States calling for constitutional convention to amend U.S. Constitution?
Fact or just a blog rumor?
While it is reported that 32 states have so far called for a U.S. constitutional convention I can verify only one:
and that after searching the legislative bills of 18 states. Anyone have more info or is this just BS?
Loading ...
December 14th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
I’ve been doing some research of my own and so far the top states that has everyone’s toughs wagging defeated the measure, Ill, CA are just two. I’ll keep looking but I think this is just another red herring deal.
December 15th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Thanks Robbie. I’ve read but not confirmed that this vote comes up regularly in Ohio so I’m thinking red herring also.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:12 am
check out these folks. I believe they may have information you want. http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?U=14950&RID=18861658. Also this group has been sending out information. http://www.jbs.org/index.php/component/content/article/974-usersblogs/4289
Hope this helps.
January 7th, 2009 at 7:27 am
M91Ae1wNbvpYe
January 21st, 2009 at 7:53 am
There is a movement within the FairTax community to call a Constitutional Convention for the sole purpose of repealing the 16th Amendment (which gave the federal government the authority to levy an income tax).
March 7th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Please post this link on your website. It is in regards to what the average
citizen can do in order to acheive economic freedom and give the congress a civics lesson.
http://www.americancommonsenseparty.net/ArticleV.html
Here are the links for the 34 States calling for a convention
has ignored their peremptory duty to call an Article V Convention:
CR 042 Pg 00164 Yr 1907-NJ-Direct Election of Senators
CR 043 Pg 02667 Yr 1909-SD-General Call for an Article V Convention (continued: Pg 02688)
CR 045 Pg 07117 Yr 1910-NJ-Direct Election of Senators
CR 045 Pg 07119 Yr 1910-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention (continued: Pg 07120)
CR 045 Pg 07119 Yr 1910-UT-Direct Election of Senators
CR 071 Pg 03369 Yr 1929-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention
CR 071 Pg 03856 Yr 1929-WI-General Call for an Article V Convention
CR 127 Pg 21538 Yr 1981-Summary of Applications (34 Balanced Budget Amendments from 1975-to-1980
May 29th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Sorry here is the corrected link
http://www.americancommonsenseparty.net/ArticleV
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:21 pm
How do you call and start the ball rolling on getting your State to call a Constitutional Convention?
August 15th, 2009 at 10:16 am
The language of Article V is mandatory: it says that Congress “shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments” whenever requests are received from two-thirds of the states. Note that the word “amendments” is used in the plural. These are the only instructions we have about a Constitutional Convention. There are no other rules or guidelines.
Under the vague language of Article V, a Constitutional Convention cannot be limited. It would be wide open, and able to consider ANY change in the Constitution that was proposed!
Former U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger once said, “There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda.”
October 31st, 2009 at 5:57 pm
I think it is time to quit fooling around and stop playing polotics when our country is at a crossroads. I have no doubt that the men and women in Washingon, D.C. contintue to ignore our will and refuse to listen to the desires of the American people. It is time to cut loose the Constitutional Convention and put our country in the hands of the American people. I have more faith in that outcome then what we have now. It just might allow us to win our nation back and allow the people to rule in instead of the current dysfunctional nutcases that are in their own little world. Remember the first three words of the Constitution: “We The People”.
October 31st, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Calling for a Con-Con would be opening up a pandora’s box. It would be unleashing some very dangerous reins. When Congress got done with our Constitution it would probably look more like…..well, the Health Bill.
Probably doesn’t make any different anyway because when Obama gets done with all the treaty signing and everything is okayed by Congress and the UN, they will have destroyed our sovereignty anyway.
Kiss it bye-bye because they’ve been ready for an American revolution for quite some time so there’s really no way out legally or “revolutionarily”. They already ignore our rights and if we object they ignore We The People. If we somehow tried to replace the dictators, we would all be incarcerated in one of the FEMA camps.
So put your Bible away, go out and get the Koran (or whatever it is), study it and Sharia Law because that’s all we will have and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it. I’ve never seen such a package of psychopaths all in one place, all with the same agenda, as this administration. I’m completely baffled by so many liberals wanting to destroy our Republic……and I still can’t believe it.
Sigh…………..
October 31st, 2009 at 8:34 pm
I totally agree, Michael. This country is being run by aristocracy similar to that of the England we fought to be free of. It’s time to return the government to the people!
I have to say, though, a national convention could indeed be a Pandora’s box that is best left closed. If there is anything we’ve learned since the last election it’s that the people have many different ideas about what we should change.
November 10th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
It took me some time to get a handle on this, and please correct me if I happen to be wrong. Article V convention or amendatory convention would be for the purpose of proposing amendments to the US Constitution, and would be limited as to the length of time for which the convention would run. As such, the Pandora’s box theory , although possible, would be limited by time. Furthermore, it would still require ratification of each individual amendment either by approval or 3/4 of the 50 states (38 if you round up) or 3/4 of the states by state convention. Either way, you are correct it could gut the current constitution, but at the same time it could, as the framers intended, allow for a corrective adjustment (if one sees it that way) to our current constitution either with new amendments or by nullification of existing ones. bye the bye, in this layman’s understanding, a Article V convention is not the same as a true constitutional convention, which would be called for the purpose of creating a new constitution (i.e. discarding the current constitution), not amending the current constitution. Just my thoughts…
November 10th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
If the 3/4th’s of the states agree to a Con-Con, it would most definitely turn out disastrous, what with the lawmakers we have right now; although, it probably couldn’t get any worse than now anyway, since none of them abide by the Constitution anyway.
Article V convention though: my question would be: what would the states want to add/ratify? What difference does it make (sarcasm) since they’re already using loopholes to work around the wording when they legislate anyway? What actually would benefit We The People in either a Con-Con or Article V at this point?