Article V Amendment Convention

[Goshin]

Ah. Found something.

On September 25, 1789, Congress transmitted to the state legislatures twelve proposed United States amendments of which the first two dealt with Congressional representation and Congressional pay. Numbers three through twelve were adopted by the states to become the Bill of Rights in 1791. So, in effect U.S. amendment number three of the proposed twelve is our First Amendment. There is normally a seven year time limit (with the possibility of an extension) for an amendment to be approved by three-fourths of the state legislatures (38 states) and to become a part of the Constitution. However, there were no time limitations set for the first twelve proposed amendments. Michigan became the thirty-eighth state to ratify the second proposed amendment that dealt with Congressional raises on May 7, 1992. Thus, two hundred and three years after it was introduced, the proposal placing restrictions on congressional pay raises became our twenty-seventh United States amendment and most immediate change to the Constitution.

Learn About United States (U.S.) Constitution Amendments | Constitution Facts

 

[Goshin]

Goshin, as it turns out, I've studied this as far as it can be studied. State applications for the Article V Convention are like proposed amendments which live until 3/4 of the states adopt them. Or in the case of state applications remain active until a convention is called.

The 27th Amendment was ratified in 1992 though was originally proposed by James Madison, and was meant to be part of the Bill of Rights. It sat in the office of the Secretary of Congress all the way up to the point a college student from Texas discovered it in the early 1980s, brought it to light, and in a natural progression of events it was ratified. It was originally proposed in 1789, which means it was active for over two hundred years.

Anti-Conventionists question whether the same principle applies to state applications for the Article V Convention. The reason the same principle applies is the reason the 27th Amendment was ratified: because no law existed which prohibited it. Anti-Conventionists presume burden is to show why it doesn't matter when or for what reason an application was cast, when burden is to show why any single application is void or expired. Anti-Conventionists cannot because only one law exists regarding them: Article V of the Constitution. Once the requisite number apply the convention call is peremptory--ministerial in nature. Why? The Founders knew the worst in politicians would resist the Article V Convention at all costs. Why? It will do what it's designed to: purge corruption from the legislative branch and in turn make the other two branches stand to attention.

Anti-Conventionists question whether applications should be effective 10,000 years from now, asking if it can be argued the Founders intended such a result? Is there historical evidence of such intent? Yes: Article V is the historical evidence of such intent. The Founders probably did not expect the Constitution to last for 10,000 years, does that mean if it does it should expire at some point? Further evidence of intent: Federalist 85 and the numerous debates in ratifying conventions where it was brought up repeatedly: not to fear the new Constitution and national legislature for its convention clause.

The applications are part of the Constitution as they are a named part of it, and there are no strictures or limitations on them whatsoever. Again, the presumed burden is to show why they're valid, when actually it's to show why they are not. Why, because you or someone else thinks they're old and don't matter anymore? By that reasoning the Constitution doesn't matter anymore and should be ignored. But you should be careful, because to advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government is a federal crime.

And yet you do not address the fact that most of these calls deal with many different proposed amendments.

Have there in fact, been 38 states in agreement on a convention for one proposed amendment, or a call for a general convention, within some reasonable time frame? Indeed, any time frame if you wish?

 

[John De Herrera]

Ah. Found something.



Learn About United States (U.S.) Constitution Amendments | Constitution Facts

This limitation you highlight was only conjured by Congress after the 27th was ratified. Crooks are smart, they will attempt to limit a surface of attack once one is exposed.

 

[misterman]

This limitation you highlight was only conjured by Congress after the 27th was ratified. Crooks are smart, they will attempt to limit a surface of attack once one is exposed.

Total bull****. Time limits were common long before the 27th was ratified.

 

[John De Herrera]

And yet you do not address the fact that most of these calls deal with many different proposed amendments.

Have there in fact, been 38 states in agreement on a convention for one proposed amendment, or a call for a general convention, within some reasonable time frame? Indeed, any time frame if you wish?

34 states mandates the convention call, 38 for ratification.

The same-subject or contemporaneous arguments concerning state applications are bogus. There's no law backing such.

Yet, more than once same-subject, and in short amount of time, this has been satisfied. Here is one such instance from the Congressional Record: http://foa5c.org/file.php/1/Amendments/071_cg_r_03369_1929_HL.JPG

 

[Goshin]

34 states mandates the convention call, 38 for ratification.

The same-subject or contemporaneous arguments concerning state applications are bogus. There's no law backing such.

Yet, more than once same-subject, and in short amount of time, this has been satisfied. Here is one such instance from the Congressional Record: http://foa5c.org/file.php/1/Amendments/071_cg_r_03369_1929_HL.JPG

Okay, that was back in 1929.

So we should have a general constitutional convention now, simply on the basis that one was called for and passed over in 1929?

Shouldn't the states that voted "aye" in 1929 get a chance to confirm or change their position, since nearly everyone who voted for it then is long dead?

Got anything a smidge more recent and more relevant?

 

[John De Herrera]

Total bull****. Time limits were common long before the 27th was ratified.

Care to show us some documentation regarding this assertion? If I'm wrong in that, I'd like that confirmed.

And you still haven't answered the previous question: if you were shown actual volumnes of the Congressional Record, proving to you beyond all doubt that all fifty states had applied for a convention, does that change your mind?

The PDF file database is the first of its kind in all American History and has come into being only within the past year. We can't expect everyone to be up on everything all the time, but on this subject it would be nice for you to admit your opinion is just the parroting of things you've heard. You don't know what you're talking about as you are not yet up to speed on the facts and law behind those facts. You should aknowledge this, or each new reply only makes you look worse.

 

[John De Herrera]

Okay, that was back in 1929.

So we should have a general constitutional convention now, simply on the basis that one was called for and passed over in 1929?

Shouldn't the states that voted "aye" in 1929 get a chance to confirm or change their position, since nearly everyone who voted for it then is long dead?

Got anything a smidge more recent and more relevant?

Yes, the same thing happened in the mid-1980s for a Balanced Budget Amendment, and again Congress failed to issue the call. I'm sorry I don't have the link for that particular application handy, but it is in that database.

There is no time-limit for prosecution of the crime of murder, I myself would argue there is no limit for a crime against the Constitution by the legislative branch.

But again, with all we know to be true, institutionalized corruption and all, 700+ state applications on record and all, shouldn't the rational and logical thought be to hold a convention, hit the reset button on the application tally, and see how the convention clause works? With all we know to be true at this late date--not to mention that The Vote has become privatized--and the inevitable conclusion--what do we have to fear?

The Supreme Court is already an open-ended constitutional convention (and many of those applications have been in regards to limiting the court). The Justices there have a monopoly on good ideas? Members of Congress do?

I trust the people and the Constitution to make quick work of the mess, and when it's all said and done, we'll all look around and be so amazed that we would or could have ever feared such a thing.

 

[misterman]

Care to show us some documentation regarding this assertion? If I'm wrong in that, I'd like that confirmed.

The first time limit was in the 18th amendment, which Congress passed in 1917:

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

The 20th, 21st, and 22nd amendments also contained time limits. Look them up.

So you were just making up what you said. Don't do that.

And you still haven't answered the previous question: if you were shown actual volumnes of the Congressional Record, proving to you beyond all doubt that all fifty states had applied for a convention, does that change your mind?

Sure. But I know how to read the CR, and know what it really means.

The PDF file database is the first of its kind in all American History and has come into being only within the past year. We can't expect everyone to be up on everything all the time, but on this subject it would be nice for you to admit your opinion is just the parroting of things you've heard. You don't know what you're talking about as you are not yet up to speed on the facts and law behind those facts. You should aknowledge this, or each new reply only makes you look worse.

So this database has actual excerpts from the CR for every single resolution?

And drop the attitude. I didn't say your source was wrong, I said I don't trust it. I don't go believing everything I see on the internet.

Now that you've lost so much credibility by making up a random claim that time limits were only imposed after the 27th amendment, I suggest you not speak so boldly and expect everyone to just accept what you say.

 

[Goshin]

Yes, the same thing happened in the mid-1980s for a Balanced Budget Amendment, and again Congress failed to issue the call. I'm sorry I don't have the link for that particular application handy, but it is in that database.

There is no time-limit for prosecution of the crime of murder, I myself would argue there is no limit for a crime against the Constitution by the legislative branch.

But again, with all we know to be true, institutionalized corruption and all, 700+ state applications on record and all, shouldn't the rational and logical thought be to hold a convention, hit the reset button on the application tally, and see how the convention clause works? With all we know to be true at this late date--not to mention that The Vote has become privatized--and the inevitable conclusion--what do we have to fear?

The Supreme Court is already an open-ended constitutional convention (and many of those applications have been in regards to limiting the court). The Justices there have a monopoly on good ideas? Members of Congress do?

I trust the people and the Constitution to make quick work of the mess, and when it's all said and done, we'll all look around and be so amazed that we would or could have ever feared such a thing.

Your points are a bit too broadly generalized to suit me, for the most part. A general convention that isn't bound down to specific amendments, is not bound in such a manner as to avoid a total rewrite of the Constitution.

You may recall the DoI, where it says something much like "People are loath to change the forms to which they have become accustomed, as long as they are tolerable."

What we have is not perfect, but I do not think we are at the point where it is so bad that I'd wish to risk a general convention that isn't specifically limited as to its authority.

Specifically, I am not prepared to stipulate that Diebold and their voting machines are the single greatest threat to our system of governance, at this time.

 

[John De Herrera]

The first time limit was in the 18th amendment, which Congress passed in 1917:



The 20th, 21st, and 22nd amendments also contained time limits. Look them up.

So you were just making up what you said. Don't do that.



Sure. But I know how to read the CR, and know what it really means.



So this database has actual excerpts from the CR for every single resolution?

And drop the attitude. I didn't say your source was wrong, I said I don't trust it. I don't go believing everything I see on the internet.

Now that you've lost so much credibility by making up a random claim that time limits were only imposed after the 27th amendment, I suggest you not speak so boldly and expect everyone to just accept what you say.

Thanks for the clarification. I've been at this for going on a decade, and last remembered (wrongly) that the stipulation had been applied after the 27th. My mistake.

Perhaps to you I've lost so much credibility, to the framers of the Constitution and like-minded individuals, maybe not so much. Everything else I've stated is true, including that one's thinking is irrational/illogical, based on all we know to be true about our current state of affairs, to fear obeying what the Constitution mandates, and convoking a federal convention of state delegates.

 

[John De Herrera]

Your points are a bit too broadly generalized to suit me, for the most part. A general convention that isn't bound down to specific amendments, is not bound in such a manner as to avoid a total rewrite of the Constitution.

You may recall the DoI, where it says something much like "People are loath to change the forms to which they have become accustomed, as long as they are tolerable."

What we have is not perfect, but I do not think we are at the point where it is so bad that I'd wish to risk a general convention that isn't specifically limited as to its authority.

Specifically, I am not prepared to stipulate that Diebold and their voting machines are the single greatest threat to our system of governance, at this time.

Transparent elections and a free society are one and the same thing. If we no longer have transparent elections, we're no longer free. If we're not free then I'm not sure what you fear in bringing the country together in a deliberative assembly in order to discuss things that politicians beholden to corporate interests are reluctant to.

In other words, we have nothing to fear and our freedom to gain.

 

[misterman]

Thanks for the clarification. I've been at this for going on a decade, and last remembered (wrongly) that the stipulation had been applied after the 27th. My mistake.

Okay, sorry for coming down hard on you, but lots of people just make stuff up and expect to stick around here.

Now you see why I expect a high level of proof.

Everything else I've stated is true

Your opinions aren't true or false, just opinions.

 

[John De Herrera]

Okay, sorry for coming down hard on you, but lots of people just make stuff up and expect to stick around here.

Now you see why I expect a high level of proof.



Your opinions aren't true or false, just opinions.

Oh--well aware the difference between the subjective and objective. For instance, the American Flag, subjectively, represents many different things to many different people. But objectively it represents one thing and one thing only: the combined words of the U.S. Constitution. Without that you have no country. No country, no flag.

But none of this is mere opinion.

1) Constitution contains a convention clause, 2/3 of the states must apply.
2) All fifty states have applied.
3) No laws limit those applications in any way, thus the Article V Convention is currently mandated.

And thus to advocate against a convention because you subjectively fear it (based on irrational and/or illogical reasoning), is to advocate against the Constitution itself.

It's also not an opinion that without transparent elections you don't have a free society. And it's also not an opinion that unless you first know where you are, except by blind luck, you'll never get to where you want to be.

 

[misterman]

Oh--well aware the difference between the subjective and objective. For instance, the American Flag, subjectively, represents many different things to many different people. But objectively it represents one thing and one thing only: the combined words of the U.S. Constitution. Without that you have no country. No country, no flag.

Huh?

The flag represents the Constitution?

No, objectively -- meaning officially -- the flag represents the 50 states (the stars, and the 13 original colonies.

1) Constitution contains a convention clause, 2/3 of the states must apply.
2) All fifty states have applied.
3) No laws limit those applications in any way, thus the Article V Convention is currently mandated.

I don't think (2) has been established yet.

 

[John De Herrera]

Huh?

The flag represents the Constitution?

No, objectively -- meaning officially -- the flag represents the 50 states (the stars, and the 13 original colonies.



I don't think (2) has been established yet.

The Constitution establishes the states--no Constitution, no states. If a new state were admitted, the flag what change from what it is. The Constitution is what has the power to change the flag, thus the flag represents the Constitution, not the states. Exactly what I said.

The Congressional Record shows 700+ applications from all fifty states--500+ since 1960. This is all indisputable fact of public record. Think about it more, I understand this is all new to you.

 

[misterman]

The Constitution establishes the states--no Constitution, no states. If a new state were admitted, the flag what change from what it is. The Constitution is what has the power to change the flag, thus the flag represents the Constitution, not the states. Exactly what I said.

By that logic, I can claim the flag represents the hermit thrush. Watch:

The flag represents the 50 states. The state bird of Vermont is the hermit thrush. Therefore the flag represents the hermit thrush.

This is fun.

The Congressional Record shows 700+ applications from all fifty states--500+ since 1960. This is all indisputable fact of public record. Think about it more, I understand this is all new to you.

I've read more of the Congressional Record than you'll read in your lifetime.

I just don't believe your source. I don't trust that they understand what they're reading in the CR.

 

[Goshin]

Transparent elections and a free society are one and the same thing. If we no longer have transparent elections, we're no longer free. If we're not free then I'm not sure what you fear in bringing the country together in a deliberative assembly in order to discuss things that politicians beholden to corporate interests are reluctant to.

In other words, we have nothing to fear and our freedom to gain.

I will grant you that I am not pleased about some aspects of the machine voting process, particularly the lack of a paper record in some cases.

However, if enough people make enough noise about it to their Congressmen, a legislative solution could be implemented without need for a Convention.

It happens quite regularly. Make your Congresscritter afraid he isn't going to get re-elected, and things suddenly start happening.

Apparently not enough people are aware of the issue, or worried about it, at this point. Perhaps you should make THAT the focus of your activism, rather than a Convention per-se.

 

[John De Herrera]

The state bird of Vermont is the hermit thrush. Therefore the flag represents the hermit thrush.

The state bird is symbolic of the state. But it's the state constitution which establishes the state and the laws by which the citizens of that state abide. That's why when you cross a state line you have a different flag, because the laws have changed. And btw, something intersesting to note: that of all the variation of all state constitutions, all have one thing in common: a convention clause. Why? Because holding conventions to build consensus is what this country grew out of. They were holding conventions on the east coast back in the seventeeth century. It's how we came to be, yet you fear this simple, democratic and legal mechanism for some irrational and illogical reason.

I've read more of the Congressional Record than you'll read in your lifetime.

Just because someone can read a map doesn't mean they know how to drive.

I just don't believe your source. I don't trust that they understand what they're reading in the CR.

Again, the source is the Congressional Record. That database is PDFs of actual pages from that record. A simple reading of any of them demonstrates the obvious. Most people trust the obvious. Maybe you don't.

Have you even clicked on the link? Or are you afraid of what you'll find?

Try this one: http://foa5c.org/file.php/1/Amendments/071_cg_r_03369_1929_HL.JPG

Complete database: Friends of the Article V Convention - Congressional Records

I challenge you to find a single link there that a simple reading does not demonstrate without a doubt what it is, what it's for, and what it's saying. We can excuse a child of being afraid of the dark; but an adult afraid of the light? Not so much.

 

[John De Herrera]

I will grant you that I am not pleased about some aspects of the machine voting process, particularly the lack of a paper record in some cases.

However, if enough people make enough noise about it to their Congressmen, a legislative solution could be implemented without need for a Convention.

It happens quite regularly. Make your Congresscritter afraid he isn't going to get re-elected, and things suddenly start happening.

Apparently not enough people are aware of the issue, or worried about it, at this point. Perhaps you should make THAT the focus of your activism, rather than a Convention per-se.

I hope this doesn't sound rude, but I'm sure you're not aware of the past seven or eight year history in regards to voting and the privatization of it.

What if our congresscritters are unafraid of what their constituents think because they know the fix is in? Conspiracy theory? OK, but you understand there are laws against conspiracy for a reason. Conspiring is one of the most natural things about the human condition.

You either work to raise awareness of the solution to the problem, or you raise awareness of the symptoms of the problem. What's more shrewd? If a water main is burst, you can always by a new mop, but why not simply replace the broken pipe? That's what the convention clause is for.

 

[Goshin]

I hope this doesn't sound rude, but I'm sure you're not aware of the past seven or eight year history in regards to voting and the privatization of it.

What if our congresscritters are unafraid of what their constituents think because they know the fix is in? Conspiracy theory? OK, but you understand there are laws against conspiracy for a reason. Conspiring is one of the most natural things about the human condition.

You either work to raise awareness of the solution to the problem, or you raise awareness of the symptoms of the problem. What's more shrewd? If a water main is burst, you can always by a new mop, but why not simply replace the broken pipe? That's what the convention clause is for.

Analogy is always suspect.

I am aware there have been some fairly serious issues with Diebold machines in some areas, and that questions have been raised about the accuracy and verification of machine voting and how it is being done. I've read quite a bit about the matter over the past few years.

I think it is a problem, yes, and it needs to be dealt with. I don't agree that "the fix is in" and that the Democrats and Republicans have some kind of agreement-by-conspiracy on who is going to win what this year.

Conspiracy on that scale would involve too many people for it to be kept secret, imo. Also, if it has indeed gone that far, we are probably past any solution that doesn't involve armed force.

I don't think this is the case, so I don't quite share your passion for the matter, nor am I convinced that a Convention is the only solution.

Is this the only reason you want an A-V Convention?

 

[John De Herrera]

Conspiracy on that scale would involve too many people for it to be kept secret, imo.

This proves to be untrue in many cases. Conspiracy does not need to be explicit in order to become a co-conspiritor. You simly watch how they dance, and learn to dance the same way.

Also, if it has indeed gone that far, we are probably past any solution that doesn't involve armed force.

This I have two problems with: 1) The one and only thing that has ever created change--revolution--reformation--the world over, since history began, is when a tipping-point is reached in a common cause. Thus, that's the trick--getting a tipping-point with the Article V Convention firmly in mind and talking about it. 2) The powers that be have not been sitting on their hands all these years, and part of the strategy is to provoke armed revolt, because they have plans for it. People who own guns think a moment is going to arrive, the cards are revealed, and they then go meet up with neighbors on the corner, weapons at the ready. First, the majority of Americans are too disneyified to take up guns. Second, those that have a mind to will be branded domestic terrorists by media, and the real threats will be isolated and killed, the true story never known.

Maybe in the coming weeks things will dawn on you and your passion for the matter will grow.

Is this the only reason you want an A-V Convention?

Let me ask you this? What's the most important thing to a human being?

 

[Goshin]

Is this the only reason you want an A-V Convention?

Let me ask you this? What's the most important thing to a human being?

That depends on the human being. Different people would give different answers. Two of the most common ones would be "life" or "my family/kids".

How about just answering the question instead of posing another?

 

[John De Herrera]

That depends on the human being. Different people would give different answers. Two of the most common ones would be "life" or "my family/kids".

How about just answering the question instead of posing another?

It doesn't depend on the human being. It's a universal. The latin root for sapience is to know, or further back, to taste (biblical connotations).

To people who say the most important thing to a human being is food, then consider that many people have died, not because there wasn't food available, but because they didn't know how or where to get it. And consider that an infant, a human being, will die if it isn't fed, because it doesn't yet know how to feed itself. The most important thing to a human being is knowledge.

An example of this is what we've been doing here today--having to reason with people who are on the verge of becoming enslaved that holding a convention is not only not dangerous, but the only thing which will keep them free.

You can't get to where you need to be unless you first know where you are. Since there is nothing more important to a sapient being than knowledge, I want the Article V Convention because without a doubt media reform will be addressed.

If with amendment we divested media corporations of the publicly-owned broadcast frequencies (let them keep their cable/satelite/internet/publishing), we'd never run into this problem again, because we'd always know where we are and where we need to move on to next.

Consider that we've now switched to digital frequencies. The others still exist, yet it's as if they don't because no member of Congress suggests we turn them over. If that was done sales for rabbit ears would shoot through the roof, and we'd have all kinds of new programming, and all kinds of new revenues.

I'd also like a national theatre. There's a reason we don't have that too.

 

[Goshin]

It doesn't depend on the human being. It's a universal. The latin root for sapience is to know, or further back, to taste (biblical connotations).

To people who say the most important thing to a human being is food, then consider that many people have died, not because there wasn't food available, but because they didn't know how or where to get it. And consider that an infant, a human being, will die if it isn't fed, because it doesn't yet know how to feed itself. The most important thing to a human being is knowledge.

You asked the question. I told you what most people would say. To be frank, if we asked 100 people I'll bet a paycheck that at least 50 would say "life" or "my family" (or "money"), and less than 10 would say "knowlege".

I'm not saying that "knowlege" isn't a good answer or that you don't have a certain point, but the thing is you're obviously viewing it from an abstract or philosophical perspective, whereas most people are going to answer that froma personal/concrete perspective. It isn't as universal as you seem to think; lots of people value knowlege, but not all, and most are not going to put knowlege as being more important than concrete things nearer to their heart, like life and family.

You can't get to where you need to be unless you first know where you are. Since there is nothing more important to a sapient being than knowledge, I want the Article V Convention because without a doubt media reform will be addressed.

If with amendment we divested media corporations of the publicly-owned broadcast frequencies (let them keep their cable/satelite/internet/publishing), we'd never run into this problem again, because we'd always know where we are and where we need to move on to next.

Consider that we've now switched to digital frequencies. The others still exist, yet it's as if they don't because no member of Congress suggests we turn them over. If that was done sales for rabbit ears would shoot through the roof, and we'd have all kinds of new programming, and all kinds of new revenues.

What sort of media reform? Divesting private companies of broadcast frequencies in whose favor? That is, if you take them away from private companies, who is going to own them or use them? Turn them over to whom? New programming from what source, and revenues for whom?

These are all important questions you haven't answered.


How exactly do you know what would be addressed at a Convention anyway? Are you connected to some group that is pushing a specific Convention agenda?

I'd also like a national theatre. There's a reason we don't have that too.

You consider a national theatre (whatever that is), to be an issue worthy of a Constitutional Convention?