SOCNET

Go Back   SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network > General Topics > The Lounge

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 8 March 2018, 14:57
B 2/75's Avatar
B 2/75 B 2/75 is offline
Old Scroll
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Black Mountains
Posts: 10,725
^^^ LOTS of legal precedent, and I mean LOTS, both binding judgments and persuasive authority. There have been many Conventions before, even in the 20th century. Not too much chance of an activist judge to get any real traction other than splashing about in the shallow end. SCOTUS has ruled on this multiple times.
__________________

.
"To the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee, for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee"
Melville / Captain Ahab
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 8 March 2018, 15:06
bobmueller bobmueller is offline
Did...did I do that?
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Green Country, Oklahoma
Posts: 1,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by B 2/75 View Post
There have been many Conventions before, even in the 20th century.
My Google-fu is weak and my memory is failing. The only previous convention I can find anything about is the 1787 event. Pointers?
__________________
This message is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 8 March 2018, 15:12
B 2/75's Avatar
B 2/75 B 2/75 is offline
Old Scroll
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Black Mountains
Posts: 10,725
Thought to provide an article that supports the Court's position:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Natelson, Independence Institute Senior Fellow

How the Courts have Clarified the Constitution's Amendment Process

One source of security we have... is the courts’ long history of protecting the integrity of the Constitution's amendment procedure.

Many of those who pontificate on the subject are largely unaware of this jurisprudence. As a result, they often debate questions that the courts have long resolved or promote scenarios (such as the “runaway” scenario) that the law has long foreclosed.

Here are some of the key issues the courts have addressed, either in binding judgments or in what lawyers call “persuasive authority.” This listing of cases is only partial.

• Article V grants enumerated powers to named assemblies—that is, to Congress, state legislatures, conventions for proposing amendments, and state conventions. When an assembly acts under Article V, that assembly executes a “federal function” different from whatever other responsibilities it may have. Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920); Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922); State ex rel. Donnelly v. Myers, 127 Ohio St. 104, 186 N.E. 918 (1933); Dyerv. Blair, 390 F.Supp. 1291 (N.D. Ill. 1975) (Justice Stevens).

• Article V gives authority to named assemblies, without participation by the executive. Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 378 (1798).

• Where the language of Article V is clear, it must be enforced as written. United Statesv.Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931).

• That does not mean, as some have claimed, that judges may never go beyond reading the words and guessing what they signify. Rather, a court may consider the history underlying Article V. Dyer v. Blair, 390 F. Supp. 1291 (N.D. Ill. 1975) (Justice Stevens). It may also consider what is implied as well as what is expressed. Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921). In other words, courts apply the same rules of interpretation to Article V as elsewhere.

• Just as other enumerated powers in the Constitution bring with them certain incidental authority, so also do the powers enumerated in Article V. State ex rel. Donnelly v. Myers, 127 Ohio St. 104, 186 N.E. 918 (1933). This point and the one previous are important in determining the scope of such Article V words as “call,” “convention,” and “application.”

• The two-thirds vote required in Congress for proposing amendments is two thirds of a quorum present and voting, not of the entire membership. (State of Rhode Island v. Palmer 253 US 320 (1920)

• A convention for proposing amendments is, like all of its predecessors, a “convention of the states.” Smith v. Union Bank, 30 U.S. 518, 528 (1831). The national government is not concerned with how Article V conventions or state legislatures are constituted. United States v. Thibault, 47 F.2d 169 (2d Cir. 1931).

• No legislature or convention has power to alter the ratification procedure. That is fixed by Article V. Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920); United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931). Some “runaway” alarmists have suggested that a convention for proposing amendments could decree ratification by national referendum, but the Supreme Court has ruled this out. Dodge v. Woolsey, 59 U.S. 331 (1855). Neither can a state mutate its own ratifying procedure into a referendum. State of Rhode Island v. Palmer, 253 U.S. 320 (1920).

• Congress may not try to manipulate the ratification procedure, other than by choosing one of two specified “modes of ratification.” Idaho v. Freeman, 529 F. Supp. 1107 (D. Idaho 1981), a judgment vacated as moot by Carmen v. Idaho, 459 U.S. 809 (1982); compare United States v.Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931).

• A convention meeting under Article V may be limited to its purpose. In Re Opinion of the Justices, 204 N.C. 306, 172 S.E. 474 (1933).

• But an outside body may not dictate an Article V assembly’s rules and procedures. Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922); Dyer v. Blair, 390 F. Supp. 1291 (N.D. Ill. 1975) (Justice Stevens).

• Nor may the assembly be compelled to resolve the issue presented to it in a particular way. State ex rel. Harper v. Waltermire, 691 P.2d 826 (1984); AFLCIOv. Eu, 686 P.2d 609 (Cal. 1984); Miller v. Moore, 169 F.3d 1119 (8th Cir. 1999); Gralike v. Cook, 191 F.3d 911, 924-25 (8th
Cir. 1999), affirmed on other grounds sub nom. Cook v.Gralike, 531 U.S. 510 (2001); Barker v. Hazeltine, 3 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1094 (D.S.D. 1998); League of Women Voters of Mainev. Gwadosky, 966 F.Supp. 52 (D. Me. 1997); Donovan v. Priest, 931 S.W.2d 119 (Ark. 1996).

• Article V functions are complete when a convention or legislature has acted. There is no need for other officials to proclaim the action. United States ex rel. Widenmann v. Colby, 265 F. 398 (D.C. Cir. 1920), affirmed 257 U.S. 619 (1921).

As these cases illustrate, the courts are very much in the business of protecting Article V procedures, and they have done so for more than two centuries.
__________________

.
"To the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee, for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee"
Melville / Captain Ahab
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 8 March 2018, 15:40
B 2/75's Avatar
B 2/75 B 2/75 is offline
Old Scroll
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Black Mountains
Posts: 10,725
Another article that addresses several of the most common "myths" that are being frequently distorted by those opposing the CoS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rita Dunaway, Esq., National Legislative Strategist for the Convention of States Project

Five Myths About An Article V Convention


Article V’s convention process is part of the beautiful constitutional machinery built to protect the states and the people from an overreaching federal government.

The constitutional boundaries separating the three federal branches and setting outer limits on their power are barely visible anymore. Many Americans are turning toward Article V of the Constitution to restore those boundaries. Constitutional amendment is strong medicine, to be sure, but it is the medicine that our Founders prescribed for the disease of federal overreach that is otherwise terminal to our Republic.

Here are five myths about the Article V antidote and its side effects:

1. An Article V convention is a “Constitutional Convention” or “Con-Con.”

This point can get confusing, because Article V is a provision of the Constitution, so a convention held pursuant to its terms could be described as “constitutional” in that sense. But what most people mean when they describe an Article V convention as a “Con-Con” is that it is the same type of gathering as the one in 1787 that produced our constitution. And that implication is clearly wrong.

The distinction between the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 and a convention held pursuant to Article V lies in the source of authority for each. The states gathered in 1787 pursuant to their residual powers as
individual sovereigns—not pursuant to any provision of the Articles of Confederation for proposing amendments.

An Article V convention, on the other hand, derives its authority from the terms of Article V itself and is therefore limited to proposing amendments to the Constitution we already have, pursuant to the pescribed procedures.

2. We have no idea how an Article V convention would operate.

Article V itself is silent as to the procedural details of a convention, leading some to speculate that we are left clueless as to how the meeting would function. But while it’s true that there has never been an Article V convention, per se, the states have met in conventions at least 33 times.

There is a clear precedent for how these meetings work. In fact, many of the Framers had attended one or more conventions, and the basic procedures were always the same. For instance, voting at an interstate convention is always done as states, with each state getting one vote, regardless of population or the number of delegates in attendance (that’s why it’s a convention of states—not a convention of delegates). The more detailed, parliamentary rules of the convention are decided by the delegates at the convention itself.

3. The topic of an Article V convention cannot be limited, so convention delegates could re-write the entire Constitution once they assemble.
If states weren’t free to define the scope of an Article V convention, then America would have already witnessed many of them. Over the course of our nation’s Five Myths About An Article V Convention history, states have filed over 400 applications for Article V conventions. The reason we haven’t had one yet is because there have never been 34 applications requesting a convention on the same topic.

Moreover, this proposition makes no sense from a historical, practical or legal perspective. In every interstate convention ever held, there was always a specified topic or agenda for the meeting. Practically speaking, some limitation on the topic is necessary in order for the state legislatures to provide instructions to the delegates they send as their agents (states always instruct their delegates).

4. Congress would control an Article V convention.

Anyone who has read James Madison’s record of the Philadelphia Convention proceedings knows that the very reason the drafters added the convention method of proposing amendments to Article V was to give the states a way to bypass Congress— which has its own, express power to unilaterally propose amendments. They would never have given Congress control over both methods. Congress only has two powers related to the convention: to issue the formal call, setting the date and location of the convention once 34 similar applications are received, and to choose between two methods of state ratification for any proposals offered by the convention. That’s it. In fact, at least one federal court has definitively ruled that Congress cannot use any of its Article I powers—including its power under the Necessary and Proper Clause— to affect Article V procedures.

5. The Article V convention process has no safeguards to protect our Constitution from rogue delegates or big-money special interest groups.

To the contrary, the process is so well-safeguarded that it has proven incredibly difficult to invoke! There are numerous, redundant safeguards on the process.

First, the topic specified in the 34 applications that trigger the convention act as an initial limitation on it. These applications are the very source of authority for the convention, so any proposals beyond their scope would be out of order.

Second, state legislatures can recall any delegates who exceed their authority or instructions. Convention delegates are the agents of their state legislature and are subject to its instructions. As a matter of basic agency law, any actions taken outside the scope of a delegate’s authority would be void. But the final and most effective protection of the process is the simple fact that it takes 38 states to ratify any amendment proposed by the convention. This means that it would only take 13 states to block any ill-conceived or illegitimately advocated proposal.

Article V’s convention process is part of the beautiful constitutional machinery built to protect the states and the people from an overreaching federal government. It is time for us to use it.
__________________

.
"To the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee, for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee"
Melville / Captain Ahab
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 9 March 2018, 00:36
Sado_1's Avatar
Sado_1 Sado_1 is offline
Cynical and Grumpy
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Anywhere, USA
Posts: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavin View Post
I'd like world peace, and everyone to love each other. End famine and war.
Lol x a lot.

I signed it the other day. I hope NC “swings” back right however, I doubt it. I can’t say that I don’t try to help in every way I can.
__________________
"The space between life and death, that is where we are most alive"- Floki
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 9 March 2018, 01:14
gavin's Avatar
gavin gavin is offline
Unemployed Stunt Double
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: On a plane...
Posts: 6,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sado_1 View Post
Lol x a lot.

I signed it the other day. I hope NC “swings” back right however, I doubt it. I can’t say that I don’t try to help in every way I can.
CARY: Containment Area for Re-located Yankees.
__________________
Life’s barely long enough to get good at one thing. So be careful what you get good at.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 9 March 2018, 07:51
B 2/75's Avatar
B 2/75 B 2/75 is offline
Old Scroll
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Black Mountains
Posts: 10,725
I'm having some actual success in NC house district 115, where the D incumbent voted NO on CoS during the 2017 session. After several discussions, turns out that he fully supports the notion of a convention for the three stated topics, but not unlike many has been mis/under informed about the process, limits, and safety in general. Getting a home visit with him next week for an educational tune-up. Hope to see his vote flipping when the House votes again next month.
__________________

.
"To the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee, for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee"
Melville / Captain Ahab
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 9 March 2018, 10:49
1RiserSlip's Avatar
1RiserSlip 1RiserSlip is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: W. Slope of Big Sewell Mtn.
Posts: 4,443
BRAVO
__________________
I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I require the same from them.

John Wayne as J.B. Books in the Shootist
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 22 March 2018, 14:57
B 2/75's Avatar
B 2/75 B 2/75 is offline
Old Scroll
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Black Mountains
Posts: 10,725
The Distinguished Gentleman from Kentucky, Senator Rand Paul, has endorsed the Convention of States Project


Also, Mississippi passed the resolution this morning in their House, and the Senate Whip reports that they have 30 of the 26 votes needed in the Senate to pass. Unless Iowa beats them to it (similar circumstances) Mississippi will become the 13th state to sign on.
__________________

.
"To the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee, for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee"
Melville / Captain Ahab
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 26 March 2018, 06:07
1RiserSlip's Avatar
1RiserSlip 1RiserSlip is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: W. Slope of Big Sewell Mtn.
Posts: 4,443
From the e-mails I'm getting, the Mississippi house has passed this and now going to the Senate.

Iowa is just a couple of votes from joining in.

Looks like it's gathering momentum.
__________________
I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I require the same from them.

John Wayne as J.B. Books in the Shootist
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 27 March 2018, 11:00
B 2/75's Avatar
B 2/75 B 2/75 is offline
Old Scroll
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Black Mountains
Posts: 10,725



Many years ago I became aware of Ben Franklin's reply to the woman who queried him as he left Philadelphia's Constitution Hall as the Constitutional Convention was concluded. She wanted to know what type of government the nation now had, would it be a Monarchy, or a Republic? Franklin replied that "It's a Republic, if you can keep it." I wondered for some time what he meant by that... as surely our Government was unassailable, it's foundations as steady as Gibraltar. Many years later I learned that the threat to a Republic is from within... apathy is a prime killer of a free Republic, which craves public inputs to maintain it's healthy functioning. Failing that apathy, the elected representatives take it upon themselves to act for us, by proxy, if you will, and then presume to know what we want, what is best for us, how well must live and arrange our lives.


A very interesting notation came to my attention today, which seems directly tied to the fear Ben Franklin expressed so obliquely, and I'll share it here:


In 1787 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, said this:

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”

Professor Tyler continued with these eight steps of a democracy:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence to bondage.

Are we there yet?
__________________

.
"To the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee, for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee"
Melville / Captain Ahab
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 27 March 2018, 11:45
B 2/75's Avatar
B 2/75 B 2/75 is offline
Old Scroll
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Black Mountains
Posts: 10,725
Monsignor during Mass at the beginning of the Boondock Saints: And I am reminded, on this holy day, of the sad story of Kitty Genovese. As you all may remember, a long time ago, almost thirty years ago, this poor soul cried out for help time and time again, but no person answered her calls. Though many saw, no one so much as called the police. They all just watched as Kitty was being stabbed to death in broad daylight. They watched as her assailant walked away. Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.

This same apathy applies to our public participation in our Republic, or should I say, our non-participation...
__________________

.
"To the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee, for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee"
Melville / Captain Ahab
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 27 March 2018, 14:09
Sharky's Avatar
Sharky Sharky is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: SOCNET
Posts: 19,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by B 2/75 View Post


In 1787 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, said this:

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”

Professor Tyler continued with these eight steps of a democracy:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence to bondage.

Are we there yet?


Stealing that.
__________________
I was born my papa's son
When I hit the ground I was on the run
I had one glad hand and the other behind
You can have yours, just give me mine
When the hound dog barkin' in the black of the night
Stick my hand in my pocket, everything's all right

-ZZ Top
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 27 March 2018, 20:00
Medic4070's Avatar
Medic4070 Medic4070 is offline
Authorized Personnel
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NoVA
Posts: 681
It would almost appear that we've added a step into 8 stages described above, "actively seek dependence", also known as "steer towards the cliff and hit the gas."

In all seriousness, I've seen similar models before, such as the stages of civilization. Both of those models are based on a passive public merely riding out the complacency-apathy-dependence-bondage steps. However, it would appear that many in our current society seem to be ACTIVELY pursuing these stages and intentionally accelerating the decline. A race to dependence and bondage, if you will.
__________________
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -Edmond Burke
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 21 April 2018, 12:45
1RiserSlip's Avatar
1RiserSlip 1RiserSlip is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: W. Slope of Big Sewell Mtn.
Posts: 4,443
B 2/75 started this movement on here. I reluctantly signed the petition. Since signing on I receive e-mail updates frequently. I have only received 1 reply from a lawmaker who supports the bill. This has helped me decide in who I will support in the May 8 primary to run against Sen Joe Manchin in November.

I don't have an updated map, however since the start of this thread I think 2 more States have joined on and at least 1 house in several more States have passed it.

Here is a video I was e-mailed this morning. For the record, I don't agree with Sen Rand Paul on a lot of things. In saying that, I do have a tad of Libertarian in me. (And someone needs to teach him how not to get his ass kicked)



https://youtu.be/9j_Kq26nxRU
__________________
I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I require the same from them.

John Wayne as J.B. Books in the Shootist
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 21 April 2018, 13:48
B 2/75's Avatar
B 2/75 B 2/75 is offline
Old Scroll
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Black Mountains
Posts: 10,725
Senator Paul's endorsement is ringing true to many, on both sides of the isle. Yes, I'm still very active in the Convention of States Project, and fervently hope that it will come to fruition... how else are we going to begin to gain some control over our runaway federal government?

Currently 12 states have signed on, and ten more have passed the resolution in one chamber of their respective statehouses. 17 more have the COS resolution on this year's legislative calendar for consideration.

Remember that at 34 states having signed on the Convention of States is a GO.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Clipboard01.jpg (33.2 KB, 68 views)
__________________

.
"To the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee, for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee"
Melville / Captain Ahab
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 21 April 2018, 14:27
TennesseeDave's Avatar
TennesseeDave TennesseeDave is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The Volunteer State
Posts: 1,152
It's interesting that even liberal states have it on the legislative calendar.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 21 April 2018, 14:58
B 2/75's Avatar
B 2/75 B 2/75 is offline
Old Scroll
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Black Mountains
Posts: 10,725
The Convention of States is truly Non-Partisan

When all of the past 27 amendments to the Constitution were ginned up, Congress made the proposals and the State's (or State Conventions, in the single case of the repeal of prohibition) ratified those proposals to make them into amendments.

The only difference here is that instead of an intractable and recalcitrant Congress offering the proposed amendments (which they'll never do as it's not in their self-serving best interests) the proposals are made by the Convention of States. The ratification process is identical.
__________________

.
"To the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee, for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee"
Melville / Captain Ahab
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Our new posting rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 13:32.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Socnet.com All Rights Reserved
© SOCNET 1996-2018