As I am writing this, the Ohio House of Representatives is deliberating on a joint resolution (HJR 8) to request a Constitutional Convention to consider a balanced-budget amendment. I have written to several legislators asking them not to support the move; not because I object to a balanced-budget amendment (though I wonder how it could possibly be enforced at the Federal level), but because a Constitutional Convention is an extremely dangerous way to bring it about. Worse, they are trying, with the Senate, to fast-track the proposal so it can be completed within the week.
History records that the original Constitutional Convention in 1787 was called by the Continental Congress for the express purpose of recommending amendments to the Articles of Confederation, which, according to the Articles, had to be approved by the Congress and ratified by all 13 States. However, when the convention convened, it found the Articles so flawed that they decided to create an entirely new form of government. Fortunately for us, the Constitution was a brilliant work designed to protect our freedoms in a structure that enabled free trade among the States and an effective foreign and defense policy for the nation. However, the truth remains that, according to the terms laid out by the Articles of Confederation, our Constitutional Convention was out of control.
Article V of the Constitution does not specify any procedure for electing or appointing the members of the Convention, nor does it provide any limits on the Convention's power, once convened. In other words, there is nothing to prevent a new Constitutional Convention from scrapping our existing Constitution and introducing something else, such as this horror, suggested in 1974.
Given the accelerating trend of centralization of government, it seems likely that a new Constitutional Convention would be very likely to scrap our existing document in favor of one that enhances the power either of the Federal Government, or of international organizations.
We cannot afford to take that risk.
Please contact your State legislators and urge them to vote against this resolution and its companion Senate resolution SJR 9. The Ohio Freedom Alliance has suggested some links for additional information.
6 comments:
Now, what you could do is hold a ballot initiative (in each state) specifically limiting each legislator
or require it to be voted on by the people
Barga:
Won't work. Once the Convention is called, it sets its own rules. It can even set how its proposed amendments will be ratified! Yes, Congress can try to set limits, and technically the results are to be ratified by the States, but the Constitutional Convention will have the power to decide otherwise.
If the Con-Con were to write a new Constitution, and a sufficient number of States ratified it, what would be the status of States that did not? The States are in the Union by virtue of ratifying this Constitution.
In 1789, the States that did not ratify (North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Vermont) were recognized as independent nations; but I have little confidence that such an approach would be used today. It seems more likely that a State that refused to ratify would be forced to accept it.
For the duration of its work the Constitutional Convention is sovereign over everything else in the United States. That's why calling one is so dangerous.
Arguably it will if you give it specific power.
Also, if they go too far states wont accept it
Anyways, the states that did not ratify, I think, were considered territories (please show me otherwise)
Robert:
It took some digging, but I can show you that North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Vermont were treated as independent nations, and not territories, prior to their ratification of the Constitution. Vermont's situation was different from those of Rhode Island and North Carolina.
Vermont was the product of a long-standing territorial dispute between New York and New Hampshire. In 1777, Vermont declared itself independent of both states and set itself up as an independent nation. It was not represented in the Continental Congress because New York objected. Details about the Vermont Republic may be found in Wikipedia's article. (I know Wikipedia can be unreliable, but this article is well backed up).
All of the original thirteen states were treated as sovereign nations at the time of independence in 1776. Following the Treaty of Paris, Virginia and one or two other states had separate diplomatic representatives in Britain and France. This understanding of state sovereignty is behind James Madison's statement in Federalist #39: "Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution." (my emphasis)
The best proof I can find that North Carolina and Rhode Island were treated by the United States as sovereign nations comes from the "Memorial by the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations" in the September Session of its legislature in 1789, which is summarized in an introduction by Herman Ames in his collection of papers known as State Documents on Federal Relations: The States and the United States (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1911), p. 1:
"In June of 1789, the Rhode Island Assembly for the sixth time defeated a proposition to call a convention to consider the ratification of the Federal Constitution, but hoping to avert hostile tariff legislation by Congress, it had passed in May an impost law providing for the collection. of the same duties on imports as Congress might lay upon imports into the Union. In September, after re-enacting the law passed by Congress (July 31, 1 U. S. Stat. at Large, 48), they sent the following memorial, an overture for a commercial union. Congress, anticipating the receipt of the memorial, passed an act suspending the impost law in favor of Rhode Island and North Carolina until January 15, 1790. (Sept. 15, 1 U. S. Stat. at Large, 100. Memorial received, Sept. 26, Senate Journal, I Cong., 89 (ed. 1820).) Finally the Rhode Island Assembly called a convention for March 1, 1790, and requested a further suspension of the revenue laws. Congress granted an extension until April I. The convention, however, adjourned without completing its work to May 24, In consequence of its action, the Senate on May 18 passed a bill prohibiting all commercial intercourse with Rhode Island after the 1st of July next, and authorizing the government to demand of that State the payment of its portion of the continental debt without delay. (Annals of Cong., 1, 976; S. J., 1 Cong., 142.) This attitude of the Senate, together with the open threats of coercion in the public press, apparently had an important influence on the convention. That body ratified the constitution, May 29, 1790, by a vote of 34 to 32, also proposing a series of amendments."
Several additional references are included with the document.
Section 39 of the law referenced at 1 U.S. Stat. at Large 48 reads as follows: "Sec 39. Be it therefore enacted, That all goods, wares and merchandise not of their own growth or manufacture, which shall be imported from either of the said two States of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, or North Carolina, into any other port or place within the limits of the United States, as settled by the late treaty of peace, shall be subject to the like duties, seizures and forfeitures, as goods, wares or merchandise imported from any State or country without the said limits."
i talked to a history dude, i think you are right
that said, i think we can amend it by forcing congress to do something
Post a Comment