendas. Given that we're an oligarchy being pushed to the core socialist model, you really don't want to sit on your hands and do nothing because of 'fear of what might be' rather than take the opportunity to turn this ship around. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2014-04-03 22:48 |
| #12 I think some things to consider, as I understand it. Representatives to the convention would be selected by the state legislatures and not 'popular vote' - so the Democrats would not be able to stuff the ballots with illegals, felons, dead and imaginary people. No doubt Obama and company would love to force it to a popular vote. I believe each state gets 1 vote. So a large state like NY or CA would count only as much as a small conservative state (WY or ND). On the other hand Obama may insist we include all 57 states... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2014-04-03 22:25 |
| #11 Matt, I absolutely agree with you. Unless we could resurrect Madison, Monroe, Washington, and the other founding fathers, we would never see the genius of our current constitution. We would end up with something that looked like Obamacare, with every liberal wet dream included. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2014-04-03 21:55 |
| #10 What Pappy #4 said. Be careful what you wish for, you might get it. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2014-04-03 20:41 |
| #9 Not many things frighten me more than the possibility of a Constitutional convention. It's like inviting a troop of itinerant baboons to touch up the Sistine Chapel. |
| Posted by: Matt 2014-04-03 20:29 |
| #8 "while our Constitution is short compared to others, it is accompanied by shelves of 'judicial rulings' often of convoluted reasoning and rationale that make theirs in total look smaller." That would be the advantage of this approach. Gives us a "reset" on 200+ years of judicial erosion of the plain meaning of the document itself. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2014-04-03 17:22 |
| #7 CF has hit on the key point we face today. If they don't follow the existing one today why expect them to follow any one amended. The real power back to the states would repeal the 16th Amendment and give the states the power and responsibility to tax per capita and send their portion to Washington. Leaving the Beltway to deal with the states and left with income derived from import duties and lease holdings of federal lands. #4 anything from the convention still requires 3/4ths ratification back in the states. Getting back to the original design, that means the dozen big city urban states are not going to steamroll what they want over the others. The opposite is more likely causing a lot of negotiation of power and influence. #5 while our Constitution is short compared to others, it is accompanied by shelves of 'judicial rulings' often of convoluted reasoning and rationale that make theirs in total look smaller. Nothing stops the Convention from issuing (like the first ten) multiple amendments and see what gets ratified. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2014-04-03 16:54 |
| #6 The question might be weather Obama and Congress would honor any proposed and ratified amendment. I mean given all the honor they have shown the Constitution so far. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2014-04-03 16:08 |
| #5 They'll eff it up. And it will be 1500 pages long. |
| Posted by: gorb 2014-04-03 15:35 |
| #4 something that could potentially be done at a constitutional convention Lots of "somethings" could potentially be done at a constitutional convention. That is something to consider. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2014-04-03 14:56 |
| #3 In that case, it would be time for the states to declare the Feds illegitimate, withhold tax monies collected in-state and shutdown all Federal operations within the individual states. Arresting Federal law enforcement officials if necessary. Time to play nasty. As a Constitutionally established Republic; no Constitution, no Republic. No Republic, no federal government. Plenty here in Texas would line up to make that happen. I'm sure there are people in other states that are ready also. Obama and the Marxists in the Democrat organized crime syndicate may well succeed in destroying this country, but I don't think it is going to end the way they plan. |
| Posted by: Kofi Stalin9055 2014-04-03 14:11 |
| #2 They could get 3/4th of the states voting for the convention, but Feds won't recognize it anymore than the EU bureaucrats accepted the 'no' votes in countries that refused to ratify their constitution. It's not the votes that count, it's who counts the votes. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2014-04-03 13:43 |
| #1 Go for the Gold. Add an Amendment which allows a 60% vote of the states to nullify any act of the executive, legislative or judicial branches of the Federal government. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2014-04-03 13:24 |