Michigan May Have Inadvertently Triggered a National Constitutional Convention

[XLFD]

With today's political climate and the fact that the current politicians aren't following the old Constitution anyway, I find this possibility more frightening, other than more enlightening.  But what do you think?

 

WASHINGTON –  Momentum is building behind what would be an unprecedented effort to amend the U.S. Constitution, through a little-known provision that gives states rather than Congress the power to initiate changes. 

At issue is what's known as a "constitutional convention," a scenario tucked into Article V of the U.S. Constitution. At its core, Article V provides two ways for amendments to be proposed. The first – which has been used for all 27 amendment to date – requires two-thirds of both the House and Senate to approve a resolution, before sending it to the states for ratification. The Founding Fathers, though, devised an alternative way which says if two-thirds of state legislatures demand a meeting, Congress “shall call a convention for proposing amendments.”

The idea has gained popularity among constitutional scholars in recent years -- but got a big boost last week when Michigan lawmakers endorsed it.  Michigan matters, because by some counts it was the 34th state to do so. That makes two-thirds. 

 

In the wake of the vote, California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter pressed House Speaker John Boehner on Tuesday to determine whether the states just crossed the threshold for this kind of convention. Like Michigan lawmakers, Hunter's interest in the matter stems from a desire to push a balanced-budget amendment -- something that could potentially be done at a constitutional convention. 

“Based on several reports and opinions, Michigan might be the 34^th state to issue such a call and therefore presents the constitutionally-required number of states to begin the process of achieving a balanced budget amendment,” Hunter wrote.

“With the recent decision by Michigan lawmakers, it is important that the House – and those of us who support a balanced budget amendment -- determine whether the necessary number of states have acted and the appropriate role of Congress should this be the case."

If two-thirds of the states indeed have applied, the ball is presumably in Congress' court to call the convention.  But Article V is rather vague, and it's ultimately unclear whether 34 states have technically applied. In the past, states like Oregon, Utah and Arizona have quietly voted to approve the provision in their legislature. 

 

 

 

But some of the 34 or so have rescinded their requests. Others have rescinded, and then re-applied.  Alabama rescinded its request in 1988 but in 2011, lawmakers again applied for a convention related to an amendment requiring that the federal budget be balanced. It was a similar story in Florida in 2010.

 

Louisiana rescinded in 1990 but lawmakers have tried several times, unsuccessfully, to reinstate the application since then.  It's unclear whether the applications still count in these scenarios.

 

Some constitutional scholars like Gregory Watson, an analyst in Texas, say once states ask, there may be no take-backs.

 

“There is a disagreement among scholars as to whether a state that has approved an application may later rescind that application,” Watson told The Washington Times. “If it is ultimately adjudicated that a state may not rescind a prior application, then Ohio’s 2013 application for a Balanced Budget Amendment convention would be the 33^rd and Michigan’s 2014 application would be the 34^th on that topic.” 

Others say if a state changes its mind, it can no longer be part of the 34.

Even if the requisite number of states have applied, questions remain about how such a convention would work -- and whether, as Michigan wants, such a convention could be limited to only discussing a balanced-budget amendment. 

It still may be a long shot, but some analysts are warning about the unintended consequences of such a move. 

In Louisiana, Budget Project Policy Analyst Steve Spire argued against the state's resolution, saying the convention could permanently damage the nation’s political system.

The last time there was a successful amendment was more than four decades ago – the 26^th Amendment which changed the voting age to 18. States ratified the 27^th Amendment on congressional pay increases, but it took more than 200 years to do it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/02/rare-option-forcing-cong...

[Willy]

Elected officials just keep on being stupid. They have no idea what will come out of a Constitutional Convention. We could loose all of our freedoms.

[XLFD]

Ludington police officers and the associated vigilante forces, john streeter.

Nice find on the Schlafly video, I think she has it right.

[Lori B]

A common misconception is that Article V gives states the power to re-write the Constitution.  Which it doesn't.  It gives states the power to convene for the purposes of amending the constitution.  A Constitutional Convention, of which there has been only one, is not the same as an Article V amendatory convention.  

Because this issue is so poorly understood by many, we've gone ahead and put together a FAQ about Article V.  I would encourage everyone to take the time to go through the questions and the court cases to gain a comprehensive understanding of the issues and the differences between a Constitutional Convention and an Article V Convention: http://www.wisconsingrandsonsofliberty.com/uploads/Article_V_Conven...

[XLFD]

Thanks, Lori B.  That is an interesting read on some aspects of Article V that aren't common knowledge.  In these times could we expect a group of 50 diverse state legislators reigning in the power of the federal government with one of these conventions?

[Lori B]

I think we lose more by not trying. Also, delegate selection and number is left to the states...each can send as many as they like, but each attending state gets only one vote at the Convention.  Any amendments they create must then be ratified by the states.  There was already one rules making gathering of about 100 legislators at Mount Vernon.  There will be another in June in Indiana at the State House. I expect there will be close to 40 states represented with over 100 delegates. 

[Willy]

Lori

Thanks for the information regarding the difference between a the two types of conventions. Where in the Constitution does it address convening a "Constitutional Convention"?

[Lori B]

A Constitutional Convention works outside of the Constitution.  There is nothing in the Constitution that says that the states or Congress can re-write it in it's entirety.  

We've only had one Constitutional Convention, in Philadelphia.  Any amendments made to the Constitution since then, were the result of Article V.  

[Willy]

I have a theoretical question. Since the only way, as per the Constitution, to alter the Constitution is with amendments,  could an amendment be approved that nullifies the Constitution? For instance, could an amendment be approved that states the Constitutions is no longer a document that protects the freedoms stated therein. Now I know that is unlikely but the fact that everyone's personal phone calls, emails and internet use are now monitored and saved, it would seem to me that huge chunks of law makers lives would be open to blackmail by unscrupulous Government agencies. this is something I consider extremely feasible. I think this is being done as we speak and a blatant example would appear to be Justice Roberts.It's widely known that Roberts changed his vote at the last minute. 

[Willy]

I was speaking of Justice Roberts vote regarding The Affordable Health Care Act. Below is just one such conspiracy theory explaining the reason for his shocking vote. I think my theory is more plausible.

http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/05/16722-was-chief-justice-rober...

[Lori B]

After an amendment has been proposed, it has to go to the states where it needs to be ratified by 38 of them.  It is unlikely that 1. States will allow their delegates to create such an amendment without recalling them (which states can do), 2. That the amendment would be passed by 34 of the states attending the convention, and 3. That the amendment would be ratified by 38 states.  Additionally, delegates to the Convention may not necessarily be lawmakers on the state level.  Each state creates it's own bill to determine delegates-who they are, how many, and what their role is.  

[wildfire]

SO THEY want a vote that the state can't spend more then their budget, on that  balanced budget amendent deal?

[Lori B]

Not on the state level, on the federal level.  Most states already have a balanced budget amendment in their own state Constitutions, but there is nothing equivalent on the federal level. 

By using Article V, which works within the Constitution, the states can convene to propose a balanced budget amendment that would rein in Congress and the out of control spending that currently, exceeds revenues by trillions.