SOCNET

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 22 February 2018, 16:51
B 2/75's Avatar
B 2/75 B 2/75 is offline
Old Scroll
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Black Mountains
Posts: 10,796
Regarding the question of the original "Constitutional Convention" and if it was kosher or not:

Quote:



Can We Trust the Constitution? Answering the “Runaway Convention” Myth
By Michael Farris, JD, LLM

Some people contend that our Constitution was illegally adopted as the result of a “runaway convention.” They make two claims:
1. The convention delegates were instructed to merely amend the Articles of Confederation, but
they wrote a whole new document.
2. The ratification process was improperly changed from 13 state legislatures to 9 state ratification conventions.

The Delegates Obeyed Their Instructions from the States The claim that the delegates disobeyed their instructions is based on the idea that Congress called the Constitutional Convention. Proponents of this
view assert that Congress limited the delegates to amending the Articles of Confederation.

A review of legislative history clearly reveals the error of this claim. The Annapolis Convention, not Congress, provided the political impetus for calling the Constitutional Convention. The delegates from the 5 states participating at Annapolis concluded that a broader convention was needed to address the nation’s concerns. They named the time and date (Philadelphia; Second Monday in May). The Annapolis delegates said they were going to work to “procure the concurrence of the other States in the appointment of Commissioners.” The goal of the upcoming convention was “to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate for the exigencies of the Union.”

What role was Congress to play in calling the Convention? None. The Annapolis delegates sent copies of their resolution to Congress solely “from motives of respect.”

What authority did the Articles of Confederation give to Congress to call such a Convention? None. The power of Congress under the Articles was strictly limited, and there was no theory of implied powers. The states possessed residual sovereignty which included the power to call this convention.

Seven state legislatures agreed to send delegates to the Constitutional Convention prior to the time that Congress acted to endorse it. The states told their delegates that the purpose of the Convention was the one stated in the Annapolis Convention resolution: “to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate for the exigencies of the Union.”

Congress voted to endorse this Convention on February 21, 1787. It did not purport to “call” the Convention or give instructions to the delegates. It merely proclaimed that “in the opinion of Congress, it is expedient” for the Convention to be held in Philadelphia on the date informally set by the Annapolis Convention and formally approved by 7 state legislatures.

Ultimately, 12 states appointed delegates. Ten of these states followed the phrasing of the Annapolis Convention with only minor variations in wording (“render the Federal Constitution adequate”). Two states, New York and Massachusetts, followed the formula stated by Congress (“solely amend the Articles” as well as “render the Federal Constitution adequate”).

Every student of history should know that the instructions for delegates came from the states. In Federalist 40, James Madison answered the question of “who gave the binding instructions to the delegates.” He said: “The powers of the convention ought, in strictness, to be determined by an inspection of the commissions given to the members by their respective constituents [i.e. the states].”

He then spends the balance of Federalist 40 proving that the delegates from all 12 states properly followed the directions they were given by each of their states. According to Madison, the February 21st resolution from Congress was merely “a recommendatory act.”

The States, not Congress, called the Constitutional Convention. They told their delegates to render the Federal Constitution adequate for the exigencies of the Union. And that is exactly what they did.

The Articles of Confederation required any amendments to be approved by Congress and ratified by all 13 state legislatures. Moreover, the Annapolis Convention and a clear majority of the states insisted that any amendments coming from the Constitutional Convention would have to be approved in this same manner—by Congress and all 13 state legislatures.

The reason for this rule can be found in the principles of international law. At the time, the states were sovereigns. The Articles of Confederation were, in essence, a treaty between 13 sovereign nations.

Normally, the only way changes in a treaty can be ratified is by the approval of all parties to the treaty. However, a treaty can provide for something less than unanimous approval if all the parties agree to a new approval process before it goes into effect. This is exactly what the Founders did.

When the Convention sent its draft of the Constitution to Congress, it also recommended a new ratification process. Congress approved both the Constitution itself and the new process.

Along with changing the number of required states from 13 to 9, the new ratification process required that state conventions ratify the Constitution rather than state legislatures. This was done in accord with the preamble of the Constitution—the Supreme Law of the Land would be ratified in the name of “We the People” rather than “We the States.”

But before this change in ratification could be valid, all 13 state legislatures would also have to consent to the new method. All 13 state legislatures did just this by calling conventions of the people to vote on the merits of the Constitution.

Twelve states held popular elections to vote for delegates. Rhode Island made every voter a delegate and held a series of town meetings to vote on the Constitution. Thus, every state legislature consented to the new ratification process thereby validating the Constitution’s requirements for ratification.

Those who claim to be constitutionalists while contending that the Constitution was illegally adopted are undermining themselves. It is like saying George Washington was a great American hero, but he was also a British spy.

I stand with the integrity of our Founders who properly drafted and properly ratified the Constitution.


__________________

.
"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
  #22  
Old 22 February 2018, 16:57
bobmueller bobmueller is offline
Did...did I do that?
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Green Country, Oklahoma
Posts: 1,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by B 2/75 View Post
Please, take a few minutes to refresh your understanding of how a Convention of States (not a ConCon) works.
I said from the get-go that it was pure speculation. But my point here and in my earlier post still stands. There's no way of understanding how an Article V Convention works, because we've never had one. As far as I know, there's nothing in USC or the Constitution about how it would run.

I don't see a legal way to restrict a convention to a single topic.

And given the current nature of politics in our country, I'm not hopeful for the outcome of a convention.
__________________
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
  #23  
Old 22 February 2018, 17:14
B 2/75's Avatar
B 2/75 B 2/75 is offline
Old Scroll
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Black Mountains
Posts: 10,796
As you please.
__________________

.
"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
  #24  
Old 22 February 2018, 17:27
gavin's Avatar
gavin gavin is offline
Unemployed Stunt Double
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: On a plane...
Posts: 7,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobmueller View Post
I don't see a legal way to restrict a convention to a single topic.
I don't see that as a problem, as the worst that could happen if too many topics clouded the issue at a convention is nothing, i.e. inaction, gridlock, etc.

I support the idea of a Convention of the States. It's a long-shot, but, why not? If 34 states call for one, well, one step at a time.
__________________
Lifeís barely long enough to get good at one thing. So be careful what you get good at.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 22 February 2018, 17:36
B 2/75's Avatar
B 2/75 B 2/75 is offline
Old Scroll
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Black Mountains
Posts: 10,796
Glad you can see it. I agree it will be a long shot, but it's the only long shot that's formally institutionalized in the system we've been handed.

IMO this CoS effort will get a LOT of attention by the end of the several states' legislative sessions, when more have signed on. When the number gets up to 30 states on-board, it will dominate the news cycle.

At 34 states the Convention of States is called, and the three agenda items are on the table; all 50 states (even if they haven't 'signed on') then consider how to cast their one vote for or against the three proposed amendments. If 38 yeas are cast, they are codified into the US Constitution as amendments #28, 29, and 30.
__________________

.
"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
  #26  
Old 22 February 2018, 17:47
ET1/ss nuke's Avatar
ET1/ss nuke ET1/ss nuke is online now
If you don't smell ozone, the radiation won't kill you before next week.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: sc
Posts: 5,920
reluctantly willing, with reservations

The number of states who normally vote conservatively widely outnumbers the amount of states who normally vote liberally. The popular vote and electoral vote allow liberal cities to be very influential nationwide, but a system in which each state counts no more and no less than any other state will inevitably grant an advantage to the conservatives who generally populate a greater number of states with less population density than the smaller number of states heavily populated by liberals. Any new constitution approved by that system would be a nightmare for liberal politicians, Democrat voters, and probably for urbanites in general, so we should reasonably expect that all forms of media dominated by leftists and/or people who live in cities will be profoundly opposed to the whole scheme and will produce any necessary propaganda to slander or undermine the movement.

Personally, I think it's worth trying, but I have seen conservative citizens get completely backstabbed and played for patsies by Republicans so often that I am reluctant to trust them to rewrite the Constitution. Even if the bird in my hand is a dead parrot pining for the fjords, I'm not sure I want to trade it for the two unknown birds in the bush called a Convention of States. Besides, I once took an oath to uphold the Constitution and defend it against all enemies, and I'm not sure how that squares with well-intentioned people who want to replace that Constitution with a better (?) one.
__________________
"I don't know whether the world is run by smart men who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Twain

"I agree that his intentions are suspect, and that he likely needs to die...." - SOTB

"Just a lone patriot acting alone at a fulcrum point, ideally in a deniable fashion. A perpetrator of accidents." - Magician
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 22 February 2018, 17:53
jangalang jangalang is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NC/Overseas
Posts: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharky View Post
Mark Levin thinks it's a good idea. He's a pretty sharp guy that I tend to agree with on most things.
Shapiro as well. Its a good cause to get behind. We need to get it passed in NC.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 22 February 2018, 17:58
B 2/75's Avatar
B 2/75 B 2/75 is offline
Old Scroll
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Black Mountains
Posts: 10,796
ET1/ss nuke, please keep in mind that this process will absolutely NOT result in a new constitution. Can't happen. It can ONLY table proposed amendments in accordance with what the states voted for.

In this CoS effort, which makes it different from all preceding efforts, is that each state's legislature (12 have passed it so far) votes on a specific set of three proposed amendment topics: 1) Term Limits, 2) Fiscal Responsibility, and 3) Limiting government overreach.

If your state votes YES on joining the Convention, they have created what amounts to a charter for their delegates. Those delegates are constrained to acting within those bounds, in some cases by statute.
Nothing else can be considered by the delegates. If 34 states have signed on, and the Convention is seated, the delegates will NOT be able to put a proposal on the table that forbids the immigration of Klingons, as that is outside the scope of their charter.

Jangalang, NC has passed it in the Senate during the 2017 session. The House failed to pass it by four votes, but it did pass a resolution of continuation, so they will be voting on it in the next couple of months when the 2018 session starts back up. I've my work cut out for me, as I'm the District Captain for a part of the state where the House Representative voted NO last year. I'm running an operation to attempt to get him to change his vote to a YES.
__________________

.
"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

Last edited by B 2/75; 22 February 2018 at 18:04.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 22 February 2018, 18:08
EightyDeuce EightyDeuce is offline
Puttin' on the foil
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: East Coast
Posts: 965
signed
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 22 February 2018, 18:35
Dangerous's Avatar
Dangerous Dangerous is online now
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,260
I can't help you here. The state I'm from, Texas, and the state I reside, Florida, have already passed the resolution.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 22 February 2018, 18:42
B 2/75's Avatar
B 2/75 B 2/75 is offline
Old Scroll
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Black Mountains
Posts: 10,796
In reality, signing the Petition is a very good thing to do, regardless. It will let your legislature know that you're a constituent who supports the process, and lets them know that you don't want them to weasel out of their support.

BTW, the CoS website's petition already knows if your state has signed or not, and will automatically send either a petition or a letter of thanks and support, as appropriate, to your state's legislator... so by all means, please feel free
__________________

.
"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
  #32  
Old 22 February 2018, 19:04
Fubar's Avatar
Fubar Fubar is online now
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South Fork Ranch
Posts: 3,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavin View Post
If you believe that a Art V Convention of the States is the only remaining hope for this country, what are you going to do if the 34-state threshold doesn't get met? All hope is lost? Move to France? Get a cabin off-the-grid in Lincoln, MT, and start mailing packages?

And I'm the Debbie Downer? Because I don't put all my hope and dreams in this little basket that a Beltway Bandit like Jim Demint is stumping for?
Who says I'm pinning all of my hope on a CoS? I'm not, but if it fits your narrative, go for it. My sole narrative was to give you shit for pooh poohing the idea as not all that serious. I see in subsequent posts you've come around to the idea.
__________________
"The nice thing about Twitter, in the old days when I got attacked it would take me years to get even with somebody, now when Iím attacked I can do it instantaneously, and it has a lot of power. You see some genius statements on Twitter. You see some statements coming out which are Ernest Hemingway times two." - The Trumpmeister
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 22 February 2018, 19:09
Chimo's Avatar
Chimo Chimo is offline
FIDO
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: State of Confusion
Posts: 3,184
Ok right now there are three proposed amendment topics. Question then nothing is offlimits and can be added correct? If that is the case what's is to stop them from adding a change to the second amendment? Just looking at it from the left side, knowing it is something they would like to abolish or handicap.
__________________
Quote:
I'd shoot a chipmunk if it kicked my door in wearing a ski mask.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 22 February 2018, 19:19
Xenonburnout's Avatar
Xenonburnout Xenonburnout is offline
Isiah 53
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: PNW
Posts: 1,027
Signed
__________________
"There are thousands hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."-Henry David Thoreau

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

ďA little science estranges one from God. A lot of science brings one back.Ē -Francis Bacon
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 22 February 2018, 19:20
B 2/75's Avatar
B 2/75 B 2/75 is offline
Old Scroll
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Black Mountains
Posts: 10,796
Chimo, Incorrect, Sir. Nothing can be considered other than those three topics, so the second question is moot.

Everything is off-limits EXCEPT for those three topics.

That's what this is all about... getting to create three new amendments to the Constitution that Congress will never consider doing, as it goes against their self-serving ways.

The states that signed up for the CoS all voted on identical verbiage... each state the exact same, so they'll be coming to the table with the exact same state charters for their delegates... each with only three items to be considered and hopefully passed.
__________________

.
"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
  #36  
Old 22 February 2018, 19:22
Chimo's Avatar
Chimo Chimo is offline
FIDO
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: State of Confusion
Posts: 3,184
Ok, that was my major concern. Otherwise it sounds like a great idea.

Signed
__________________
Quote:
I'd shoot a chipmunk if it kicked my door in wearing a ski mask.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 22 February 2018, 21:05
cedsall's Avatar
cedsall cedsall is offline
giving you a number
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 445
Signed it.

Washington is a bunch of self serving assholes. They really need a reminder of who's in charge.

Least that can happen is that we'll all learn something important about how the US is governed. Best that can happen is it might actually work.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 22 February 2018, 21:08
hawkdrver's Avatar
hawkdrver hawkdrver is offline
Red Headed Stepchild
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North
Posts: 2,284
signed
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 22 February 2018, 21:14
gavin's Avatar
gavin gavin is offline
Unemployed Stunt Double
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: On a plane...
Posts: 7,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fubar View Post
Who says I'm pinning all of my hope on a CoS? I'm not, but if it fits your narrative, go for it. My sole narrative was to give you shit for pooh poohing the idea as not all that serious. I see in subsequent posts you've come around to the idea.
I didn't come around to the idea. I've always supported the idea. I just am not going "Chicken Little" about it, which is the direction B2/75 was headed (he'll deny it , but he did deem this our last best hope to save something, which it ain't). So, while I applaud the idea, it's not that serious. This had been tried many times before, and never reached the threshold. Sure, this time could be different, but I'm never one to go with "hope" as a COA.
__________________
Lifeís barely long enough to get good at one thing. So be careful what you get good at.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 22 February 2018, 23:36
BigNickT BigNickT is offline
BTDT
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,786
I don't doubt that on paper the CoS outline sounds very good. I'd love to see it happen. However two things stand out to me as being problematic.

"The role of Congress is administrative and they will have no other input". I'm afraid this is fantasy. We're talking about a group pf people who fairly regularly use "clauses" in the Constitution to invalidate that very document. They will not allow anything this important to go forward without exerting massive influence. The CoS assumes a somewhat adversarial relationship between the state legislatures and the Congress. This doesn't exist. Most state legislators dream of being in the Big Show and perceive those in Congress the same way a farm team player perceives a MLB pro. If David Ortiz shows up at a practice for the Toledo Mudhens and starts dispensing advice everybody is going to listen. Democrat states are going to send democrat delegates who are going to be influenced by democrats in Congress. Same for republicans. The term limit subject alone is ending the gravy train for the bulk of our professional "public servants". They will not let that happen without a fight.

"Each state gets one vote but can send as many delegates as they want". So California signs up and sends 20,000 LGBTQ "delegates". They all get to be in the room correct? So we have what amounts to a drag queen filibuster for a couple weeks, nothing gets done, and eventually it gets shut down.

Again, I truly would like to see a CoS, but I doubt its effectiveness. Additionally. if it does happen and turns into a clusterfuck it may spark the type of revolution we actually need.
__________________
Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining

Pleasing everybody? Impossible. Pissing everybody off? Piece of cake.
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 12:35.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Socnet.com All Rights Reserved
© SOCNET 1996-2018