Article V A Convention of States Part 1

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheWiredJournal. Show TheWiredJournal's posts

    Article V A Convention of States Part 1

    At this point we know very little to nothing about what exactly will be discussed should an Article V be called, thus all we can do is speculate.

    What we do know is that within Article V of the Constitution the language is such that a convention of the states is not limited to any particular topic or confined to discussing any one single amendment, and the states have the option of proposing a number of amendments.

    We also know that congress is limited in its authority over a convention other than calling it once the two thirds (34) of states submit their request.

    We also know that an Article V convention of the states is a separate and distinct authorization of power given to the states by the framers in Article V to bypass the first three branches of our federal government created in the first three Articles of the constitution.

    Now that being said; What I’d like to do here on this thread is get a discussion going on the first three amendments suggested in Mark Levin’s book “The Liberty Amendments” which he offers as a means to reign in the power of our federal government which are as follows.

    An Amendment to Establish Term limits for Members of Congress

    SECTION 1:   No person may serve more than twelve years as a member Congress, whether such is exclusively in the House or the Senate or combined in both houses

    SECTION 2:   Upon ratification of the Article, any incumbent member of Congress whose term exceeds the twelve-year limit shall complete the current term, but thereafter shall be ineligible for further service as a member of Congress.

     

    AN AMENDMENT TO RESTORE THE SENATE

    SECTION 1:   The Seventeenth Amendment is hereby repealed. All Senators shall be chosen by their state legislatures as prescribed by Article 1.

    SECTION 2:   This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

    SECTION 3:   When vacancies occur in the representation of any State in the Senate for more than ninety days the governor of the State shall appoint an individual to full the vacancy for the remainder of the term.

    SECTION 4:   A Senator may be removed from office by a two-thirds vote of the state legislature

     

    An AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH TERM LIMITS FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICESS AND THE SUPER MAJORITY LEGILATIVE OVERRIDE.

     

    SECTION 1:   No person may serve as Chief Justice or Associate Justice of the Supreme Court for more than a combined total of twelve years.

    SECTION 2:   Immediately upon ratification of this Amendment, Congress will organize the justices of the Supreme Court as equally as possible into three classes, with the justices assigned to each class in reverse seniority order, with the most senior justices in the earliest classes. The terms of office for the justices in the First Class will expire at the end of the fourth Year following the ratification of this Amendment, the terms for the justices of the Second Class will expire at the end of the eighth Year, and of the Third Class at the end of the twelfth Year, so that one-third of the justices may be chosen every fourth Year.

    SECTION 3:   When a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court, the President shall nominate a new justice who, with the approval of a majority of the Senate, shall serve the remainder of the unexpired term. Justices who fill a vacancy for longer than half of an unexpired term may not be renominated to a full term.

    SECION 4:     Upon three-fifths vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate, Congress may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court.

    SECTION 5:   The Congressional override under Section 4 is not subject to a Presidential veto and shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court.

    SECTION 6:   Upon three-fifths vote of the several state legislatures, the States may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court.

    SECTION 7: The States’ override under Section 6 shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court, or oversight or interference by Congress or the President.

    SECTION 8: Congress or State override authority under Sections 4 and 6 must be exercised no later than twenty-four months from the date of the Supreme Court rendering its majority opinion, after which date Congress and the States are prohibited from exercising the override.

     

    My apologies for the glitch and incomplete sections of the third proposed amendment by Levin I have reposted sections 3 through 8 and is now showing the suggested amendment in it's entirety and is now complete.  

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Article V A Convention of States Part 1

    A. Term Limits. I'm for them. To me, Anything that would serve to mitigate the establishment of a permanent political class is a good thing.

    B. Return Senate appointments to the states. I'm for this one too. The house is and should remain popularly elected. The Senate was intended to be the voice of the States and it should be returned to that role.

    C. Court Term Limits. Not sure that I like this one. The point of having lifetime appointments was an attempt to de-politicize the court. I don't see how term limits here would help much.

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Article V A Convention of States Part 1

    Yes on Term Limits for Congress.

    Senate should remain popularly elected and those relevant election rules left to the states.  The balance for less populous states is necessary on principle alone.

    However, I don't believe the states can be entirely trusted re: the re-districting process, which should be authorized by an independent body, preferably the courts, and reviewed by the federal govt for the purpose of maintaining a negligible standard of equality and fairness.  (Same goes for elections.)

    Term Limits for Judges?  A tough one, because jurisprudence can be hard to measure, and impartiality sometimes more so.  I'm not fond of elected judges (who reviews those elections?) but also feel that lifetime appointments take much for granted.  Maybe certain levels can be perpetual and others subject to periodic ethical and performance reviews.

    It's true, though, that elections have consequences, so the elected powers should have leeway to nominate their ideal judicial compatriots.  No rubber stamping, but no untoward or specious obstruction of nominees either.  I fail to see how our system of justice can be made to wait on arbitrary opposition from lawmakers.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Article V A Convention of States Part 1

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    B. Return Senate appointments to the states. I'm for this one too. The house is and should remain popularly elected. The Senate was intended to be the voice of the States and it should be returned to that role.

     




     

    Apparently some people like the idea of resurrecting Tammany Hall politics.

    Doesnt need to be resurrected, the Democratic Party has never varied from its model:

    "Throughout the 1830s and 1840s, the Tammany society expanded its political control ...by earning the loyalty of the city's ever-expanding immigrant community, a task that was accomplished by helping newly arrived foreigners obtain jobs, a place to live, and even citizenship so that they could vote for Tammany candidates in city and state elections. By 1854, all these factors had combined to make Tammany a political force of hegemonic proportions in New York City, conferring immense power on the society's bosses and allowing them to enrich themselves and their associates through corruption and administrative abuse."

    Sound familiar? Back then legal immigrants were given jobs, today illegal immigrants are given public assistance.

    "Tammany Hall" is synonymous with today's corrupt Democratic machine.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Article V A Convention of States Part 1

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    B. Return Senate appointments to the states. I'm for this one too. The house is and should remain popularly elected. The Senate was intended to be the voice of the States and it should be returned to that role.

     




     

    Apparently some people like the idea of resurrecting Tammany Hall politics.

    [/QUOTE]

    You have no clue what you are talking about, but keep throwing out these fine examples of Democrat politicians behaving badly.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Article V A Convention of States Part 1

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    "Tammany Hall" is synonymous with today's corrupt Democratic machine.



    And the Repubs have copied them every chance they've got...with varied success.

     

    "Freedom for me, but not for thee..."

     

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheWiredJournal. Show TheWiredJournal's posts

    Re: Article V A Convention of States Part 1

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    A. Term Limits. I'm for them. To me, Anything that would serve to mitigate the establishment of a permanent political class is a good thing.

    B. Return Senate appointments to the states. I'm for this one too. The house is and should remain popularly elected. The Senate was intended to be the voice of the States and it should be returned to that role.

    C. Court Term Limits. Not sure that I like this one. The point of having lifetime appointments was an attempt to de-politicize the court. I don't see how term limits here would help much.

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.



    StalkingButler, I’m with you also on A & B,… C however I am somewhat on the fence about, but strongly leaning toward agreeing with Levin, He lays out a dam good case and presents some great evidence; he also cites a number of rulings by the supreme Court with explanations of why an amendment like this is needed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheWiredJournal. Show TheWiredJournal's posts

    Re: Article V A Convention of States Part 1

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    B. Return Senate appointments to the states. I'm for this one too. The house is and should remain popularly elected. The Senate was intended to be the voice of the States and it should be returned to that role.

     



    This will not make the senate the "voice of the states". It will make the senate the voice of whatever corporations and rich persons purchase state governments, now that money is speech.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What do you want now, Not necessarily, you are wrong there, States also have the right to amend their individual constitutions so long as they do not violate the US Constitution.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheWiredJournal. Show TheWiredJournal's posts

    Re: Article V A Convention of States Part 1

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    B. Return Senate appointments to the states. I'm for this one too. The house is and should remain popularly elected. The Senate was intended to be the voice of the States and it should be returned to that role.

     




     

    Apparently some people like the idea of resurrecting Tammany Hall politics.

    [/QUOTE]

    Concerned Citizen, Be advised, due to your personal attacks and insults on my “An inferno of freedom…” post, you are close to being placed on my troll list. Please keep your comments clean a  free from personal attacks and insults. I do however agree with the second part of skeeter20’s response to you regarding  Tammany Hall politics, you are doing a great job of exposing the history of democrat politicians behaving badly.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheWiredJournal. Show TheWiredJournal's posts

    Re: Article V A Convention of States Part 1

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    B. Return Senate appointments to the states. I'm for this one too. The house is and should remain popularly elected. The Senate was intended to be the voice of the States and it should be returned to that role.

     




     

    Apparently some people like the idea of resurrecting Tammany Hall politics.

     

     

    Doesnt need to be resurrected, the Democratic Party has never varied from its model:

    "Throughout the 1830s and 1840s, the Tammany society expanded its political control ...by earning the loyalty of the city's ever-expanding immigrant community, a task that was accomplished by helping newly arrived foreigners obtain jobs, a place to live, and even citizenship so that they could vote for Tammany candidates in city and state elections. By 1854, all these factors had combined to make Tammany a political force of hegemonic proportions in New York City, conferring immense power on the society's bosses and allowing them to enrich themselves and their associates through corruption and administrative abuse."

    Sound familiar? Back then legal immigrants were given jobs, today illegal immigrants are given public assistance.

    "Tammany Hall" is synonymous with today's corrupt Democratic machine.

    [/QUOTE]

    ComingLiberalCrackup, Excellent cite and your follow up comments were well said and spot on.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheWiredJournal. Show TheWiredJournal's posts

    Re: Article V A Convention of States Part 1

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    B. Return Senate appointments to the states. I'm for this one too. The house is and should remain popularly elected. The Senate was intended to be the voice of the States and it should be returned to that role.

     

     




     

     

    Apparently some people like the idea of resurrecting Tammany Hall politics.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You have no clue what you are talking about, but keep throwing out these fine examples of Democrat politicians behaving badly.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Skeeter, I can only laugh at this comment and no more needs be said, you pretty much summed it up here, however I must ask that you play nice and go easy on the poor lad for he after all still a concerned Citizen regardless of how misguided he may apear to be.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheWiredJournal. Show TheWiredJournal's posts

    Re: Article V A Convention of States Part 1

    I have to agree with you here also Matty Both party's are riddled with coruption

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheWiredJournal. Show TheWiredJournal's posts

    Re: Article V A Convention of States Part 1

     

     

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheWiredJournal. Show TheWiredJournal's posts

    Re: Article V A Convention of States Part 1

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to TheWiredJournal's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    B. Return Senate appointments to the states. I'm for this one too. The house is and should remain popularly elected. The Senate was intended to be the voice of the States and it should be returned to that role.

     

     

     

     



     

     

     

     

    Apparently some people like the idea of resurrecting Tammany Hall politics.

     

     

     


     

     

     

    Concerned Citizen, Be advised, due to your personal attacks and insults on my “An inferno of freedom…” post, you are close to being placed on my troll list. Please keep your comments clean a  free from personal attacks and insults. I do however agree with the second part of skeeter20’s response to you regarding  Tammany Hall politics, you are doing a great job of exposing the history of democrat politicians behaving badly.

     

     




    Ooooh, another board ref. Are you giving me a yellow card?

     

     

    Sorry that pointing out the obvious flaw in the illogic of your argument bothers you.

    So you're saying that it was only Dems who have ever used corrupt politics to rule their state legislations?

    And if one party can do it, doesn't that by basic logic infer that ANY  party can do it?

    Or are you going to just trust one party more than another despite vast amounts of history showing that they are both corrupt?

     



     Mr. Concerned Citizen...

    Ummm, first of all, none of those posts you are trying to attribute to me are, in fact mine. Seems your conspiracy-addled mind is getting the best of your ability to manage reality.

    Second, I am merely pointing out that you are wholly ignorant of the Constitution and specifically Article V. You stated unequivocally that Congress has no input into amendments.

    "...what is discussed for proposed amendments is soley up to the deligates sent to a convention. And not congress, nor the supreme court, nor the president have any power over it..."

    That is just laughably wrong, which turns your halfcocked rant into nothing more than a Thorozine induced nightmare created in your head.

    In fact, Congress is one of TWO ways to amend the Constitution.

     

    Sir it doesn’t take much of a ref to see you are rude and very ignorant with comments like…”That is just laughably wrong, which turns your halfcocked rant into nothing more than a Thorozine induced nightmare created in your head.”

    With regards for the rest of you childish nonsense, Mr. Citizen I cited and presented sources and material written by a United States Federal Judge where as you referenced Wikipedia, I would say that the comparison of the two pretty much shows who the real ignorant one is here.

     

    Now please go away. Or I will be forced to make you go away by blocking you.  You are trying my patients, with your childish and rude behavior.  

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Article V A Convention of States Part 1

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    A. Term Limits. I'm for them. To me, Anything that would serve to mitigate the establishment of a permanent political class is a good thing.

    B. Return Senate appointments to the states. I'm for this one too. The house is and should remain popularly elected. The Senate was intended to be the voice of the States and it should be returned to that role.

    C. Court Term Limits. Not sure that I like this one. The point of having lifetime appointments was an attempt to de-politicize the court. I don't see how term limits here would help much.

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.


     

    I don't like your A, B or C ...... We already have term limits for politicians and they are called elections , as for doing away with the elections of Senators ... I guess you don't trust the judgement of the fellow citizens of your state ..... for judges, I think they should be held accountable to the citizens of this country or their state  ... they should either be elected , have term limits or there should be a way to recall them .

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheWiredJournal. Show TheWiredJournal's posts

    Re: Article V A Convention of States Part 1

    In response to TheWiredJournal's comment:

     

    With regard to the second of the three proposed Amendments above....

    AN AMENDMENT TO RESTORE THE SENATE

    SECTION 1:   The Seventeenth Amendment is hereby repealed. All Senators shall be chosen by their state legislatures as prescribed by Article 1.

    SECTION 2:   This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

    SECTION 3:   When vacancies occur in the representation of any State in the Senate for more than ninety days the governor of the State shall appoint an individual to full the vacancy for the remainder of the term.

    SECTION 4:   A Senator may be removed from office by a two-thirds vote of the state legislature

     

     

     



     

    Well I must say this thread has turned into quite the learning process for me, Thing’s I’ve never given much thought to and were pretty much ignorant to.

    Thus I stated out being for the proposed amendment to abolish the 17th Amendment and returning to the original intention as laid out by our founders with my rational and belief being that it (the 17th amendment) not only expand the powers of the Federal government beyond what was intended, but also made them more vulnerable to corruption as they are now at the mercy of the special interest groups and powerful lobbyist’s, and the strong arm of whatever political party they happen to a part of along with exposing them to temptation for selfish gain vs. having  to be solely representatives of the people and the states they represent and having to answer only to them.

    I was also under the impression that (and still agree with the school of thought) that the 17th Amendment violated the States suffrage clause of Article V. Yet I understand the rationale behind the 17th Amendment, not so much (as I originally thought) as a means of and by the progressive movement to attack the constitution,  (while that may well have been part of a very well planned long term goal) I also now can see that it also was an attempt to  reform and weed out the corruption.

     

    Though I still have many more unanswered, perhaps even more that I don’t know what questions to ask, thus don’t even know what answers I need to be seeking. I come back to my original concerns and fears this Amendment brought to my mind when reading it. Those being that should we abolish the 17th amendment and go back to the original intent of our founders, there still exists the potential for corruption. So I’m left here wondering which is the less of the two evils? On the surface I think it would be much easier to fight the weaker threat of corruption on the lower level of the states than the more powerful evil that exists on the federal level. 

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Article V A Convention of States Part 1

    In response to TheWiredJournal's comment:

    In response to TheWiredJournal's comment:

     

    With regard to the second of the three proposed Amendments above....

    AN AMENDMENT TO RESTORE THE SENATE

    SECTION 1:   The Seventeenth Amendment is hereby repealed. All Senators shall be chosen by their state legislatures as prescribed by Article 1.

    SECTION 2:   This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

    SECTION 3:   When vacancies occur in the representation of any State in the Senate for more than ninety days the governor of the State shall appoint an individual to full the vacancy for the remainder of the term.

    SECTION 4:   A Senator may be removed from office by a two-thirds vote of the state legislature

     

     

     



     

    Well I must say this thread has turned into quite the learning process for me, Thing’s I’ve never given much thought to and were pretty much ignorant to.

    Thus I stated out being for the proposed amendment to abolish the 17th Amendment and returning to the original intention as laid out by our founders with my rational and belief being that it (the 17th amendment) not only expand the powers of the Federal government beyond what was intended, but also made them more vulnerable to corruption as they are now at the mercy of the special interest groups and powerful lobbyist’s, and the strong arm of whatever political party they happen to a part of along with exposing them to temptation for selfish gain vs. having  to be solely representatives of the people and the states they represent and having to answer only to them.

    I was also under the impression that (and still agree with the school of thought) that the 17th Amendment violated the States suffrage clause of Article V. Yet I understand the rationale behind the 17th Amendment, not so much (as I originally thought) as a means of and by the progressive movement to attack the constitution,  (while that may well have been part of a very well planned long term goal) I also now can see that it also was an attempt to  reform and weed out the corruption.

     

    Though I still have many more unanswered, perhaps even more that I don’t know what questions to ask, thus don’t even know what answers I need to be seeking. I come back to my original concerns and fears this Amendment brought to my mind when reading it. Those being that should we abolish the 17th amendment and go back to the original intent of our founders, there still exists the potential for corruption. So I’m left here wondering which is the less of the two evils? On the surface I think it would be much easier to fight the weaker threat of corruption on the lower level of the states than the more powerful evil that exists on the federal level. 




    I don't agree with you but I respect your opinion and you are civil ..... I think this discussion is fine

     

Share