Article V of the US Constitution

I suspect that if the alterations were sufficiently massive, there would be sufficient votes for those who disagreed to require a ratification clause such as the original Constitution had. For example, most of the Northeast and West Coast might not have any problem agreeing to limitations on the Second Amendment, while the South, Midwest and Plains states would. It would be dependent on how amendments propose were presented, as a package or piecemeal, one by one.

As to your claim that those that opted out of a new Constitution would all then be sovereign states, I don't think so, I thing that for them the Original Constitution as Amended would still be the law of the land for those States.

 

I am under the impression that must be about the same something; or a convention to contemplate the necessity and propriety of any new amendments.

 

These are commonly recognized, there are more.

the flagrant violation of Article 1*)(*)

•
perversion of the monetary system;


the violation of Article 1, Section 9*)

•
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. ;


the flagrant violation of Article 3, Section 1:
(*)
•
The federal Judiciary, in contradiction to Article(*)3, Section 1, ... the power to declare laws passed by the U.S. Congress to be null and void

 

Yes, the applications for a convention all have to be on the same subject. Or at least that's how Congress has chosen to interpret it, and no challenge to their interpretation has been entertained by the Court as far as I know.

 

They could adopt it word for word, but they'd be under no obligation to. If one of them decided to ignore, e.g., 17A, in what court would anyone bring suit to force compliance, and what President would have legal authority to execute the judgment?

 

In the end it would likely depend on how the ratification clause itself was framed.

 

Which is probably the best reason for an Article V that we can find because Article V does not state that as a requisite.

 

Do you know of applications for an open Constitutional Convention having been submitted by the requisite number of States out of the 400+ such appliations?

 

The Supreme Court has ruled no less than five times in its history without a single dissenting vote that Congress MUST call a convention if and when the states apply. The courts have never accepted any premise whereby Congress may refuse to obey Article V exactly as written. Indeed the court has specifically stated that the reading of Article V calls for "no resort to rules of construction, interpolation or addition". This last part I underlined because it also addresses the erroneous assumption by many that somehow the states can propose amendments or that their applications must be for the same amendment subject before Congress is obligated to call a convention.

This is incorrect. The plain language of Article V is unambiguous. To fully grasp the meaning and intent you simply transpose its phrases so that it reads in a modern sentence rather than it current phrasing. The meaning still remains and all words are used.

"[Congress] shall call a convention for proposing amendments on the application of two thirds of the several state legislatures."

This transposition makes it self evident that the action of a convention call by Congress is what the applications cause to occur. In sum, the purpose of the application, in so far as
Congress is concerned, is to determine whether or not two thirds of the states desire a convention call. Anything else contained within the application is for a CONVENTION to deal with, not Congress. Constitutionally therefore it is none of Congress' business whether 38 states want an amendment proposed or only one state wants a particular amendment proposed. The convention sorts this out and then proposes what it feels is appropriate.

Now several factors limit the convention most of which people don't even consider. First of all, as a convention is entirely issue oriented, the only questions that can be asked of candidates seeking the office of delegate to the convention (and the courts have already ruled delegates must be elected) is what is their position on a particular amendment proposal? Obviously the people will actually be voting on such a proposal by who they elect as delegate, in effect a referendum on the amendment proposal. In short, basic politics plays an important role in deciding proposed amendments.

Another hurdle most people don't consider is not only the fact that 3/4ths of the states must accept or ratify a proposed amendment but this means that a small minority of states, 13 in all can prevent any amendment from being ratified. This in turn means that one house and indeed in most state legislatures a small group within that house can stop an amendment proposal. Again basic politics comes into play.

Then you add the fact that a convention is required to propose an amendment by two thirds vote just like Congress. When you actually study the matter and read the rulings the courts have made regarding a convention, you'll come to realize the major problem a convention will face when it completes its work is not that it did too much, but that it did too little.

 

Again a correction here. Congress has not "interpreted" that applications must be on the same subject. And the matter has been brought up in court all the way to the Supreme Court. The federal government admitted that a convention call is based solely on a numeric count of applying states with no terms or conditions (which of course includes same amendment subject). You can read about the case at www.foavc.org in the FAQ section.

Besides there is another reason Congress has ignored the applications. At least three different amendment subjects, repeal of income tax, apportionment and balanced budget each received more than 34 applications from 34 states. In the case of income tax, the number is 39 states, one more than required for ratification.

So, if the policy as you state, was that Congress "interprets" Article V as same subject then how do you explain the fact that when the states do so apply, Congress doesn't call. The only answer is the obvious: it doesn't want to no matter how many applications the states submit.

 

It could be claimed, that our federal Congress doesn't need an amendment to establish an income tax, and therefore, no convention to repeal the power to tax income is necessary or proper.

 

Please cite these cases. I would like to read them for myself.

 

Boy you like to make a lot of claims don't you. Too bad you don't back them up with facts or actually check things out before making them. The Supreme Court ruled in the 1800's an income tax was unconstitutional making it necessary for an amendment to be passed. And you're mixing up the Constitution. Try reading it for a change. CONGRESS is limited in its powers to necessary and proper. A Convention having only the power to propose amendments and therefore limited by the Constitution as well as state review before any action is confirmed is not limited as it is clearly and obviously intended those in review will determine whether the action sought is necessary and proper.

 

Go to the FAQ section at www.foavc.org and read the section about the courts. Indeed if you take the time to read all the material on the site and actually learn about the subject before making statements so someone like me doesn't have to make you appear to be constitutionally illiterate, you'll probably change your entire perspective regarding the Constitution. Or if you really want to know about things ask your member of Congress to tell you about Article V. When they run out of the room (and they have) then you'll understand why a convention hasn't been called.

 

I am not the one appealing to ignorance regarding our supreme law of the land:

The power to Tax incomes is clearly available after the first census or enumeration.

 

If it's erroneous, that is not indicated by any of the quotes provided here.

After I did that and made the ascertainment above, I looked up US v Sprague, which of course did nothing to make me reconsider, since it does not address the question of Congress' obligation when states apply with explicitly differing agendas; and if you think a reasonable person would rummage through any of the other cases in hopes of discovering a needle that probably isn't there to begin with, you're a pretty sorry advocate for your cause, whatever it is.

 

What do you mean 49 out of 50 have proposed ratifying the Constitution? Please explain what is meant by the bolded part. Ratifying what part of the Const? What are we talking about?

 

You folks seem to be overlooking the fact that the Constitution is outdated and irrelevant nowadays since the Patriot Act was instituted. Read both documents and if you're honest, you'll admit the same. It's null and void nowadays. Take a look sometime. It's a moot discussion.

 

Only legislative acts can be considered "nugatory and void" from inception if they are found repugnant to our supreme law of the land as Ordained and Established by our Founding Fathers.

 

Legislation based on fraud and treason does not institute anything. It provokes the people to alter or abolish abusive government.

 

I believe we should test the "patriot" Act and see what the wealthiest do; if they bail, it cannot be a real time of War sufficient to require that form of "patriotism".

 

What kind of a test would you suggest? It's treated like a law, almost have to break it to test it if you cannot file a suit in the supreme court, which tests both.

I've decided that having infiltration shills refer to my efforts to alter and abolish abusive government as something promoted by ALEC, justifies a test of ALEC. Since they are a corporation, a simple public opinion test is adequate. Having the schills refer to the constitution as something tended by a powerful political PAC inspired me to research them. Clearly they advocate an Article V convention and have massive corporate involvement. Since Article V hinges ratification on Constitutional intent,

shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution,

I created an online petition for Americans to sign that requests ALEC to provide their opinion of a proposal for Preparatory Amendment to assure the public is fully capable of reviewing amendments for their constitutionality.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/956/...icle-v-convention-with-constitutional-intent/

 

Simply burden the wealthiest with wartime tax rates, to see if they bail or not. If they bail, it must not be a real time of war sufficient for "wartime" public policy choices.

 

The short answer is yes. Of course Article V does not allow nor require that the states propose an amendment. As is clearly stated, that is the job and purpose of the convention for proposing amendments. Obviously if the states can propose amendments there is no need, purpose or reason for a convention to do so. Since the Constitution mandates the convention do this, the power is obviously removed from the states. There are records in the 1787 convention that prove this to be true. See: http://www.foavc.org/reference/file41.pdf . For the record 49 states have submitted 748 applications for a convention call well in excess of the 34 states, 34 applications required by the Constitution.

In any event, according to public record, at least three amendment issues have receive sufficient support to cause a convention call on that issue alone. They are repeal of income tax (39 states applying), apportionment (38 states applying), balanced budget amendment (36 states applying).

 

Actually there has been a court case which was taken to the Supreme Court. The court denied cert but before doing so the government as required by federal law was mandated to respond to this issue. The government admitted the convention call was based on a numeric count of applying states with no terms or conditions such as the same amendment subject and so on.