Random Political/Social Posting

[pipedreams]

9 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

Article V

Article V Annotated

 

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
 

I don’t see that anywhere

 

.

Madison and Hamilton re-wrote Article Five to add the second option for proposing an amendment, and the rest of the Founders agreed. Adding the second option helped make sure the states had power too - the power to propose amendments if enough of their legislatures agreed. Step 2: Ratifying the amendment

https://www.commoncause.org/resource/u-s-constitution-threatened-as-article-v-convention-movement-nears-success/

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

The other, untested way laid out in Article V is for two-thirds of state legislatures to call for a constitutional convention, also known as an “Article V convention,” to add amendments to the Constitution once they are ratified by three-fourths of the states. Throughout the 230-year history of the U.S. Constitution, an Article V convention has never been called by Congress.

 

[railfancwb]

Just now, pipedreams said:

Madison and Hamilton re-wrote Article Five to add the second option for proposing an amendment, and the rest of the Founders agreed. Adding the second option helped make sure the states had power too - the power to propose amendments if enough of their legislatures agreed. Step 2: Ratifying the amendment

https://www.commoncause.org/resource/u-s-constitution-threatened-as-article-v-convention-movement-nears-success/

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

The other, untested way laid out in Article V is for two-thirds of state legislatures to call for a constitutional convention, also known as an “Article V convention,” to add amendments to the Constitution once they are ratified by three-fourths of the states. Throughout the 230-year history of the U.S. Constitution, an Article V convention has never been called by Congress.

 

Some have suggested an Article V Convention would put the entire Constitution - existing amendments and all - on the table for revision or total replacement. Suspect all the contending parties fear they would have more to lose than gain in such an event. 

[pipedreams]

[Dric902]

6 minutes ago, pipedreams said:

Madison and Hamilton re-wrote Article Five to add the second option for proposing an amendment, and the rest of the Founders agreed. Adding the second option helped make sure the states had power too - the power to propose amendments if enough of their legislatures agreed. Step 2: Ratifying the amendment

https://www.commoncause.org/resource/u-s-constitution-threatened-as-article-v-convention-movement-nears-success/

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

The other, untested way laid out in Article V is for two-thirds of state legislatures to call for a constitutional convention, also known as an “Article V convention,” to add amendments to the Constitution once they are ratified by three-fourths of the states. Throughout the 230-year history of the U.S. Constitution, an Article V convention has never been called by Congress.

 

That is a direct quote from the Constitution as it is.

a Constitutional Convention isn’t “overriding Congress”

as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress

.

 

A constitutional convention isn’t 

[pipedreams]

5 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

That is a direct quote from the Constitution as it is.

a Constitutional Convention isn’t “overriding Congress”

as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress

.A constitutional convention isn’t 

The meme simply say there are two options to proposing a change, one by the congress and the other by two thirds of the states.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes

End of subject before I call you some names others have.

[Dric902]

First. You have to apply to Congress to open an Article 5 Convention. And as Congress does, they don’t count the votes

A frequent question is whether applications from the states can omit to mention subject matter, and instead request an unlimited convention. Past practice suggests that separate unlimited applications submitted to Congress at different times are not allowed.^[23]Article V itself calls for "the application of the legislatures" instead of calling for plural "applications".

States have requested that Congress convene an Article V convention to propose amendments on a variety of subjects. According to the National Archives, Congress has, however, never officially tabulated the applications, nor separated them by subject matter.^[24]

 

^{Next, it’s has to get through the SCOTUS}

There has been no definitive determination by the Supreme Court regarding the state convention amendment method, though it has handled several cases and an array of arguments on the scope which Amendments can ultimately affect.

 

 

By citing the Constitution's Necessary and Proper Clause, Congress has tried to enact a statute to regulate how an Article V convention would function. Sponsored by the late Senator Sam Ervin, such a bill passed the U.S. Senate unanimously in 1971 and again in 1973,^[32] but the proposed legislation remained bottled up in the Committee on the Judiciary in the U.S. House of Representatives and died both times. Senator Orrin Hatch made a similar proposal several times in the late 1980s culminating in 1991 with no more success. Opponents to congressional regulation of an Article V convention's operations argue that neither Article I nor Article V of the Constitution grants Congress this power, and that the Founders intended that Congress "have no option." There has been no opportunity for federal courts to decide whether Congress has such authority because such legislation has never been adopted by Congress.

If states have the power to limit an Article V convention to a particular subject matter, and Congress only has power to call a convention but no further power to control or regulate it, then a potential concern becomes whether an Article V convention could become a "runaway convention" that attempts to exceed its scope. If a convention did attempt to exceed its scope, none of the amendments it proposed would become part of the constitution until three-fourths of the states ratified them, which is more states than are required to call a convention in the first place.^[35] 
 

The legislatures of some states have adopted rescissions of their prior applications. It is not clear from the language of Article V whether a subsequent vote to rescind an application is permissible. As discussed above, however, if the purpose of Article V is to give state legislatures power over a recalcitrant Congress—and if state lawmakers may indeed limit their applications by specific subject matter—it is possible that federal courts would hold that rescissions of previous applications are likewise valid, in order to give more meaningful effect to the power which Article V confers upon state legislators.^[40]

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 33rd and Michigan's 2014 application would be the 34th (out of the necessary 34) on that topic, rather than the 20th and 22nd, respectively.^[41] The balanced budget amendment applications by Ohio and Michigan were new, first-time convention applications, whereas the renewed applications from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Tennessee, South Dakota, and Utah simply reprised applications made by those states during the 1970s but which had been rescinded during the period between 1988 and 2010.

Every state except Hawaii has applied for an Article V Convention at one time or another. The majority of such applications were made in the 20th century. Before any official count had been taken, one private count puts the total number of applications at over 700.^[45][46] This is widely considered an overestimate. The United States House of Representatives is in the process of building its own official count which currently stands at over 120 with 35 states having current live calls that have not been rescinded. This is an underestimate as it so far does not include anything before the 1960s and there are many known Convention calls subsequent to 1960 which are not yet included in the House's 1960 to 2019 tally. Both Wolf-PAC and the Convention of the States estimate, based on spot checking, that the real figure is in the range of 400 calls.
 

Stop listening to the Crib Notes version of the Constitution from a commentator that makes a living from your outrage

 

.

 

Edited February 23, 2021 by Dric902

[pipedreams]

[pipedreams]

[pipedreams]

[pipedreams]

[pipedreams]

[pipedreams]

[pipedreams]

[pipedreams]

[Swampfox762]

 The man is a Friggin babbling IDIOT!!!  God almighty!!! When's the Ho gonna take over???

Did he really use the N Word, or his brain just won't connect with the MICROPHONE in his ear???

https://www.the-sun.com/news/2389974/joe-biden-say-n-word-munich-conference/

[pipedreams]

[pipedreams]

[pipedreams]

[ChuteTheMall]

8 hours ago, ChuteTheMall said:

 

[Dric902]

[ChuteTheMall]

1 hour ago, railfancwb said:

Some have suggested an Article V Convention would put the entire Constitution - existing amendments and all - on the table for revision or total replacement. Suspect all the contending parties fear they would have more to lose than gain in such an event. 

I think we need to recover our ability to accurately and honestly count ballots before we give the democrat-communists a chance to destroy our constitution.

[pipedreams]

[pipedreams]

[pipedreams]

[pipedreams]

Guess one will call the cops on his parents for supporting Trump?