Article Five of the United States Constitution

A Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution, also called an Article V Convention, or Amendments Convention, is one of two alternative procedures for proposing amendments to the United States Constitution described in Article Five of the Constitution. The other method is a vote by two-thirds of each house of Congress.

In recent years some constitutional scholars have argued that state governments should call for such a convention.^[1][2] They include Lawrence Lessig, Sanford Levinson, Larry Sabato, Jonathan Turley, and Mark Levin.^[1][3][4] As of 2014, there is an active nationwide effort to call an Article V Convention. Citizens, through a project called Convention of the States, are promoting Article V legislation in all 50 states. According to Article V, Congress must call for an amendment-proposing convention, “on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States," meaning 34 state legislatures would have to submit applications. Once an Article V Convention has proposed an amendment or amendments, then the amendment or amendments would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 states) in order to become part of the Constitution.

Congress has the power to choose between two methods of ratification: ratification by the state legislatures, or instead ratification by state conventions called for that purpose. In contrast to those separate state ratification conventions, a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution would be a single federal convention. While there have been calls for a second federal convention based on a single issue such as the Balanced Budget Amendment, it is not clear whether a convention summoned in this way would be legally bound to limit discussion to a single issue; law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen has suggested that such a convention would have the "power to propose anything it sees fit". All 27 amendments to the Constitution have happened in a procedural sense by going through Congress and not through proposal by state legislatures.

                                                 What Could Go Wrong?

In 1787 a convention was called to amend the constitution of the United States. Amend is the operative word; the Articles of Confederation of Perpetual Union between the States were not working out, although they offered adequate safeguards to the sovereignty of the individual states. The confederacy that the Articles had created afforded a central government that was too weak to act effectively as a national government, and the purpose of the convention was to fix some of the more problematic aspects of the Articles. This did not occur; once the convention got underway the delegates created a whole new document that formed a radically new central government. It was a runaway convention; the old government was swept aside.

There were many great men at the time who opposed the new Constitution. James Winthrop, Patrick Henry, George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, Melancton Smith, and a host of others resisted the tremendous expansion of power of the central government. Their arguments against this new government were compiled in a series now called the Anti-Federalist Papers,
but these opponents of expanded government did not prevail, and the U.S. Constitution was adopted as the law of the land. And, in one of those extremely rare instances in history where everything worked out better than was hoped, the Constitution created the freest, most prosperous, most successful nation in history. But it easily could have gone the other way “convention for proposing amendments” to the Constitution” could well get out of hand - as it did in 1787.  A Constitutional convention is fraught with this sort of peril. The Left is better at organizing than Conservatives, and they are extremely good at worming their way into positions of power. What would we do if they hijack the Convention? Remember, Amendments supersede the original text; the Left could put a series of “positive rights” (such as those Barack Obama promoted for the Kenyan Constitution) http://kenya.rcbowen.com/constitution/chap5.html into the text and they would become law. And it may not just be liberals who promote things we do not want; what is to stop the proponents of amnesty for illegal invaders from enshrining such a notion into our Constitution? We know that many in the Republican Party support amnesty, and there will be a huge lobbying effort at any convention. The state legislatures and governors may well appoint pro-amnesty people as delegates. Once there they can do as they please.

                                                  Danger in “Con Con”

There is another uncomfortable aspect of the Article V movement that is not being discussed, however, but needs to be, particularly in light of the good people who have associated themselves with it.

Within the ranks of those clamoring for an Article V convention is found numerous extremely radical, progressive, and socialist organizations that otherwise would have little in common with the conservatives fighting on the same side.

Wolf-Pac is one of the groups that this reporter suspects many Levin listeners would be surprised to know is their compatriot in a call for a con-con. 

On its website, Wolf-Pac pushes for an Article V “convention of the states” as the best way to accomplish its “ultimate goal:"

To restore true democracy in the United States by pressuring our State Representatives to pass a much needed 28th Amendment to our Constitution which would end corporate personhood and publicly finance all elections in our country. In order to persuade Americans to join its cause, Wolf-Pac will inform the public by running television commercials, radio ads, social media, internet ads, and using the media platform of the largest online news show in the world, The Young Turks. 

The Young Turks? Most constitutionalists (and I imagine most fans of Mark Levin) don’t spend much time during the day watching the Young Turks, the YouTube-based news and entertainment channel that dubs itself the “world’s largest online news network.”

As unfamiliar as they may be with the Young Turks, it seems certain conservatives pushing for a con-con are even more unfamiliar with who pays the bills at this online purveyor of progressive ideology, George Soros; In fact, Soros funds nearly every major left-wing media source in the United States. Forty-five of those are financed through his support of the Media Consortium. That organization 'is a network of the country's leading, progressive, independent media outlets.' The list is predictable — everything from AlterNet to the Young Turks.

That’s right. George Soros — the financier of global fascism —  is pumping millions of dollars into the same Article V campaign that is being promoted by Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and other popular conservative spokesmen. 

This should be enough to convince all true conservatives, constitutionalists, and friends of liberty to run headlong away from the ranks of the Article V con-con army, regardless of how popular and persuasive their generals may be.

It will likely surprise these devoted, Article V advocates that Wolf-Pac is just the tip of the iceberg. These good people would be wise to take a look at this heavily abbreviated roster of their radical fellow travelers in the con-con movement, each of which is a registered “founding member” of the “Move to Amend” coalition; Alliance for Democracy, Center for Media and Democracy, Code Pink, Independent Progressive Politics Network, Progressive Democrats of America, Sierra Club, and Vermont for Single Payer.

                                             Still Considering Article Five?

 Congress has the power to choose between two methods of ratification: ratification by the state legislatures, or instead ratification by state conventions called for that purpose. State ratifying conventions are one of the two methods established by Article V of the United States Constitution for ratifying proposed constitutional amendments. Ratifying conventions have only been used on one occasion, that being for the ratification of the Constitution's Amendment in the year 1933. Because they incorporated the convention method of ratification into Article V as an alternate route to considering the pro and con arguments of a particular proposed amendment, clearly, the framers of the Constitution wanted a means of sometimes bypassing the state legislatures in the ratification process.

To some extent, the convention method of ratification loosely approximates a one-state, one-vote national referendum on a specific proposed federal constitutional amendment, thus allowing the sentiments of registered voters to be somewhat more directly felt on highly sensitive issues. The theory is that the delegates of the conventions—who presumably would themselves be average citizens—might be less likely to bow to political pressure to accept or to reject a given amendment than would be the case with state legislators.

In Florida, the convention is made up of 67 members. The governor has 45 days to call an election to be held from five to ten months after Congress proposes the constitutional amendment. Anyone can apply to be a member of the convention, with the state qualifications for the Florida House of Representatives used as an eligibility test. Candidates can officially declare that they are "for" or "against" the proposed amendment, or they may apply as unannounced. An application fee of $25 and a 500-name petition are also required. On the ballots, candidates are listed in three categories: "for", "against", and "undecided". There is also provision for write-in candidates. The vote is at-large, meaning that the 67 top vote-getters statewide win the 67 seats in the convention. The convention begins on the second Tuesday following the election.

                                                               SUMMARY

Q: Can a convention be stopped from proposing a new Constitution?
A:  No.  Once the delegates are duly appointed & assembled, they are acting under the inherent authority of A People to alter or abolish their form of government [Declaration of Independence, 2^nd para]; and have the sovereign power to do whatever they want at the convention.

                                    NOW WHAT DO WE DO?  JUST SAY NO!

                                                     NULLIFICATION

For anyone unfamiliar with the concept of state nullification, it was the idea expressed by then sitting vice president Thomas Jefferson when he authored what came to be known as the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. The resolutions made the case that the federal government is a creature of the states, and that states have the authority to judge the constitutionality of the federal government’s laws and decrees. He also argued that states should refuse to enforce laws which they deem unconstitutional.

James Madison wrote a similar resolution for Virginia that same year, in which he asserted that whenever the federal government exceeds its constitutional limits and begins to oppress the citizens of a state, that state’s legislature is “duty bound” to interpose its power and prevent the federal government from victimizing its people. Very similar to Jefferson’s concept of nullification, Madison’s doctrine of interposition differed in some small but important ways.

These two documents together came to be known as The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (or Resolves), of 1798. Both were written in response to the dreaded Alien and Sedition Acts, and the phrase, “Principles of ’98″ became shorthand for nullification and / or interposition. Over time, “The Principles of ’98″ would be invoked by many other states, many times for a variety of issues.

But in order to best-understand what Nullification IS, you should first understand some things nullification is NOT.

Nullification is not secession or insurrection, but neither is it unconditional or unlimited submission. Nullification is not something that requires any decision, statement or action from any branch of the federal government. Nullification is not the result of obtaining a favorable court ruling. Nullification is not the petitioning of the federal government to start doing or to stop doing anything. Nullification doesn’t depend on any federal law being repealed. Nullification does not require permission from any person or institution outside of one’s own state.

So just what is nullification and how does it happen?

Nullification is any act or set of acts, which has as its end result, a particular federal law being rendered null and void, or just plain unenforceable in your area.

Nullification often begins with members of your state legislature declaring a federal act unconstitutional and then committing to resist its implementation. It usually involves a bill, passed by both houses and signed by your governor. In some cases, it might be approved by the voters of your state directly, in a referendum. It may change your state’s statutory law, or it might even amend your state constitution. In this case, it is quite simply a refusal on the part of your state government to cooperate with, or enforce a particular federal law it deems unconstitutional.

The same process can happen on a local level too. Your county board of commissioners or city council might take up a measure that rejects or resists a federal law. Once it gets passed, all local agencies might be required to refuse compliance with any federal agents trying to enforce the federal act in question.

In either case, Nullification carries with it the force of state or local law. It cannot be legally repealed by Congress without amending the U.S .Constitution. It cannot be lawfully abolished by an executive order. It cannot be overruled by the Supreme Court if the people in the state reject the Court’s opinion. It is the people of a state or local community asserting their rights, acting as a political society in its highest sovereign capacity. It is the moderate, middle way that wisely avoids harsh remedies like secession on the one hand, and slavish, unlimited submission on the other.

It is the constitutional remedy for unconstitutional federal laws.

With the exception of a constitutional amendment, the federal government cannot oppose (except perhaps rhetorically), these actions to nullify an unconstitutional federal law without resorting to extra-legal measures or violence. But such measures would more than likely backfire, since most Americans still believe might does not make right.

There is no question as to whether or when such “official” nullification will happen: It has ALREADY HAPPENED.

In fact, not only has it happened recently, it has been a success!

With Massachusetts voters approving Question 3 on November 6, 2012, there are now 18 states that have legalized marijuana use for limited medicinal purposes – in flat out defiance of the Congress, the Executive Branch and the Supreme Court. This sounds good, but much to tame for some, so let’s try……….

                                                     Common Law Grand Juries