Convention of States; Trench Warfare is Coming

[Sanguine]

You should visit the Convention of States website and look it over.  The answers to your questions have been laid out there, in detail.  As for what specific amendments, there are a number of proposals worth consideration.  But it's really quite premature to try to force this effort into specific language for anticipated amendments, as the main energy must go into getting the convention called for.

Good answer, @Doug Loss.  I'll say again, I really don't understand the reluctance to move forward with this.  As other posters have pointed out, we have few options: let things continue along the path we are on, do something vague and nebulous that involves speaking out and educating people, or man up and push for and participate in the last option that the Founding Fathers gave us in the Constitution for exactly this kind of situation.

[Axeslinger]

Yes.  It's in the article.  They want $250,000.

@InHeavenThereIsNoBeer @truth_seeker @Luis Gonzalez @geronl

About a month ago they did a dry run to establish how things would actually happen at a CoS.  It cannot run away because the only things I hat can be considered for constitutional amendments are those things authorized by the state convention resolutions.   Also the hurdle for approval is still 2/3 (or 3/4s, can't remember which) of all the states.  Here's the outcome of the dry run:

"Amendments to save the nation.

Dear ,

Last week, commissioners from all fifty states gathered in Williamsburg, Virginia to discuss amendment proposals with the teeth to limit the power and jurisdiction of their common enemy: the federal government.

As Professor Rob Natelson said when the Convention adjourned on Friday, “The verdict is in: the process works.”

The following statement and proposals come to you, the American people, directly from the men and women who particpated in our first Convention of States dry-run.

We encourage you to read closely. This is history in the making.

“The Convention respectfully submits these proposals to the American people with the conviction that they are a sound beginning to a critically-needed national discussion about restoring the balance of power between the federal government and the states.

Further, it is the conviction of this body that the states must deliberate and adopt appropriate proposals for a balanced budget amendment and an amendment to provide the states a means to serve as a check on judicial overreach by the federal judiciary of the United States.”

(Note: the amendments below are listed in the order in which they were adopted.)
Fiscal Restraints Proposal 1.

SECTION 1. The public debt shall not be increased except upon a recorded vote of two-thirds of each house of Congress, and only for a period not to exceed one year.

SECTION 2. No state or any subdivision thereof shall be compelled or coerced by Congress or the President to appropriate money.

SECTION 3. The provisions of the first section of this amendment shall take effect 3 years after ratification.
Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Proposal 1.

SECTION 1. The power of Congress to regulate commerce among the several states shall be limited to the regulation of the sale, shipment, transportation, or other movement of goods, articles or persons. Congress may not regulate activity solely because it affects commerce among the several states.

SECTION 2. The power of Congress to make all laws that are necessary and proper to regulate commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall not be construed to include the power to regulate or prohibit any activity that is confined within a single state regardless of its effects outside the state, whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom, or whether its regulation or prohibition is part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme; but Congress shall have power to define and provide for punishment of offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States.

SECTION 3. The Legislatures of the States shall have standing to file any claim alleging violation of this article. Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit standing that may otherwise exist for a person.

SECTION 4. This article shall become effective five years from the date of its ratification.
Federal Term Limits & Judicial Jurisdiction Proposal 1.

No person shall be elected to more than six full terms in the House of Representatives. No person shall be elected to more than two full terms in the Senate. These limits shall include the time served prior to the enactment of this Article.
Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Proposal 2.

SECTION 1. The Legislatures of the States shall have authority to abrogate any provision of federal law issued by the Congress, President, or Administrative Agencies of the United States, whether in the form of a statute, decree, order, regulation, rule, opinion, decision, or other form.

SECTION 2. Such abrogation shall be effective when the Legislatures of three-fifths of the States approve a resolution declaring the same provision or provisions of federal law to be abrogated. This abrogation authority may also be applied to provisions of federal law existing at the time this amendment is ratified.

SECTION 3. No government entity or official may take any action to enforce a provision of federal law after it is abrogated according to this Amendment. Any action to enforce a provision of abrogated federal law may be enjoined by a federal or state court of general jurisdiction in the state where the enforcement action occurs, and costs and attorney fees of such injunction shall be awarded against the entity or official attempting to enforce the abrogated provision.

SECTION 4. No provision of federal law abrogated pursuant to this amendment may be reenacted or reissued for six years from the date of the abrogation.
Fiscal Restraints Proposal 2.

SECTION 1. Congress shall not impose taxes or other exactions upon incomes, gifts, or estates.

SECTION 2. Congress shall not impose or increase any tax, duty, impost or excise without the approval of three-fifths of the House of Representatives and three-fifths of the Senate, and shall separately present such to the President.

SECTION 3. This Article shall be effective five years from the date of its ratification, at which time the Sixteenth Article of amendment is repealed.
Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Proposal 3.

Whenever one quarter of the members of the United States House of Representatives or the United States Senate transmits to the President their written declaration of opposition to any proposed or existing federal administrative regulation, in whole or in part, it shall require a majority vote of the House of Representatives and Senate to adopt or affirm that regulation. Upon the transmittal of opposition, if Congress shall fail to vote within 180 days, such regulation shall be vacated. No proposed regulation challenged under the terms of this Article shall go into effect without the approval of Congress. Congressional approval or rejection of a rule or regulation is not subject to Presidential veto under Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution.
The Simulated Convention of States was a true success and united commissioners from all fifty states towards their common goal."

[Bigun]

The purpose of the Convention of States is to constrain the overreach of the Federal legislators and return that power back to the States.

So why would a federal government that ignores the constraints placed on it by the current Constitution suddenly abide by a newly amended Constitution?

[Bigun]

I sure would like to see an answer to this from the naysayers.  Come on, naysayers - what do you say?

@Sanguine  See my post above.

[Cripplecreek]

So why would a federal government that ignores the constraints placed on it by the current Constitution suddenly abide by a newly amended Constitution?

Its kind of like a balanced budget amendment. I have yet to see one that actually works without a lot of creative accounting.

The simple fact is that absolutely nothing will change until we the people take responsibility for our own poor choices and start electing honest people.

[Bigun]

Its kind of like a balanced budget amendment. I have yet to see one that actually works without a lot of creative accounting.

The simple fact is that absolutely nothing will change until we the people take responsibility for our own poor choices and start electing honest people.

 

The truth is that the fed gov started throwing off the boundaries of the Constitution from day one and will continue to do s until WE stop it!

As long as we continue to send people to represent us who immediately buy into Washington-speak nothing much will change.

Agency A  had a budget of $4B last year and that was projected to grow to $4.4B this year but we passed some budget cuts and now they are only going to get $4.3B this year! 

[skeeter]

So why would a federal government that ignores the constraints placed on it by the current Constitution suddenly abide by a newly amended Constitution?

How badly would the federal leviathan love to do away with the Constitutionally mandated electoral college? Very badly.
Yet still they abide by it even though it exists at their expense and to the benefit of individual states.

[Sanguine]

Its kind of like a balanced budget amendment. I have yet to see one that actually works without a lot of creative accounting.

The simple fact is that absolutely nothing will change until we the people take responsibility for our own poor choices and start electing honest people.

Now, see, that's the kind of answer that I'm talking about in: "do something vague and nebulous that involves speaking out and educating people".

@Cripplecreek @Bigun, you each have exactly one vote. I'm assuming that you already vote for those whom you consider honest and take responsibility for doing so.  Ok.....now what?

[Right_in_Virginia]

I'll say again, I really don't understand the reluctance to move forward with this. 

What is your goal @Sanguine?  What changes would you fight for to our existing Constitution?

[Sanguine]

What is your goal @Sanguine?  What changes would you fight for to our existing Constitution?

Me?  Balanced budget amendment, with order of funding.  As in, a list, in order, of what gets funded and in what order.  Congress comes last.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Good answer, @Doug Loss.  I'll say again, I really don't understand the reluctance to move forward with this.  As other posters have pointed out, we have few options: let things continue along the path we are on, do something vague and nebulous that involves speaking out and educating people, or man up and push for and participate in the last option that the Founding Fathers gave us in the Constitution for exactly this kind of situation.

Because the constitution as written has given us relatively stable, if imperfect, governance for 240 years?

[Right_in_Virginia]

It is the constitutional way to rein in the federal government. 

Opening the Constitution for additions and deletions is not the way to rein in the federal government.  An educated public exercising its right to vote is the way to control government, local and federal.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Opening the Constitution for additions and deletions is not the way to rein in the federal government.  An educated public exercising its right to vote is the way to control government, local and federal.

 

[Sanguine]

Opening the Constitution for additions and deletions is not the way to rein in the federal government.  An educated public exercising its right to vote is the way to control government, local and federal.

The Constitution is already open for additions and deletions.  They're called Amendments.  Congress can propose them at any time.

[Sanguine]

Because the constitution as written has given us relatively stable, if imperfect, governance for 240 years?

OK, I'll put you in the "everything's fine, don't worry, be happy" category.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Me?  Balanced budget amendment, with order of funding.  As in, a list, in order, of what gets funded and in what order.  Congress comes last.

Okay @Sanguine   I'd personally prefer to spend time educating the public and doing this through the voting booth.   But assuming we take your route, what are your tradeoffs?  You know they'll be demanded.  So, what other changes are you willing to accept to get a balanced budget included in the Constitution?

What tradeoffs do you reject out of hand - - - and how would you stop them?

[Sanguine]

Okay @Sanguine   I'd personally prefer to spend time educating the public and doing this through the voting booth.   But assuming we take your route, what are your tradeoffs?  You know they'll be demanded.  So, what other changes are you willing to accept to get a balanced budget included in the Constitution?

What tradeoffs do you reject out of hand - - - and how would you stop them?

"I'd personally prefer to spend time educating the public and doing this through the voting booth."  How's that working out?

Tradeoffs?  Why?  Not sure what you're suggesting.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

The problem with a BB amendment is that occasionally deficits are desirable. Ask any economist.

[Sanguine]

The problem with a BB amendment is that occasionally deficits are desirable. Ask any economist.

Could be.  As with everything in life, one has to weigh the positives and negatives.

[Right_in_Virginia]

"I'd personally prefer to spend time educating the public and doing this through the voting booth."  How's that working out?

Tradeoffs?  Why?  Not sure what you're suggesting.

@Sanguine

I'm suggesting a Convention of States will open the entirety of the US Constitution to renegotiation.  You can't possibly think conservatives will control this process once it begins, can you? 

[Sanguine]

@Sanguine

I'm suggesting a Convention of States will open the entirety of the US Constitution to renegotiation.  You can't possibly think conservatives will control this process once it begins, can you?

@Right_in_Virginia, this has already been addressed.  First, 37 or 38 states have to propose an amendment, that amendment is what is discussed and then said amendment has to be passed by 3/4 of the states.  What is it you fear from that?

[skeeter]

"I'd personally prefer to spend time educating the public and doing this through the voting booth."  How's that working out?

Tradeoffs?  Why?  Not sure what you're suggesting.

The traditional American message of individual sovereignty does not win majorities at the national level anymore, and thanks to demographic shifts the will only get worse. No amount of 'education' can fix this, not in our lifetime. The handwriting is on the wall.

The planets are aligned for a convention of the states, as skewed at the state level as things are away from the statist democrats. Obama moving democrat clients into red states obviously is conscious of this and is using his federal authority to alter the situation.

The window will one day close, rest assured, and the last hope to exercise any real local control over the federal government and its tightening grip on our lives will be gone.

[Right_in_Virginia]

@Right_in_Virginia, this has already been addressed.  First, 37 or 38 states have to propose an amendment, that amendment is what is discussed and then said amendment has to be passed by 3/4 of the states.  What is it you fear from that?

Apologies for missing this in my read through @Sanguine   Passing a single amendment is not a Convention of States. 

If you support beginning the Constitutional process for passing a single amendment to balance the budget, go for it.  Just leave the rest of the Constitution alone.

 

[Sanguine]

Apologies for missing this in my read through @Sanguine   Passing a single amendment is not a Convention of States. 

If you support beginning the Constitutional process for passing a single amendment to balance the budget, go for it.  Just leave the rest of the Constitution alone.

 

What?  Not for passing a single amendment?  Since when?

And, as for the "rest of the Constitution", no one is talking about repealing any part of it.  We are talking about adding to it. 

[Sanguine]

The traditional American message of individual sovereignty does not win majorities at the national level anymore, and thanks to demographic shifts the will only get worse. No amount of 'education' can fix this, not in our lifetime. The handwriting is on the wall.

The planets are aligned for a convention of the states, as skewed at the state level as things are away from the statist democrats. Obama moving democrat clients into red states obviously is conscious of this and is using his federal authority to alter the situation.

The window will one day close, rest assured, and the last hope to exercise any real local control over the federal government and its tightening grip on our lives will be gone.

That bears repeating.