Amendments remove improperly written laws and re-direct the Constitution. Amendments eliminate personal Rights or add new Rights.
A lawsuit was filed in March 2001. Supreme Court denied suite on Oct 30, 2006. I was led to the documents posted in foavc.org. They do not transfer well.
Three new Justices sit on the Supreme Court today. Read Article V, it states clearly that two-thirds of State Legislatures have the authority to call for a Constitution Amendment Convention. The States are not required by Article V, to request permission or include Congress in the convention.
In fact, the purpose of granting State Legislatures independence from Congress, was so States could regain control of the Constitution when Congress becomes self-serving.
The physical location of the Constitution Convention is not stated in Article V. Governors and /or joint house leaders may organize a Tele-Convention or Net-Convention to write suggested provisions and submit ideas to respective legislatures that would add or subtract desires. It is a time consuming process to prevent mistakes. As-soon-as more than two-thirds of States propose the final Amendment(s), the Constitution allows seven years for three-fourths of State Legislatures to ratify the Amendment(s).
The President, Congress nor Court have input or control of the State initiated Amendment process.
Citizens not willing to stand-up to wrongful acts by politicians and courts, deserve to live under the result.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
i want to see our country join together at its first Article V Convention. i have no doubt that the thousands upon thaousands of sterling individuals across this great land--those who would never think of laying down in the slime partisan politics as it exists today--would make their way to that civic ceremony with legal teeth, and for the good of the majority. thank you for posting this.
ReplyDeleteLearn all the facts about the Article V convention option and why Congress refuses to obey the Constitution at foavc.org, where you can also actually see some 750 applications for a convention from all 50 states; then become a member of the nonpartisan group.
ReplyDeleteWhile I applaud "Concerned Citizen" for his support of an Article V Convention, he has made several factual errors in his above blog I feel duty bound to correct. As to the lawsuits, there were actually two lawsuits, one in 2000 and another in 2004. The last went to the Supreme Court which denied cert on Oct 30, 2006. I know this to be fact because I'm the one that filed the lawsuits.
ReplyDeleteThe author is correct that amendments redirect the Constitution. However I would argue amendments cannot "eliminate" personal rights as these rights are inalienable.
The author is incorrect as to the power of the states. The states, under Article V, submit applications for an Article V Convention call by Congress. There is a difference between a "constitutional convention" which is empowered to write a new Constitution and a "convention to propose amendments" or Article V Convention allowed for in Article V. The former is not permitted by the Constitution; the latter, an Article V Convention, can only propose amendments to our present Constitution. The author should use the correct term therefore as this distinguishes which type of convention he is referring to.
It is true Congress is mandated to call a convention and it is true Congress is not to be a part of, regulate or otherwise control that convention once it has issued the call. By the terms of Article V, Congress is limited to issuing a convention call and determining by what means, legislature or state ratifying conventions, any proposed amendments submitted by the AVC are to be ratified. It has no other duties in the matter other than these.
The purpose of the dual proposing system is in fact to allow for a means of check and balance in the system so as to keep both the national government and states in check. It hasn't worked because, as pointed out in the lawsuits, Congress has criminally violated their oaths of office and refused to obey the Constitution. By the way, the lawsuit, along with all 750 applications from all 50 states can be read at www.foavc.org.
The author is incorrect that "governors and/or joint house leaders... may write suggested provisions." Only elected delegates to an Article V Convention can write proposed amendments. The convention may, as the author indicated, be held electronically but while elected state officials may present material to the convention for consideration by the convention, only the convention gets to decide what an amendment will say. By the way, the same right of presentation extends to all citizens, not just elected state officials.
The author is incorrect in that the two thirds of the states propose an amendment. What he meant to say I'm sure is, "as soon as two-thirds of the states in a conveniton propose amendment it goes to ratification as specified in Article V." The Constitution does not set a seven year deadline for ratification as proven by the 27th Amendment which took 192 years to ratify. However such a limit has and can be inserted in a proposed amendment if the body proposing it (Congress or an AVC) desires such a limit.
It does require 3/4ths of the states to ratify any proposed amendment before it becomes part of the Constitution. If they do not, the proposal dies.
The president, congress and the courts do not have control of the AVC in so far as its power to propose amendments. However, if such a convention were to become, as some have suggested, a "runaway" convention where the convention did anything other than propose amendments to our present Constitution, such as attempt to write a new Constitution, assume legislative powers, assume control of the army and so on, already existing federal criminal laws could and would be employed by the government to speedily prevent and arrest those in the convention attempting such actions. AN AVC is limited strictly, expressly and exactly to proposing amendments to our current Constitution and no more.