# A Convention of States to Reign in an out of control Federal Government...



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

I posted this on another thread but I believe it to be important enough for its own thread;

Alabama officially applies to Congress for Convention of States - Yellowhammer News

A Convention of States may be the only method to reign in the out of control, socialist run, federal government.

From the article;
_*
"Article V of the U.S. Constitution says that a convention of the states can be convened if two-thirds of the state legislatures (34) approve an application for the convention to occur.

By design, that's a high bar to clear. And the bar gets even higher when it comes to actually passing a constitutional amendment. It takes an affirmative vote from three-fourths (38) of the states to actually amend the constitution. Each state would only get one vote on proposed amendments.

The resolution passed by the Alabama Legislature strictly limits the purpose of the proposed convention to three areas:

1) Imposing fiscal restraints on the federal government through a balanced budget amendment;
2) limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government; and
3) implementing term limits on federal elected officials.

The fourth state in the Union to complete the application, Alabama's resolution calls on a Convention of the Sates to "propose amendments that would impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of congress."

Members of the Alabama House and Senate who supported the effort say it was necessary because "the federal government has created a crushing national debt" and "invaded the legitimate roles of the states through the manipulative power of federal mandates."*_


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

A lot like confederation. Just impeach. They gave enough reasons already. Act on it.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

I am on the road today Slippy so I have trouble researching. Who are the other 3 states? I am all for it. If this could pick up steam and gain enough support it would be a meracle. Is this country so far gone that this would be impossible?


----------



## trips-man (Apr 26, 2015)

Prepared One said:


> I am on the road today Slippy so I have trouble researching. Who are the other 3 states? I am all for it. If this could pick up steam and gain enough support it would be a meracle. Is this country so far gone that this would be impossible?


Alaska, Florida, Georgia


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Author and radio host, Mark Levin, brought up this topic in his book, "The Liberty Amendments".
He called for the states to take this exact action. In the book, he laid out the amendments he would like to see added that would properly secure power within the states.
If the federal government will not constrain itself, it is the duty of the states to do so.
If the states fail in this task, it then falls to us.
I'm glad to see a few starting the ball rolling. I hope they can achieve their goals.
I don't wish to pursue the final option, if at all avoidable.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

As it stands, the power grab the federal government has made during the last several decades has been in spite of the constitution and not in accordance with it. That being the case, I don't think it is one bit too concerned about what a handful of states are trying to do.

But, never mind me. I woke up on the wrong side of the bed.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Getting 38 states would be difficult.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Caution is warranted here. Certain parties may seek to corrupt the process, with unforeseen consequences. The Feds will not relinquish power without a fight.


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

Every state needs to be a separate country.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

I believe representation is all out of scale. Originally there was 1 representative for roughly every 35,000 or so people. To duplicate that you would need to go from 435 representatives ( one for every 750,000 ) to about 10,000 representatives. Neither of which work effectively. I think that things would work better by breaking up into subgroups of 8 to 10 million for more effective originally envisioned constitutional rule. The powers that be on the banks of the swamp on the Potomac would do vurtually anything to prevent this usurpation of their power.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

The proposed changes are fine.
But add in some very large, very liberal states and there might be unintended consequences. Like abolition of the Second Amendment.

I am against this process.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Question???

Does Article V state that any Amendment that was made prior to 1808 (which includes Amendments 1-12) cannot be changed during a convention of states? Someone way smarter than I will have to answer that. If so, that makes the Bill of Rights unAmendable? Here is Article V below;

Article. V.

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.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

rice paddy daddy said:


> The proposed changes are fine.
> But add in some very large, very liberal states and there might be unintended consequences. Like abolition of the Second Amendment.
> 
> I am against this process.


The size of the state is irrelevant.
It would not be the people deciding in a popular vote. It would be the state legislatures.
1 state = 1 vote.
If 38 states vote in the affirmative, the amendment passes.
Convincing 38 states to abolish any amendment would be a harder sell than pork spare ribs at Mecca.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Arguably the states with the most liberal State Legislature are (to name a few);

Hawaii
California
Oregon
New Mexico
New York
New Jersey
Maryland
Massachusetts 
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Pennsylvania 

with Ohio,Michigan, Wisconsin, Virginia, Florida and Colorado being in the swing state category. I probably missed some but for argument sake, it might be difficult to get 2/3 then 3/4.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Changing one's government was not supposed to be an easy thing.

"Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

Of course, it was expected that the separate and equal branches would fight to keep their powers too.
We can see how that went.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Kauboy,

You're a smart dude, did you have a chance to look at Article V and determine how the Amendments that were put in the Constitution prior to 1808 would or would not be affected if there were a Convention of States?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Slippy said:


> Kauboy,
> 
> You're a smart dude, did you have a chance to look at Article V and determine how the Amendments that were put in the Constitution prior to 1808 would or would not be affected if there were a Convention of States?


I did, and unfortunately, the bill of rights is not protected.
This portion:


> 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


...states that the constitution could not be amended prior to 1808 in any way that would affect the 1st or 4th Clauses in the 9th Section of the 1st Article. (taxes)
They wanted to make sure that the legislature could still collect specific kinds of taxes until 1808.

It is an unwelcome outcome for those like us, but if 38 states could agree to strip away your freedom of speech, freedom to keep and bear arms, freedom against unwarranted search and seizure, and the like, they could legally do so.
It would then be up to the people to decide if that is acceptable.
If not... I defer to the Declaration of Independence yet again:


> "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."


I would do my duty, as a free man.
I know many of you would stand beside me.

Patrick Henry summed it up quite nicely:


> "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, *give me liberty or give me death!*"


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

They may be able to get the 2/3, but I don't see how they could get the 3/4 of the states to to ratify.

As far as the second amendment... my right to keep and bear arms isn't granted by the Constitution. Pieces of paper can only grant privileges; we have rights whether they are written in some document or not. In the words of our founding fathers, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they _are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights_." My right to defend myself comes from the fact that I'm a human being. The constitution may guarantee our rights and limit government's control over them, but the rights themselves are unalienable.

I say let's do it. I would love to see the 3 amendments detailed in the OP.


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

I had this in my earlier response, then took it out, now I double checked and am adding it back...

As I 'm reading it, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 concerns slave trade.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 is about titles of nobility.

Or no?


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

Count us in. We might decide to try that before seceding yet again another time.


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

This is a nation that re elected the current dictator. What makes anyone think the representation at any kind of convention won't represent that Hollywood Caitlip following transgender population into pure socialist oblivion? I would be scared to death to see what kind of second amendment comes out of that fiasco.



sideKahr said:


> Caution is warranted here. Certain parties may seek to corrupt the process, with unforeseen consequences. The Feds will not relinquish power without a fight.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Kauboy said:


> Changing one's government was not supposed to be an easy thing.
> 
> "Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
> 
> ...


Yes. Not going according to plan really. Why should we believe that they would want to follow the constitution now. I am all in by the way. It's time for a corrective action.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Prepadoodle said:


> I had this in my earlier response, then took it out, now I double checked and am adding it back...
> 
> As I 'm reading it, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 concerns slave trade.
> 
> ...


Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1:


> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.


I read this as a way to tax the import of slaves, but it does seem to allow slavery to continue as well.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4:


> No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.


Taxes could be laid in accordance to the Census.
This was later amended by the 16th Amendment:


> The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.


The foundation for the horrible tax system we now suffer under.

Titles of nobility is covered under Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8:


> No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

James m said:


> A lot like confederation. Just impeach. They gave enough reasons already. Act on it.


Can you impeach the entire government?


----------



## 7052 (Jul 1, 2014)

Slippy said:


> Arguably the states with the most liberal State Legislature are (to name a few);
> 
> Hawaii
> California
> ...


Slippy, you forgot to mention the Democratik People's Republik of Illinois.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Egyas said:


> Slippy, you forgot to mention the Democratik People's Republik of Illinois.


Excellent catch Egyas, my mistake. Add Illinois to the list making it harder to get the 38 necessary.


----------

