Is this the real goal of all the Gerrymandering?
Is Trump just a sideshow?
What are the Koch’s really up to?
Attempts to call for Article V Conventions are not THAT rare. At any given time, there are various groups trying to pass legislation in the necessary 34 statehouses to call for conventions for various purposes.
As your link points out, it is unclear whether restrictions can be placed on such conventions to require that they only consider specific issues or amendments. When Congress sees that a convention call on a particular issue is gaining a lot of steam, they tend to propose the amendments themselves so as to maintain a degree of control over the situation.
Also note that constitutional amendments need to be ratified by 3/4ths of the states. So even if a runaway constitutional convention was called to propose all kinds of amendments, the amendments would still need approved by the states. The convention doesn’t rewrite the Constitution by itself.
I really don’t think the Kochs like Trump that much — they preferred Hillary.
They are not actually populists.
They are would-be Aristocrats, no matter what labels they lay claim to.
Well, Bill paid half a million dollars for 4 bottles of wine allegedly once the property of Jefferson — you can guess the rest, but it’s certainly in the grand manner; and worthy of the greedy little sod himself:
During his first term as President, Jefferson spent seventy-five hundred dollars—roughly a hundred and twenty thousand dollars in today’s currency—on wine, and he is generally regarded as America’s first great wine connoisseur. (He may also have been America’s first great wine bore. “There was, as usual, a dissertation upon wines,” John Quincy Adams noted in his diary after dining with Jefferson in 1807. “Not very edifying.”)
The New Yorker — The Jefferson Bottles
Three-plus decades after my high school U.S. Government class, I still remember the warning of what could happen were a Constitutional Convention called.
Well, the Republicans are pretty close to being able to call one, but with total control of the federal government this is now unlikely, and when they lose control of the federal government they’ll also take lumps in the states.
This would have been a lot more likely had Clinton won. Then the GOP might have picked up a few more legislatures and governors and been able to change the Constitution to weaken the executive branch.
Interesting article. But no Clinton is mentioned therein.
And how is this relevant to the Constitution? TJ was in Paris when it was written & ratified…
Two guys walk into a talent agent’s office. “I’m Charles,” one says, “and this is my brother David. Boy, have we got an act for you!”
Somehow, you have just made that joke at least a magnitude more disturbing to me.
I don’t believe this is true. A constitutional convention can rewrite the whole constitution however the assembled delegates see fit. They could agree to ratify amendments via cow-patty bingo, if they so desired. There is nothing to say that an Article V convention couldn’t throw out the entire constitution and start over.
It’s Bill Koch in the article. He’s a sibling to one of the Koch brothers (there’s four, but the big two are David and Charles). He’s more the eclectic collector of the bunch, notsomuch involved in the politics.
So, technically relevant to the Koch part, but not really. Still, the article was a good read, and an interesting insight into the insanity of mega-high price wine.
They can rewrite the Constitution, but once you do that, the basic compact is null and void and each state returns to being independent. So the states still have to accept the new compact, at least by 3/4ths, possibly unanimously.
Although we have an indivisible union, the Constitution never took away the sovereign status of the states, so we don’t yet have to worry about a new constitution just being written and then put into force as has happened in some banana republics.
Thus overlooking the Army, Marines, Air Force, Navy & various LEOs, all of whom are armed, & many of whom have different opinions.:smack:
…and who would then have to ask themselves, do I serve the *already *constituted USA and/or its constitutent states, or do I serve this *proposed *new body politic?
For 230 years the convention method has not been used to a great extent because of awareness of what an iffy thing it was to get the existing Constitution agreed upon and put into motion , and of how major compromises made to get it passed to begin with almost blew it all up within 70-some years. So it has become seen as a Doomsday Option.
An amendment may be proposed by either Congress or a constitutional convention called by the states, but it must still be ratified by 3/4 of the states to become part of the Constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution
True, but the last time there was a Constitutional Convention, the Articles of Confederation said amendments had to be approved unanimously by the state legislatures.
The Constitutional Convention threw that out and said “Nine’s good. Ratification by state conventions, not legislatures.”
So the precedent counts against your position.
In that case, it wouldn’t be a matter of law anymore, but a matter of who has the military might to enforce their version of the Constitution. Civil War II - Red vs. Blue!
Eh, it’s a bit less than a doomsday option. The doomsday option is revolution. The constitutional convention is for the same purpose the first one was for: if the existing constitution is no longer functioning well, which was the case with the Articles of Confederation, then you get together and write a new one, or at least a lot of amendments.
If the US ever joins a larger confederation of some type we’ll certainly have to write a new constitution.