Rubio Will Push Constitutional Convention

[mystery-ak]

http://www.newsmax.com/PrintTemplate.aspx/?nodeid=707976


Newsmax
Rubio Will Push Constitutional Convention
Sunday, January 3, 2016 07:54 PM

By: By The Associated Press

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio says if elected president he will advocate for the states to call a constitutional convention to impose term limits on members of Congress.

Rubio's comments are part of a pitch to reign in a federal government that he shad is out of touch with regular Americans. He's also promising to repeal many of President Barack Obama's executive actions, including his upcoming actions on guns.

His remarks come during a campaign swing through New Hampshire, where he's holding three town hall meetings on Sunday.

Rubio says he'd use the bully pulpit of the presidency to support a constitutional convention to address three specific issues: term limits for members of Congress, term limits for federal judges and to pass a balanced budget amendment. He says creating term limits must come from a grassroots movement because members of Congress will never do it themselves.

[EdinVA]

I like this idea... can a CC be "restricted" to consider only those issues or is there room for the constitution to be chopped up?

[aligncare]

Rubio is singing my song. I still strongly believe he is too young and untested for the presidency, but I have to give this latest turn some consideration.

[PzLdr]

Be careful what you wish for. Conservatives aren't the only people with an agenda at a Constitutional convention.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Rubio says he'd use the bully pulpit of the presidency to support a constitutional convention to address three specific issues: term limits for members of Congress, term limits for federal judges and to pass a balanced budget amendment

Can a Constitutional Convention be limited in scope?

[katzenjammer]

Can a Constitutional Convention be limited in scope?

It depends on who you ask.

But first, the use of the term "Constitutional Convention" in this article is misleading (at least I hope that Rubio is NOT calling for an actual "Constitutional Convention!").

I have to believe that what he was talking about is more accurately named a "Convention of the States."

It is the second route (found in Article V of the Constitution) that Amendments can be made to the Constitution (the other one of course being via Congress, the method that all other Amendments have been made).  Note that the Ratification process for both routes is the same, ratification by 3/4th of the States (via Legislatures or Ratifying Convention).  The methods differ as to how an Amendment is proposed (via the voting 2/3 of both chambers of Congress, or via the support of 2/3 of the States).

Article V

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.

Note well in this discussion, the second method, via the Convention of the States, has never been attempted.

If you listen to Mark Levin and many others in the Convention of States movement, a CoS *can* be limited in scope (to only the discussion of the amendment topics submitted by each State's call).  Obviously his book, The Liberty Amendments, is a good source to read up on the overall topic.

For an alternative point of view, reference the work of Publius Huldah: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/article-v/

[GourmetDan]

I like this idea... can a CC be "restricted" to consider only those issues or is there room for the constitution to be chopped up?

Oh there's plenty of room for the Constitution to chopped up into so many tiny pieces that you won't even have one... no 2nd Amendment for sure...

For a supposed 'smart guy' like Rubio to support this is disturbing...

If gov't won't follow the constitution we have... why does anyone think that... first, they'll get something even more conservative... and second, that the gov't will follow it? 

[aligncare]

Oh there's plenty of room for the Constitution to chopped up into so many tiny pieces that you won't even have one... no 2nd Amendment for sure...

For a supposed 'smart guy' like Rubio to support this is disturbing...

If gov't won't follow the constitution we have... why does anyone think that... first, they'll get something even more conservative... and second, that the gov't will follow it?

To answer your question, the states can craft amendments that will give state legislatures a role in overseeing, and in fact, overriding federal congressional action, including the selection of supreme Court justices.

The Liberty Amendments goes a long way to answering the fears many have of convening a convention of the states.

[Bigun]

It depends on who you ask.

But first, the use of the term "Constitutional Convention" in this article is misleading (at least I hope that Rubio is NOT calling for an actual "Constitutional Convention!").

I have to believe that what he was talking about is more accurately named a "Convention of the States."

It is the second route (found in Article V of the Constitution) that Amendments can be made to the Constitution (the other one of course being via Congress, the method that all other Amendments have been made).  Note that the Ratification process for both routes is the same, ratification by 3/4th of the States (via Legislatures or Ratifying Convention).  The methods differ as to how an Amendment is proposed (via the voting 2/3 of both chambers of Congress, or via the support of 2/3 of the States).

Note well in this discussion, the second method, via the Convention of the States, has never been attempted.

If you listen to Mark Levin and many others in the Convention of States movement, a CoS *can* be limited in scope (to only the discussion of the amendment topics submitted by each State's call).  Obviously his book, The Liberty Amendments, is a good source to read up on the overall topic.

For an alternative point of view, reference the work of Publius Huldah: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/article-v/

I have only one question.

What makes Mark Levin, or anyone else for that matter, think that a Constitution amended by an Article V Convention would not be subverted in the same manner what we currently have has been?

I would support an Article V Convention of the States only if it were confined to REMOVING  current amendments to the original! 

[katzenjammer]

I have only one question.

What makes Mark Levin, or anyone else for that matter, think that a Constitution amended by an Article V Convention would not be subverted in the same manner what we currently have has been?

I would support an Article V Convention of the States only if it were confined to REMOVING  current amendments to the original!

The short answer, from Levin, is that the Amendments he proposes in the previously referenced The Liberty Amendments, are "structural" amendments.  That is they are designed to repair the structural damage that ill will (my words, not his) have done to the Republic.

The best way for any of us to answer that question, is to examine each of his proposed amendments (just as examples for discussion).  Do they make progress in repairing the structural damage, and could they be easily subverted?

Here is a summary of his eleven proposed amendments, taken from this article by von Spakovsky.

Levin proposes eleven amendments that would:


--   Establish twelve-year term limits for members of Congress and the Supreme Court;
--   Repeal the 17th Amendment;
--   Allow either Congress or the states to overturn a Supreme Court decision within 24 months with a three fifths vote of the members of both houses or the states;
--   Require a federal budget to be enacted by May or impose an automatic across-the-board 5 percent cut, and the budget may not exceed total tax receipts or 17.5 percent of GDP;
--   Place a 15 percent limit on the amount of income taxes collected from natural and legal persons, change the tax-return filing date to the day before federal elections, and ban federal estate, value-added, or sales taxes;
--  Require every federal agency to be reauthorized every three years in a stand-alone bill or else expire, and require a seven-member House committee to approve all regulations with an economic burden greater than $100 million within six months or cancel implementation of the regulation;
--   Limit the Commerce Clause to preventing states from impeding commerce and trade between the states, and specify that it does not extend to activity within states (whether or not it affects interstate commerce) or to compelling an individual to participate in commerce;
--   Extend the protection against seizure of private property to require compensation for regulations that reduce market value or interfere with the use of property in an amount exceeding $10,000;
--   Change Article V so that any constitutional amendment, proposed by anyone, will be adopted if it is ratified by two thirds of the states;
--   Require a 30-day waiting period between agreement upon the final version of any congressional bill (engrossment) and the final vote to approve it, and allow three fifths of the states to override any federal statute or any federal regulation with a cost exceeding $100 million within 24 months of passage or approval; and
--   Require valid photo ID and proof of citizenship to register and vote in all federal elections, in person or by mail, and limit early voting to 30 days before the election (except for active-duty military personnel).

[libertybele]

I thought virtually all the GOP candidates supported this?  I am pretty sure Ted Cruz does, but I will have to double check on that.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420409/ted-cruz-supreme-court-constitutional-amendment

[libertybele]

Thank you libertybele. I thought Cruz supported it and am glad he does.

The link I provided is not necessarily Cruz supporting a convention of states but him supporting amending the Constitution.   Example: he states  "I am proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution that would subject the justices of the Supreme Court to periodic judicial-retention elections".  He goes on to say ... "And if Congress will not act, passing the constitutional amendments needed to correct this lawlessness, then the movement from the people for an Article V Convention of the States — to propose the amendments directly — will grow stronger and stronger.

I firmly agree with Cruz.  "If we do NOT hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420409/ted-cruz-supreme-court-constitutional-amendment

[Bigun]

--   Establish twelve-year term limits for members of Congress and the Supreme Court;

Not only no but HELL no!  Takes away from my right to choose who represents me!
 

--   Repeal the 17th Amendment;

ALL for it! One of the most damaging attacks on the form of government our founders gave us ever!

--   Allow either Congress or the states to overturn a Supreme Court decision within 24 months with a three fifths vote of the members of both houses or the states;

Either one by themselves!

--   Require a federal budget to be enacted by May or impose an automatic across-the-board 5 percent cut, and the budget may not exceed total tax receipts or 17.5 percent of GDP;

Except in time of war as declared by Congress!

--   Place a 15 percent limit on the amount of income taxes collected from natural and legal persons, change the tax-return filing date to the day before federal elections, and ban federal estate, value-added, or sales taxes;

NO! Hell no!  Repeal the 16th amendment and go back to thew form of taxation universally endorsed by the founders! i.e. Taxes on articles of consumption ONLY!  NO  Marxist income taxes allowed!

--  Require every federal agency to be reauthorized every three years in a stand-alone bill or else expire, and require a seven-member House committee to approve all regulations with an economic burden greater than $100 million within six months or cancel implementation of the regulation;

Hell yeah!

--   Limit the Commerce Clause to preventing states from impeding commerce and trade between the states, and specify that it does not extend to activity within states (whether or not it affects interstate commerce) or to compelling an individual to participate in commerce;

Hell yeah!

--   Extend the protection against seizure of private property to require compensation for regulations that reduce market value or interfere with the use of property in an amount exceeding $10,000;

Looks good but need to think about it.

--   Change Article V so that any constitutional amendment, proposed by anyone, will be adopted if it is ratified by two thirds of the states;

Not so sure this is a good idea! Convince me!

--   Require a 30-day waiting period between agreement upon the final version of any congressional bill (engrossment) and the final vote to approve it, and allow three fifths of the states to override any federal statute or any federal regulation with a cost exceeding $100 million within 24 months of passage or approval; and

Strike the first part and make it read simply " Three fifths of the states may override any federal statute or any federal regulation with a cost exceeding $100 million within 24 months of passage or approval"

--   Require valid photo ID and proof of citizenship to register and vote in all federal elections, in person or by mail, and limit early voting to 30 days before the election (except for active-duty military personnel).

And make it illegal for any state to pass any law which would allow anyone in the country illegally to vote in any election! Only legal citizens are eligible to vote in any federal election

[Right_in_Virginia]

Be careful what you wish for. Conservatives aren't the only people with an agenda at a Constitutional convention.

That was the point of my question about whether or not the agenda could be limited at a Constitutional Convention.

[Sanguine]

For later read.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Quick question:  How long will it take Marco Rubio to drop this like a hot potato---should he see the inside of the Oval Office?   

[alicewonders]

Quick question:  How long will it take Marco Rubio to drop this like a hot potato---should he see the inside of the Oval Office?   

That's my question as well.  I don't really trust him.

[aligncare]

It's obvious to me that American government has ceased to work as originally intended. The modern era government has become corrupted and bloated; politicians are shamelessly cashing in on their positions. And the average citizen is left out in the cold to fend for themselves.

Given that, we need not fear an article 5 convention of the states, we should instead view CoS as a way to rectify, to embrace it as a solution to an out-of-control, imperious central government.

I'm all for a convention of the states.

[GourmetDan]

That was the point of my question about whether or not the agenda could be limited at a Constitutional Convention.

I don't think it can be limited.  States can bring up anything they want.

You'll lose the whole damned thing...

[Right_in_Virginia]

I don't think it can be limited.  States can bring up anything they want.

You'll lose the whole damned thing...

I agree.  We need to think long and hard before we jump on this bandwagon.

[libertybele]

That's my question as well.  I don't really trust him.

That's it in a nutshell.  Trust.  I don't trust the guy either.