Reply With QuoteI understand, except Congress has to call the convention requested by 2/3 of the states. And it is the conventions that make the decisions, there is no state-wide vote of the people.Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou
rebel
my bad, not 3/5ths, but 3/4ths.
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,
what this means is that 2/3rds of the states can call for a convention and if 3/4ths approve of the amendments, congress has no say.
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Verified User
I understand, except Congress has to call the convention requested by 2/3 of the states. And it is the conventions that make the decisions, there is no state-wide vote of the people.
rebel
so are you trying to say that if 2/3rds or greater call for a convention, that congress can just say no?
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Verified User
That would be very politically unpopular to do. But it says "shall call a convention." Based on previous cases (full faith-and-credit among the states) the word "shall" is not mandatory because there is no provision for enforcement. The only think I can envision that would lead Congress not complying is if the amendment(s) for which the convention is called are known in advance and Congress strongly opposes them and most of the states calling for the convention are smaller states.
Are you familiar with the story about the 27th Amendment? It was one of the original 12 Bill of Rights which did not receive enough votes to ratify in 1789 but was ratified in 1992 due to the efforts of a college student.
https://www.history.com/news/the-str...27th-amendment
rebel
I can't think of any higher constitutional crisis that should have had another civil war then, for congress to ignore 2/3rds of the states simply because their population is small
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Verified User
Well, if a strong majority of voters in the other states with a much larger percent of Americans oppose it, it would be politically popular. But since it would take 3/4 of the states to ratify they would still be able to prevent it from passing.
One of the concerns expressed is that if a convention were called because of a single issue (balanced budget), there would be nothing preventing the convention from writing an entirely new constitution.
Biden likes little girls
The constitution does not explicitly say who interprets the constitution and so, by the tenth amendment, the states have the authority.
Reckless drivers are a bigger threat to you than all other criminals put together!
THE BIG LIE - Blacks and whites are different physically but identical mentally!
There is no way 81 million americans voted for a man they know is a child molester w dementia. Impeach Joe the Pedophile Vegetable (JPV)
rebel
please read the 10th in its entirety. the ONLY way for you to read that the states have ultimate authority is to disregard the people.
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Verified User
By that reasoning the states also have the authority to tell you who to marry and how many kids you can have. That power is not delegated to any other institution and it is also not denied to any institution; thus, it is reserved to the states.
Read Federalist No. 78. Hamilton makes it clear the role of the federal courts is to interpret the Constitution and prohibit any act for which there is no constitutional authority.
Letting the states interpret the Constitution could result in different interpretations in all 50 states. That makes the Constitution meaningless.
Biden likes little girls
No it would mean the constitution has different meanings in each state. Anyway, that's what the tenth amendment says. If you don't like it, get it changed.
Reckless drivers are a bigger threat to you than all other criminals put together!
THE BIG LIE - Blacks and whites are different physically but identical mentally!
There is no way 81 million americans voted for a man they know is a child molester w dementia. Impeach Joe the Pedophile Vegetable (JPV)
Biden likes little girls
I know it says "states and the people". Either or both is ok with me. The point is interpreting the constitution is not a power of the feds. THINK
Reckless drivers are a bigger threat to you than all other criminals put together!
THE BIG LIE - Blacks and whites are different physically but identical mentally!
There is no way 81 million americans voted for a man they know is a child molester w dementia. Impeach Joe the Pedophile Vegetable (JPV)
Note my apathy
I can't help but agree. It is difficult for me to decide if statism is a widespread mental disorder or should be attributed to mass-programming.
rebel
completely agree with you on that point.
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Verified User
If the Constitution has different meanings in each state that means the Constitution is irrelevant. One state could say free speech can be restricted if a person is critical of the government. In effect, that person has almost no constitutional rights of free speech.
There in not one hint that the founders wanted states to interpret the Constitution and there is nothing in the 10th Amendment giving them that power. It would have to be included in the reserved powers of the states and no state constitution or laws gives it power to interpret the U. S. Constitution.
Hamilton in Federalist No. 78 clearly says that is the function of the federal courts.
Posting Rules
Bookmarks