Apocalypse Soon? Are Dems on verge of being unable to stop Constitutional Amendments?
Convention of the States may be more likely than you think with recent Democratic state losses.
Several days ago I published Democrats devastated at state level in 2016 elections:
In the past 8 years Republicans have made devastating gains at the state level, taking over numerous state houses and other statewide offices, and state legislatures. It’s been the equivalent of washing the sand out from under the Democratic political house, depriving Democrats of a training ground in which to grow future leadership.
It not only impacts a myriad of social and economic policies, but also various states-rights issues and redistricting.
This election cycle continued the trend. The Hill reports, GOP makes big gains at the state level…
In much of the country, particularly the South, Democrats are “basically extinct” at the state level.
The NY Times reported, yesterday, on how the 2016 election further damaged Democrats:
Republicans further cemented their control of state governments in this year’s elections. They will control the governor’s office and both chambers of the state legislature, a governing trifecta, in four more states — Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri and New Hampshire.
The net effect of the elections Tuesday will be that Republicans will have a trifecta in 24 states, while Democrats will have just six, as of Friday.
While Democrats picked up a trifecta in one state, they lost trifectas in two others.
In my prior post, I ignored one more important implication of the loss of control at the state level. Could further Democratic losses get to the point that Democrats could not stop constitutional amendments?
Mark Porter Magee tweets:
Democrats now control only 13 state legislatures (26%). If they lose 1 more they fall below the % needed to stop constitutional amendments.
Here’s his step-by-step explanation:
So far, Democrats would have the ability to stop a constitutional amendment, both because Republicans would not have 2/3 in the House and Senate, even if Republicans somehow made more gains in the states.
But, what if Republican went the Convention of the States route?
Here is the wording of Article 5:
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.
Would Republicans consider a Convention of the States bypassing Congress? In fact, just such a movement is underway, and we have been covering it:
- Legislators to Meet for First-Ever Simulated Convention of States
- Momentum Builds for Convention of States
The Convention of the States website provides more detail, including responses to opposition. Mark Levin has proposed the Liberty Amendments to be passed as such a Convention. Republican control of the states ensures that no crazy leftist amendments, even if passed at a Convention, would pass enough states to be enacted.
Whether amendments would be good things is a different question. But the threat that Republicans may soon not need Democrats in Congress to pass a constitutional amendment has people freaking out:
Oh now that's interesting. https://t.co/DQbRSL6XSf
— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahDispatch) November 12, 2016
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/797503248848523264
Scariest of all. So to all of you millennials who don't vote. Pretty soon they can change the constitution at will. It's your future. https://t.co/KrWZlh2JKk
— Judd Apatow (@JuddApatow) November 12, 2016
Get your shit together, Democrats. https://t.co/NqasehCPn1
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) November 12, 2016
I don’t think it’s panic time for Democrats yet. Three’s no certainty that the requisite number of Republican-controlled states would vote for a Convention of the States, much less pass amendments proposed out of such a Convention.
While it may not be Apocalypse Now, it might be Apocalypse Soon.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
They recently conducted a mock convention which resulted in the following proposed amendments:
1. The public debt shall not be increased except upon a recorded vote of two-thirds of each house of Congress.
2. Term limits on Congress
3. Limiting federal overreach by returning the Commerce Clause to its original meaning
4. Limiting the power of federal regulations by giving an easy congressional override
5. Require a super majority for federal taxes and repeal the 16th Amendment
6. Give the states (by a 3/5ths vote) the power to abrogate any federal law, regulation or executive order.
I don’t like #4. I think every regulation should be affirmatively approved by Congress. And possibly even signed by the President brings that.
*beyond* that.
That would be an impossible task because hundreds of new regulations come out every single day.
Yes approving every regulation would be time consuming. But don’t you think making new regulation should take at least as long as vetting a Hillary Email for release?
That would be an added benefit.
Shouldn’t something that has the force of law be required to go thru the same process as an actual law?
Also, maybe Congress should actually do their jobs instead of passing laws that say “An agency should be setup to keep the air clean” leaving the details to said agency and people like, well, like Obama.
(sorry for dupe. this somehow got added at the end instead of as a reply)
Something should be added that treaties with other Countries can not supersede or change the Constitution. With “the new world order” ides so close, we may have dodged a huge bullet just now. Making sure the Constitution can not be altered because of a treaty by a complicit president and senate is important.
“New world order” *idea*
My proposal for just such an amendment:
“The judicial power of the courts established under Article III of this Constitution shall not be guided by any precedent or opinion by any foreign court or tribunal; except as shall be agreed to by the United States under international treaty.”
My thinking was more on the lines of the Bricker Amendment as proposed in the 1950s
The idea simultaneously excites and scares me.
It seems like a … oh, what would be the phrase … gosh, it’s on the tip of my tongue … Oh yeah, … it sounds like a, like a …
… legal insurrection.
Why worry Lefties’ little heads with some yellowed parchment well into its third century?
Some Californians and Oregonians find it easier to snatch a copy of John C. Calhoun’s Disquisitions (the Spark Notes version, actually) and start gabbing about secession.
Yale must’ve known something last year when it refused SJW demands to change the name of Calhoun College.
I’ll just drop this off, here.
https://i.reddituploads.com/6a3c127d58364fd5a599f8ce95c7511e?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=7d96b43e66abbc491f64052f013a0b7b
Hill-arious!
In thanks for her blowing the election, Hillary Clinton will joyously be awarded an honorary rank from the US armed forces who long-suffered under her incompetence and corruption as secretary of state: Major Fu-kup.
The way she has excelled in so many areas, I believe she rates the rank of general f88kup.
Major General f88kup. Or General of the F88kup Army.
Has Trump won the Nobel Peace Prize yet?
That’s only for Diversity Hires.
You win.
It’s not diversity, which is judgment of people by the “content of their character”. It is class diversity, which is judgment of people by the “color of their skin”. The Left’s concept of “diversity” is antithetical to diversity and individual dignity, and is incompatible with the religious/moral principle of intrinsic value.
Excellent post. I hadn’t even considered this.
But you are a Tease.
Because Mitch McConnell. He’ll block everything.
I don’t know who he works for, but its not the American people.
He can’t block it.
My bad. I read it as “and” instead of “or”. Thanks for the correction.
Oh, but he would if he could……….
I would add:
No more omnibus bills. Force them to take a stand on spending, line by line. Bonus effect – it slows down the government, ala Herbert’s Bureau of Sabotage (“In Lieu of Red Tape”) to keep the State apparatus from steamrolling over us.
Hell, they don’t even READ the bills they vote on. I could stage a coup by writing in “Fen is hereby appointed dictator for life” and they would pass it.
Some clever staffer should do that, just to prove the point 🙂
I like the idea I heard that no bill should be longer (word count) than the Constitution itself. There would be no room for the back-handed, pork-barrelling, crony-capitalism in that. Not without being VERY obvious.
Yah, but you know they would abuse your idea by adding an ammending the Constitution with a 50,000 word essay 😉
Just for fun…
If California, Oregon, and Washington seceded…
… the GOP-majority legislatures in the remaining states would already be at three-quarters, meaning they could amend the constitution unilaterally.
I’d give California the chance to divide like Texas apparently is allowed to do, if secession ever became an issue. Wouldn’t mind keeping the conservative north and the Silicon Valley middle (Hey they’re libs but they do actually generate economic activity) and let the south secede. It’ll probably join Mexico on 20 years the way things are going anyway.
Texas is not allowed to divide itself — it gave up that right when it was admitted to the Union. Relevant part of the Constitution says that all states are admitted on an equal basis to the Union: since no other state can divide itself without the consent of the Congress, neither can Texas.
I have a dream to reconcile moral, natural, and personal imperatives within the framework of The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution. The possibilities are exhilarating.
Just found this… not only worth watching – it should. E posted on everyone’s FB page.
https://pjmedia.com/video/lefty-reporter-jonathan-pie-gets-it-breaks-down-exactly-why-trump-won/
Do yourself a favor and actually watch the video, ignore that he is griping about Trump winning and listen to what he is trying to tell the left. Very insightful.
Please God, let it be so.
Let’s fix this thing.
Maybe we really are on the cusp of America’s fourth revolution.
http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Future-tense–X–The-fourth-revolution-7395
However, a convention of the states opens Pandora’s Box – nobody knows the limits of its authority or what constitutes legitimate procedure. Could they simply scrap the Constitution outright with no replacement? Could that happen by accident?
However, if they’re lining up amendments, I’d recommend giving either the Congress or the States authority to overrule Supreme Court decisions, stop SCOTUS from arrogating legislative power to itself.
Yes, they could, exactly as the Philadelphia convention did. That convention ignored the Articles of Confederation’s amendment procedure, scrapped the Articles altogether, wrote a brand new constitution with its own method of ratification, and presented it to the states as something they could not block. Ratifying conventions would happen with or without their approval, and the new constitution would be in place as soon as nine conventions had ratified it. If they didn’t they’d be left on the outside, and subject to possible invasion.
Always with the vapors. Your standard refrain on this topic is debunked here:
http://www.conventionofstates.com/can_we_trust_the_constitution
In short; No, and the people that preach otherwise are paranoid and uninformed.
Apologizies this response was actually for @billdyszel.
Please point out where your paranoid delusion is provided for in our current constitution. 9 state approval, seriously time to restart the meds Milhouse.
They should at least Game Theory this as Red Cell to see where and how it could be abused or hijacked, and then close those avenues off.
slow down here
GOP has full control of 33 state legislatures. 34 are needed to call a convention (that’s not even including whatever filibuster rules exist to block the existing 33)
And even if you get that far, you need 38 to ratify any amendments that come out of the convention.
It would be very bad if they get enough to call a convention but not enough to ratify anything that comes out of it.
And getting control of 38 is very difficult. Need to identify five more states.
True, the 38-state barrier means that even though it could soon be unnecessary to get support from Democrats in Congress to propose an amendment, you’ll still need support from Democrats in the states to pass one.
I still think there are potential amendments that would find favor with both Republicans and Democrats at the state level, especially around unfunded Federal mandates, regulatory authority, and SCOTUS usurping the legislative function.
“you’ll still need support from Democrats in the states to pass one.”
I’ve been checking in on liberal sites last few days just to bask in their tears, but I’ve noticed a growing awareness (maybe fueled by the Bernie crowd) among the rank and file that the Establishment Party (E) is their true enemy.
We might be able to appeal to that sentiment to get Dem support at the state level.
According to the WaPo the picture is even worse for Dems. If you look at the combination of executive and legislative leadership of the 50 states, only 4 remain in the hands of the Dems.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxHZio-UkAAv6_q.jpg
Of course, some states like NY have some GOP balance in their legislature, but they would hardly look like a GOP legislature in, say, Texas.
A convention of the states would only institutionalize/legitimize the welfare state!
It’s a door that once open would be impossible to close, so you want to be very careful. It’s at risk to become one of those ‘good intentions’ things.
That would be an added benefit.
Shouldn’t something that has the force of law be required to go thru the same process as an actual law?
Also, maybe Congress should actually do their jobs instead of passing laws that say “An agency should be setup to keep the air clean” leaving the details to said agency and people like, well, like Obama.
I agree the states should get together and review the federal overreach. Check out the convention of states website to learn more.
Let’s get the power back to the people… maybe they will listen to us when we call a convention and they have to let us speak. They certainly will not limit their own terms or stop spending money they don’t have. This is certainly not an attempt to rewrite the constitution and take anything away from it. Its time to act! Thank you George Mason for this lifeline!!!! Nothing happens when GOOD MEN & WOMEN do nothing Visit here to learn more, sign the petition, & volunteer!!
http://www.cosaction.com/?recruiter_id=1636326
The Federal Leviathan must be reigned in before it devours the civil society. How? By a conventionofstates.com.