Constitutional Convention Sleight of Hand?

[skidder]

Any chance of this article being accurate and this legislation is a back door attempt to modify the constitution to legalize past and future transgressions?

http://www.rense.com/general84/consttit.htm

Here is the legislation:

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/res.cfm?ID=127_HJR_8

It appears from the Ohio Freedom Alliance blogs that the legislature is pushing this through with minimum debate.

If a state wants to amend the constitution to add a balanced budget amendment, they don't have to open the whole constitution to debate, they can just submit and lobby other states for the amendment can't they? The other amendments didn't require a constitutional convention so I'm guessing this is about something else. Hope I'm wrong.

[AlexPKeaton]

Re: Constitutional Convention Sleight of Hand?

If a state wants to amend the constitution to add a balanced budget amendment, they don't have to open the whole constitution to debate, they can just submit and lobby other states for the amendment can't they? The other amendments didn't require a constitutional convention so I'm guessing this is about something else. Hope I'm wrong.

Article V says: "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,"

Apparently only Method 1 has ever been successful, but Method 2 is legal and valid.

...one nation under Goldman Sachs, indivisible, with serfdom and oppression for all.

[pwcmba]

Re: Constitutional Convention Sleight of Hand?

"...one nation under Goldman Sachs, indivisible, with serfdom and oppression for all." While synonymous I would add Harvard and the FRB.

AMEN!

[skidder]

Re: Constitutional Convention Sleight of Hand?

That's kind of the "tell" isn't it? To say they want a constitutional convention for the purpose of amending the constitution for a balanced budget amendment rings false to me when the other method was used successfully to date and the convention is fraught with danger. I don't trust these bastards any longer. Having witnessed the antics of our leadership in the face of unprecedented opposition to the 700B bailout bill they passed, this tactic seems right up their alley.
Add to the fact that these pricks know for a fact that the budget isn't likely to ever be balanced under the current monetary system and the whole issue is clearly a set up to change our constitution, not for the better I might add.

[bpr]

Re: Constitutional Convention Sleight of Hand?

on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States

Whoa, it's tough enough to get 435 criminals to agree, let alone 34 separate legislatures. Dow 30,000 by New Years Day is more likely.

[dman19762001]

Re: Constitutional Convention Sleight of Hand?

I seem to remember what I thought was a bizarre article that came out of a small website in Australia about 5-7 months ago. The upshot of the article was that the secret session of congress held in feb (or march?) of '08 that was supposedly about national security issues was actually about economic issues. The article went on to state that it had heard from a source (from a congressperson?) that the meeting was actually about the following events: 1. the collapse of the U.S. economy, beginning in SEPTEMBER 2008 (yup they hit it on the head); and 2. the collapse of US government funding in mid-year 2009; to be followed by martial law and the institution of (yup, you guessed it) the AMERO in late 2009.

Now initially I thought this was crazy talk and I still do, although the article you posted immediately brought me back to the article I am referring to here. Why in god's name are they doing this? I would imagine they would need a Con Conv if we are to become much more intertwined with Mex./Can. and have monetary union.

Could this article actually have been accurate? Probably not, but if anyone can find a link to that article that was knocking around, could be an interesting read.

[ggirod]

Re: Constitutional Convention Sleight of Hand?

From http://www.rense.com/general84/consttit.htm

Thirty-two (32) other states have already called for a Con Con (allegedly to add a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution). 34 states are all that is required, and then Congress MUST convene a Convention.

The U.S. Constitution places no restriction on the purposes for which the states can call for a Convention. If Ohio votes to call a Con Con, for whatever purpose, the United States will be only one state away from total destruction.

I wonder if the Ohio legislators even realize what they are doing? Or, putting on my tinfoil hat, maybe they do.

Wow

[dman19762001]

Re: Constitutional Convention Sleight of Hand?

Interesting Q&A on this topic:

http://www.federalbudget.com/faq.html

[rj1]

Re: Constitutional Convention Sleight of Hand?

That's kind of the "tell" isn't it? To say they want a constitutional convention for the purpose of amending the constitution for a balanced budget amendment rings false to me when the other method was used successfully to date and the convention is fraught with danger. I don't trust these bastards any longer. Having witnessed the antics of our leadership in the face of unprecedented opposition to the 700B bailout bill they passed, this tactic seems right up their alley.
Add to the fact that these pricks know for a fact that the budget isn't likely to ever be balanced under the current monetary system and the whole issue is clearly a set up to change our constitution, not for the better I might add.

First off, Congress does not want the states to tell them what to do, for reasons of maintaining their presence of power. That's the reason this method is in the Constitution, because the Framers correctly assumed there would be instances where Congress would stand in the way of valid pleas for the Constitution to be amended. That's why in the past whenever a group of states have pressed for the constitutional convention, it's usually more used to pressure Congress into adopting an amendment instead of the states actually calling for a convention. Wikipedia puts it best with what became the 17th Amendment:

If at least two-thirds of the legislatures of the states so request, Congress is required to call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments. The state legislatures have, in times past, used their power to apply for a national convention in order to pressure Congress into proposing the desired amendment. For example, the movement to amend the Constitution to provide for the direct election of U.S. Senators began to see such proposals regularly pass the House of Representatives only to die in the Senate from the early 1890s onward. As time went by, more and more state legislatures adopted resolutions demanding that a convention be called, thus pressuring the Senate to finally relent and approve what later became the Seventeenth Amendment for fear that such a convention—if permitted to assemble—might stray to include issues above and beyond just the direct election of U.S. Senators.

...

During the Progressive Era – as calculated in a congressional study printed six decades later – only two more states were needed to call a convention for an amendment to mandate direct election of U.S. Senators.^[8] The looming mandate from the states helped break resistance in the U.S. Senate, which had several times refused to follow the House of Representatives in support of letting the voters rather than state legislators elect U.S. Senators. The states submitted a total of at least 29 applications for a convention call (by other counts 31). Under such pressure the measure was approved by Congress in May 1912 and ratified one year later as the 17th Amendment.^[9][10]

There was also one case in the 1960s where it came one state short from forcing a convention where every House district was required to have the exact same population. And in the 1980s, they were two states short from a convention on having a balanced budget amendment.

Second, Congress is required to call for a constitutional convention. That Alexander Hamilton in his Federalist Papers that Congress would be required to call a convention and "nothing is left to the discretion of that body". James Madison, a person that did not agree with Hamilton often, agreed that Congress refusing to call such a convention would be unconstitutional. Also, based on the intent of the Article, such a convention if called would not allow Congress to have any say in its debate or outcome.

By citing the Constitution's necessary-and-proper clause, Congress might enact a statute to clearly define many of the currently ambiguous and debatable features of this convention procedure. Sponsored by the late Senator Sam Ervin, such a bill passed the U.S. Senate unanimously in 1971 and again in 1973, but the proposed legislation remained locked-up in a House committee where it died.
However, neither Article I nor Article V of the Constitution grants Congress this power, and the Founders intended Congress "have no option." Therefore, it appears that meddling by Congress could constitute usurpation, in that the legislative branch could exert control over the convention, thus virtually taking the two methods of amendment under Article V and combining them into one.
Whether such a statute would be binding on convention delegates is also a matter of scholarly uncertainty. Insofar as Article V gives to the Congress no express authority beyond calling the convention into session after the number of state applications reach the required threshold, why would the convened convention convened have to bow to Congress? The primary purpose of the Framers in providing an alternative to Congress in the amending process was quite simply to bypass a recalcitrant or hopelessly-corrupt Congress. Thus, to the extent that Congress regulates the internal procedures of the convention - say by mandating a super-majority for convention submissions to the states - rather than leaving such decisions to the convention itself, the raison d'etre of the alternative mode would be undermined.
Be that as it may, there is little dissent about the spirit of Article V. By including a clause for the holding of a national amendment-proposing convention, the Framers of the U.S. Constitution intended to provide a peaceful alternative to a violent revolt during times of strong public dissatisfaction with the Federal government.

Third, the convention itself does not carry ratification powers. It can only draft amendments. Those amendments are then sent back to the individual states, and they then decide whether to ratify them or not, either by the legislature or a ratifying convention.

Fourth, the convention would consist of a single assembly (in other words, not a bicameral structure like the House of Representatives and the Senate), who the membership of the convention would be is not structured, and a simple majority of the delegates present is required for the proposed amendments to be sent to the states for ratification.

So I don't see how you can see this would be horrible as the people that have screwed so many things up, the Washington dumbasses (D.C., not the state) recently are intentionally left out on purpose. It is far far easier to buy off 435 Congressmen than every member of every state legislature (99 of them - Nebraska is unicameral) in this country.

[rj1]

Re: Constitutional Convention Sleight of Hand?

I seem to remember what I thought was a bizarre article that came out of a small website in Australia about 5-7 months ago. The upshot of the article was that the secret session of congress held in feb (or march?) of '08 that was supposedly about national security issues was actually about economic issues. The article went on to state that it had heard from a source (from a congressperson?) that the meeting was actually about the following events: 1. the collapse of the U.S. economy, beginning in SEPTEMBER 2008 (yup they hit it on the head); and 2. the collapse of US government funding in mid-year 2009; to be followed by martial law and the institution of (yup, you guessed it) the AMERO in late 2009.

You see everyone, this is why you should own a gun.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Constitutional Convention Sleight of Hand?

I think the American Constitution suffers from not being amended enough. To-day, the document is showing its age; it's no longer relavent. The Constitution has become a relic and a religion--- a religion for the rightwing.

Some constitutional amendments that I would like to see:

Make the President answerable to the Congress weekly, in a question and answer period;

Make the President serve at the pleasure of Congress, so that if the Congress wants him out, he would receive a no-confidence vote (not impeachment) and be forced IMMEDIATELY to resign. An election would be called IMMEDIATELY, not years later.

Empower the President to have a line-item veto of spending bills;

Forbid the government from deficit spending except in time of declared war;

Forbid the President to launch any military action against any nation without a declaration of war passed by Congress;

Prohibit the government from launching drug war against the people;

Forbid the Federal Reserve Bank from issuing currency not backed at least 10% by gold;

Elections would take a maximum of three WEEKS, start-to-finish;

The Electoral College would be junked;

etc.


About 20 or 30 amendments to the Constitution would breathe life into that poor document and make it meaningful to the times we live in.

[rj1]

Re: Constitutional Convention Sleight of Hand?

I think the American Constitution suffers from not being amended enough. To-day, the document is showing its age; it's no longer relavent. The Constitution has become a relic and a religion--- a religion for the rightwing.

Your official freedom to write your opinions on this message board is because of this document.

Some constitutional amendments that I would like to see:

Make the President answerable to the Congress weekly, in a question and answer period;

That would mean the President cannot operate independently from Congress, and vice versa. Why doesn't Congress have to answer to the President in reverse for example?

Make the President serve at the pleasure of Congress, so that if the Congress wants him out, he would receive a no-confidence vote (not impeachment) and be forced IMMEDIATELY to resign. An election would be called IMMEDIATELY, not years later.

Reagan would've received no confidence from a majority Democrat Congress.

So would George H.W. Bush.

Clinton would've received no confidence from a majority Republican Congress (and did twice on two articles of impeachment).

Empower the President to have a line-item veto of spending bills;

Which if you had your way he could use this line-item veto and then after using it the President would be dismissed due to the Congress having no confidence in him for revising the laws they passed. So you'd be castrating him instantly.

Forbid the government from deficit spending except in time of declared war;

The only way that'd ever happen is in a state-led convention.

Forbid the President to launch any military action against any nation without a declaration of war passed by Congress;

While we're in fairy tale unicorn land, we should have a money system based on seashells.

Prohibit the government from launching drug war against the people;

Define drug war.

Forbid the Federal Reserve Bank from issuing currency not backed at least 10% by gold;

What powerful person in this country, who would be required in drafting such an item in this convention or Congress, would back that?

Elections would take a maximum of three WEEKS, start-to-finish;

So you want us to go away from set election dates? How do you determine who's on the ballot? What about which candidate each party puts forward?

The Electoral College would be junked;

Sounds good.

[pwcmba]

Re: Constitutional Convention Sleight of Hand?

Repeal the 17th amendment now!

http://www.articlev.com/repeal17.htm

[Starving Steve]

Re: Constitutional Convention Sleight of Hand?

Your official freedom to write your opinions on this message board is because of this document.

Some constitutional amendments that I would like to see:



That would mean the President cannot operate independently from Congress, and vice versa. Why doesn't Congress have to answer to the President in reverse for example?



Reagan would've received no confidence from a majority Democrat Congress.

So would George H.W. Bush.

Clinton would've received no confidence from a majority Republican Congress (and did twice on two articles of impeachment).



Which if you had your way he could use this line-item veto and then after using it the President would be dismissed due to the Congress having no confidence in him for revising the laws they passed. So you'd be castrating him instantly.



The only way that'd ever happen is in a state-led convention.



While we're in fairy tale unicorn land, we should have a money system based on seashells.



Define drug war.



What powerful person in this country, who would be required in drafting such an item in this convention or Congress, would back that?



So you want us to go away from set election dates? How do you determine who's on the ballot? What about which candidate each party puts forward?



Sounds good.

The President would no longer be the "Imperial President". He would no longer be the "elected dictator". The President would have to answer to Congress--- the representatives of the people, every week.

Yes, there would be more elections. There would be more democracy.

Yes, the parties would have to have leaders chosen in advance of any election, so the parties would have to hold conventions more often and be mindful of the public's mood.

Yes, Ronald Reagan might have received a no-confidence vote, and that would have saved America from the economic mess that it finds itself in now. (Reaganomics provided the basis for Bush's supply-side economics.)

Yes, Bush-Lite would have received a no-confidence vote early-on in his administration, probably during his second term as president. That would have saved America from this economic mess and this endless war.

As for drug war, let the lawyers who would draft these amendments define what drug war against the people has meant. ( I am just giving talking points here.)

Yes, the system of fixed election dates would be junked, along with the Electoral College. And elections would not take years plus lame duck months after the election. ( How absurd! )

[pwcmba]

Re: Constitutional Convention Sleight of Hand?

For easy refrence-

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/...n_Senators.htm