'Why not Texit?': Texas nationalists look to the Brexit vote for inspiration (from British newspaper)

[Smokin Joe]

No argument there, but the point was that a convention of states can go anywhere it wants in putting together amendments.

Understood, and on that we agree. But if we can't get the Government to go by the rules it is supposed to go by now, there is no point in writing more.

[Sanguine]

Understood, and on that we agree. But if we can't get the Government to go by the rules it is supposed to go by now, there is no point in writing more.

Right now they have unlimited printing of money and spending power.  When you think about it, where we are right now is pretty inevitable.

[goatprairie]

You mean like the European union?

What does the European Union have to do with the U.S. constitution? You're talking apples and oranges.

[Bigun]

Right now they have unlimited printing of money and spending power.  When you think about it, where we are right now is pretty inevitable.

Both thanks to Mr Woodrow Wilson!

[Doug Loss]

What damned good is another agreement when the Federal Government doesn't abide by the present one?

Here's the response to that question, from the Convention of States website:

"When the Founders wrote the Constitution, they did not anticipate modern-day politicians who take advantage of loopholes and vague phraseology. Even though it is obvious to all reasonable Americans that the federal government is violating the original meaning of the Constitution, Washington pretends otherwise, claiming the Constitution contains broad and flexible language. Amendments at a Convention of States today will be written with the current state of the federal government in mind. The language they use for these amendments will be unequivocal. There will be no doubt as to their meaning, no possibility of alternate interpretations, and no way for them to be legitimately broken. For example, the General Welfare Clause could be amended to add this phrase: 'If the States have the jurisdiction to spend money on a subject matter, Congress may not tax or spend for this same subject matter.'

"In addition to this, it should be noted that the federal government has not violated the amendments passed in recent years. Women’s suffrage, for example, has been 100% upheld."

[Doug Loss]

No argument there, but the point was that a convention of states can go anywhere it wants in putting together amendments.

But of course, any amendments proposed would need to be ratified by the same method as congressionally-proposed amendments.  The convention couldn't force anything on the states or the people.  From Rob Natelson's Article V Handbook:

"If the convention validly proposes one or more amendments, Article V requires Congress to select one of two 'Mode(s) of Ratification' for each. Congress may decide that the amendments be submitted to state conventions elected for that purpose (the mode selected for the 21st Amendment, repealing Prohibition) or to the state legislatures (the mode selected for all other amendments). The obligation of Congress to select a mode should be enforceable judicially, but it is completely up to Congress which of the two modes it chooses. Neither the applying state legislatures nor the convention may dictate which mode Congress selects.

"Of course, the obligation of Congress to choose a mode depends on the measure qualifying as a valid 'proposal.' A proposal would not be valid if, for example, it exceeded the scope of the subject matter defined by the applications or if it altered equal suffrage in the Senate or the Constitution’s rules of ratification. Congress would be under no obligation to select a mode for such a 'proposal,' nor would it have the legal right to do so."

[Sanguine]

Here's the response to that question, from the Convention of States website:

"When the Founders wrote the Constitution, they did not anticipate modern-day politicians who take advantage of loopholes and vague phraseology. Even though it is obvious to all reasonable Americans that the federal government is violating the original meaning of the Constitution, Washington pretends otherwise, claiming the Constitution contains broad and flexible language. Amendments at a Convention of States today will be written with the current state of the federal government in mind. The language they use for these amendments will be unequivocal. There will be no doubt as to their meaning, no possibility of alternate interpretations, and no way for them to be legitimately broken. For example, the General Welfare Clause could be amended to add this phrase: 'If the States have the jurisdiction to spend money on a subject matter, Congress may not tax or spend for this same subject matter.'

"In addition to this, it should be noted that the federal government has not violated the amendments passed in recent years. Women’s suffrage, for example, has been 100% upheld."

Yes, and that will tell us everything we need to know re: should I stay or should I go or should I just lay back and try to enjoy it, in the infamous words of Clayton Williams.

[wolfcreek]

Both thanks to Mr Woodrow Wilson!

Got that right. He's the  champion of Progressivism.

[MACVSOG68]

But of course, any amendments proposed would need to be ratified by the same method as congressionally-proposed amendments.  The convention couldn't force anything on the states or the people.  From Rob Natelson's Article V Handbook:

"If the convention validly proposes one or more amendments, Article V requires Congress to select one of two 'Mode(s) of Ratification' for each. Congress may decide that the amendments be submitted to state conventions elected for that purpose (the mode selected for the 21st Amendment, repealing Prohibition) or to the state legislatures (the mode selected for all other amendments). The obligation of Congress to select a mode should be enforceable judicially, but it is completely up to Congress which of the two modes it chooses. Neither the applying state legislatures nor the convention may dictate which mode Congress selects.

"Of course, the obligation of Congress to choose a mode depends on the measure qualifying as a valid 'proposal.' A proposal would not be valid if, for example, it exceeded the scope of the subject matter defined by the applications or if it altered equal suffrage in the Senate or the Constitution’s rules of ratification. Congress would be under no obligation to select a mode for such a 'proposal,' nor would it have the legal right to do so."

Just as the Constitution couldn't be considered legal until ratified.  As to the limited subject matter, that issue has been heavily debated.  Article V only requires sufficient applications (2/3 of states), it doesn't say that the CoS must in any way limit their proposals.  This Country is so divided on many levels, and it's hard to see much agreement on any new amendments without an ability to negotiate and compromise, something some on the right vehemently eschew. 

[Oceander]

Just as the Constitution couldn't be considered legal until ratified.  As to the limited subject matter, that issue has been heavily debated.  Article V only requires sufficient applications (2/3 of states), it doesn't say that the CoS must in any way limit their proposals.  This Country is so divided on many levels, and it's hard to see much agreement on any new amendments without an ability to negotiate and compromise, something some on the right vehemently eschew. 

Exactly.  The states are authorized to call a convention, but there are no express, or necessarily implied, limitations on what a convention could do once convened; further, the basic concept of a "convention" implies potentially plenary power to consider anything under the Sun, given the plain meaning of the word as well as the precedent set by the original convention, which ignored the instructions of the convening states and wrote an entirely new constitution instead of just tinkering with the articles of confederation.

Personally, my sense is that a convention would be an epic disaster at this point in time, and should really be reserved for truly national emergencies.

[MACVSOG68]

Exactly.  The states are authorized to call a convention, but there are no express, or necessarily implied, limitations on what a convention could do once convened; further, the basic concept of a "convention" implies potentially plenary power to consider anything under the Sun, given the plain meaning of the word as well as the precedent set by the original convention, which ignored the instructions of the convening states and wrote an entirely new constitution instead of just tinkering with the articles of confederation.

Personally, my sense is that a convention would be an epic disaster at this point in time, and should really be reserved for truly national emergencies.

Agreed.  Anyway, even if Congress decided enough applications had been received the courts would wind up overwhelmed with lawsuits concerning the limits of participation and content.  It would be interesting though.

[Sanguine]

Exactly.  The states are authorized to call a convention, but there are no express, or necessarily implied, limitations on what a convention could do once convened; further, the basic concept of a "convention" implies potentially plenary power to consider anything under the Sun, given the plain meaning of the word as well as the precedent set by the original convention, which ignored the instructions of the convening states and wrote an entirely new constitution instead of just tinkering with the articles of confederation.

Personally, my sense is that a convention would be an epic disaster at this point in time, and should really be reserved for truly national emergencies.

@Oceander, I've heard that sentiment before, but I don't understand it.  What do you think could/would be disastrous about it?

[Doug Loss]

Exactly.  The states are authorized to call a convention, but there are no express, or necessarily implied, limitations on what a convention could do once convened; further, the basic concept of a "convention" implies potentially plenary power to consider anything under the Sun, given the plain meaning of the word as well as the precedent set by the original convention, which ignored the instructions of the convening states and wrote an entirely new constitution instead of just tinkering with the articles of confederation.

Personally, my sense is that a convention would be an epic disaster at this point in time, and should really be reserved for truly national emergencies.

So what would you consider to be a truly national emergency?  From what I can see, we've passed that point already.  If the feral federal government is boldly usurping authority that rightly belongs to the states or the people, that is the national emergency for which Article V was written.  The only options that I see are to convene an Article V convention for the intention of forcing the federal government back into the constitutional limitations intended for it, or to throw up your hands and just give up.  Or to go directly to a shooting war, which no one rational wants unless all other options have proven ineffective.

Oh, and here's an alternate take on the "runaway convention" trope, by Marianne Moran:

"A 'runaway' Convention is one at which delegates exceed the mandate of their state governments, and propose amendments beyond the original scope of their stated purpose.  The Philadelphia Convention did not 'run away.'  Following the War of Independence, the United States was governed by the Articles of Confederation which proved to be ineffective in resolving conflicts between the states due to the lack of a central government.   The Founding Fathers called a Convention specifying that the Convention would have 'the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of the Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall, when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the States, render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the union.'  The Founders may not have originally envisioned the creation of a new Constitution, but the Constitution that ended up being proposed by the Philadelphia Convention was faithful to the letter and spirit of the original mandate, and has served our nation well for over 220 years."

Furthermore, the drafted Constitution was submitted to the Confederation Congress. It in turn forwarded the Constitution as drafted to the states for ratification by the Constitutional method proposed.  This is a clear indication that the then-current government under the Articles of Confederation didn't believe that the convention had exceeded its authority.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

@Oceander, I've heard that sentiment before, but I don't understand it.  What do you think could/would be disastrous about it?

I dunno, Democrats hijacking it and passing an amendment with a "right" to free health care, schooling, etc.

[Doug Loss]

I dunno, Democrats hijacking it and passing an amendment with a "right" to free health care, schooling, etc.

Which would need to be ratified by 38 states to go into effect.  Really, do you see that happening?

[Sanguine]

I dunno, Democrats hijacking it and passing an amendment with a "right" to free health care, schooling, etc.

They couldn't "pass an amendment".

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Got that right. He's the  champion of Progressivism.

You think he beat FDR?

[Free Vulcan]

You think he beat FDR?

Ideologically I'd say yes. Wilson was practically communist. FDR had the luxury of the Great Depression as a hammer, so he got more done.

Not do discount Wilson, the things he did were very damaging, even if it took far longer to bear fruit. They just weren't as obvious at the time.

[austingirl]

So what would you consider to be a truly national emergency?  From what I can see, we've passed that point already.  If the feral federal government is boldly usurping authority that rightly belongs to the states or the people, that is the national emergency for which Article V was written.  The only options that I see are to convene an Article V convention for the intention of forcing the federal government back into the constitutional limitations intended for it, or to throw up your hands and just give up.  Or to go directly to a shooting war, which no one rational wants unless all other options have proven ineffective.

Oh, and here's an alternate take on the "runaway convention" trope, by Marianne Moran:

"A 'runaway' Convention is one at which delegates exceed the mandate of their state governments, and propose amendments beyond the original scope of their stated purpose.  The Philadelphia Convention did not 'run away.'  Following the War of Independence, the United States was governed by the Articles of Confederation which proved to be ineffective in resolving conflicts between the states due to the lack of a central government.   The Founding Fathers called a Convention specifying that the Convention would have 'the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of the Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall, when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the States, render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the union.'  The Founders may not have originally envisioned the creation of a new Constitution, but the Constitution that ended up being proposed by the Philadelphia Convention was faithful to the letter and spirit of the original mandate, and has served our nation well for over 220 years."

Furthermore, the drafted Constitution was submitted to the Confederation Congress. It in turn forwarded the Constitution as drafted to the states for ratification by the Constitutional method proposed.  This is a clear indication that the then-current government under the Articles of Confederation didn't believe that the convention had exceeded its authority.

Why has there not been more support for a COS with the outrageous overreach of the National Government?

[austingirl]

Ideologically I'd say yes. Wilson was practically communist. FDR had the luxury of the Great Depression as a hammer, so he got more done.

Not do discount Wilson, the things he did were very damaging, even if it took far longer to bear fruit. They just weren't as obvious at the time.

It's a toss-up as to which one was worse.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Which would need to be ratified by 38 states to go into effect.  Really, do you see that happening?

With this electorate? The same one that voted Odumbo in?

[wolfcreek]

You think he beat FDR?

Fed Reserve, Federal Income Tax, League of Nations, etc. He opened the door for FDR.

[Sanguine]

Why has there not been more support for a COS with the outrageous overreach of the National Government?

I think there are two reasons - first, few are even aware of the possibility, and secondly, in my opinion, there is a certain amount of fear mongering being spread about the potential dangers of doing such. 

From Wikipedia:

A Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution, also called an Article V Convention, or Amendments Convention, called for by two-thirds (presently 34) of the state legislatures, is one of two processes authorized by Article Five of the United States Constitution whereby the Constitution, the nation's frame of government, may be altered. Amendments may also be proposed by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.[1]

To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be ratified by either—as determined by Congress—the legislatures of three-fourths (presently 38) of the states or State ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states. Thirty-three amendments to the United States Constitution have been approved by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. Twenty-seven of these amendments have been ratified and are now part of the Constitution. As of 2016 the convention process has never been used for proposing constitutional amendments.[2]

While there have been calls for an "Article V Convention" based on a single issue such as the balanced budget amendment, it is not clear whether a convention summoned in this way would be legally bound to limit discussion to a single issue; law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen has suggested that such a convention would have the "power to propose anything it sees fit",[2] whereas law professor Michael Rappaport[3] and attorney-at-law Robert Kelly [4] believe that a limited convention is possible.

In recent years some constitutional scholars have argued that state governments should call for such a convention.[5][6] They include Michael Farris, Lawrence Lessig, Sanford Levinson, Larry Sabato, Jonathan Turley, and Mark Levin.[5][7][8] As of 2016, there is an active nationwide effort to call an Article V Convention. Citizens for Self-Governance (CSG), through a project called Convention of the States, is promoting Article V legislation in all 50 states in a bid to rein in the federal government.[9] CSG's resolution has passed in Oklahoma, Tennessee, Georgia, Alaska, Florida, Alabama, Indiana, and Louisiana.[10][11] Similarly, the group Wolf PAC chose this method to promote its cause, which is to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Their resolution has passed in Vermont, California, Illinois, Rhode Island, and New Jersey.[12][13][14]...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[Smokin Joe]

Here's the response to that question, from the Convention of States website:

"When the Founders wrote the Constitution, they did not anticipate modern-day politicians who take advantage of loopholes and vague phraseology. Even though it is obvious to all reasonable Americans that the federal government is violating the original meaning of the Constitution, Washington pretends otherwise, claiming the Constitution contains broad and flexible language. Amendments at a Convention of States today will be written with the current state of the federal government in mind. The language they use for these amendments will be unequivocal.

Sorry, but someone has delusions of grandeur. The language the founders used was unequivocal. What could be more plain than "shall not be infringed"? How do you add to such a proscription? Will I will beat down your M-Fing mamma if you add any rules to that" say more plainly that it is a right to be and remain unencumbered with rules? There were the snakes of the legal profession even then, there will always be some SOB who will find a way to twist the original intent for fun or profit. There was no doubt as to the meaning of the Constitution when it was written, and had there been any the matters were thoroughly discussed in public media of the day.

There will be no doubt as to their meaning, no possibility of alternate interpretations, and no way for them to be legitimately broken. For example, the General Welfare Clause could be amended to add this phrase: 'If the States have the jurisdiction to spend money on a subject matter, Congress may not tax or spend for this same subject matter.'

Then the arguments would be over jurisdiction.

It was written to say the Federal Government takes care of A, B, C, D, leaves it's grubby tendrils off of the following specific Rights, and all else belongs to the States and the People.

It doesn't get much more plain than that, If the Federal Government had no jurisdiction over the privy, then it should have no power to say how much water goes down the pipe with a flush.

But the ink wasn't dry on the ratification documents before the meaning was being parsed and twisted, and by 1850 the drums of the secession movement were already beating. In less than 100 years, well under!! an entire region was ready to break away in dissatisfaction over the way the document was being interpreted. and the laws made thereby.

"In addition to this, it should be noted that the federal government has not violated the amendments passed in recent years. Women’s suffrage, for example, has been 100% upheld."

Really? Define "income". Is the exchange of a board for a duck income? Or is it an exchange? If I give you equal value for equal value, who made anything? There is no income. So is it with the exchange of my time and skill for a piece of paper. It is an exchange. Yet the government says I made an income. If I exchange less time or skill, then I get less for it, just like exchanging lumber for coal, yet the government wants to tax the alleged value of each transaction as if there was an appreciation in the value of either, and calls that amount of the value of either exchange "income".

Yeah, the meaning changed. What we call "unearned income" now was "income" then. So yes, somewhere in the library of tax code, the sixteenth has been tap danced all over. When the Prohibition of alcohol went out of effect, the Government retained the 'power' to regulate whatever you consume, be that food, pharmaceutical, or otherwise. It took some twisting, but where in the original (either Constitution or amendments) was the Federal Government granted the power to decide what you eat, smoke, or drink, aside from beverages containing alcohol, and that only by Constitutional Amendment (because it had NO such purview).

The list of usurpation goes on, including the use of tax money distributed to the states used as a bribe or blackmail to get the states to enact (not Federal laws, technically) laws which the Federal Government writes, in order to continue to receive or to receive that money. Call it bribery, call it blackmail, but it has that stench of compulsion and the reek of overreach.

You won't prevent that with words. There will always be some zipperhead who will argue over the meaning of "is". The only way to defeat such is an engaged, educated populace who love Liberty and jealously guard it. We have plainly enough written laws with documented intent, just as the Constitution was plainly written in its day. The "modern interpretation" of those laws comes from redefining words in popular usage and using those redefinitions to change the original meaning of the phrase. "General Welfare" is a fine example. "Interstate Commerce" is another, and "Income" is one we can all relate to.

Without the final sanction of the capability of withdrawal from the compact, the relationship of the Federal Government to the States/People remains >slap!<  'Now go get me a sandwich, bitch, and like it!--Or I'll kick your ass! ' Ask Wyoming, where the EPA tried to 'give away' a million+ acres of the State and put it under Federal purview through the BIA, after the EPA failed miserably to prove that fraccing had damaged groundwater--an action which would have not only put the property and test wells the EPA had constructed under Federal control, but would have changed toe fundamental form of government for private property owners as well  (not to mention scooped up producing oil fields).

We are past negotiation without at least having the option for divorcement from the agreement. Otherwise, all that would remain (to continue the analogy) is 'death do us part'.

[Smokin Joe]

I think there are two reasons - first, few are even aware of the possibility, and secondly, in my opinion, there is a certain amount of fear mongering being spread about the potential dangers of doing such. 

The following amendment is proposed: Strike all text after the word "We". Replace with "own your ass."

Amendments can replace the entire document or materially change the meaning thereof. As such, they should be carefully used. The insertion of just a few words could change the entire focus and meaning of a large document, and anything more complicated than a sound bite will have its meaning and interpretation distorted before the ink is dry, but especially so in any attempt to ratify such an amendment. The only guarantee is that those who benefit from the status quo will fight tooth and nail to keep those benefits in the face of anything which would remove them in favor of the States or the People.

There are too many jobs at stake at the Federal Level, and a powerful union behind the Union aimed at keeping them, not to mention the K Street industry and the golden parachutes for former Federal Employees as lobbyists. Ultimately, we will fund both sides of the fight.

The prevailing thought among Article 5 Convention supporters seems to be that the proposed and passed Amendments would be Conservative in nature, returning us to Original Intent, but that might well not be the case. There is a significant number of people who benefit handsomely from either the corruption of Original Intent or the jobs, power, and benefits of offices created by that corruption. Millions, no tens of millions, get some form of benefit, either directly or indirectly, from Social Security to WIC. The whole function of Obamacare was to put every American on the teat, one way or another, as much as possible.

With so many in conflict of interest, and even prevailing attitudes among those who consider themselves "conservative" (who are conservative, except....), I have little faith that such a convention would be able to produce Amendments which would be ratified and would return the Federal Government to the scope and size it was originally intended.