Hillary Doesn’t Understand What a Convention of States Actually Is
Even Wikipedia gets it right.
While making the rounds on her book tour, Hillary Clinton recently sat down with Vox’s Ezra Klein to discuss her failed presidential bid, President Trump, and the challenges currently faced by the Democrat minority. Among those challenges, Clinton warned, is a “radical change” being pursued by forces on the right:
“There’s a big move for change coming from the right that I think would be disastrous for our country. They want radical, ‘pull ’em up by the roots’ change. They want to have a constitutional convention to rewrite our constitution, to make it friendlier to business, to inject religious and ideological elements. So talk about radical change! They are pursuing it, they are funding it, and they are electing people that are either true believers or are willing vehicles for it.”
It is safe to assume Clinton is attempting to refer not to a “constitutional convention,” but to a convention of states. As Article V of the Constitution explains (emphasis added), “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;”
There are, therefore, two ways to propose and draft amendments to the Constitution. The first is by Congress and is the process with which most Americans are familiar. The second is instigated upon receipt of applications, or state legislative resolutions, by two-thirds (34) of the states. As Legal Insurrection has explained in past posts on the subject, this convention of the states does not pass constitutional amendments into law, but merely proposes and, if approved, sends amendments to the fifty states for an up or down vote. The process is neither an open, runaway, constitutional convention nor can it somehow result in a constitution written anew. Exactly where Clinton gets her information on the convention of states or Article V process remains a mystery. It is clear, however, that she failed to consult even Wikipedia, which has a fairly straightforward entry on the procedure.
Clinton also sounded off on the issue earlier this month in a September 12 episode of the Pod Save America podcast:
“The right wing, aided and funded by Mercers, Koch brothers, etc. is very serious about calling a constitutional convention. Part of their gerrymandering is to control state legislatures, elect republican governors. If you really get deep into what they’re advocating: limits on the first amendment, no limits on the second amendment, limits on criminal justice. I mean, there is a very insidious right wing agenda that is hard for Americans to really wrap their heads around.”
This statement, too, contains fundamental inaccuracies. Neither of the two right-leaning groups advocating for an Article V convention seek to impose any changes on the first or second amendments. Neither are they wishing to touch criminal justice. The first of these groups advocates solely for a balanced budget amendment and nothing more. The second force behind the Article V movement is the Convention of States Project, which has gained increased momentum since its founding in 2012. The latter group, or COS Project, advocates for limiting the scope and jurisdiction of the Federal Government, setting fiscal restraints on Congress (a balanced budget, for example), imposing term limits on federal officials. In other words, state legislative resolutions passed would explicitly limit the convention being called to the aforementioned subject matters. As of this writing, thirteen state legislatures have formally called for a convention of the states on the above three subject matters, the most recent states being Texas and Missouri.
Although Clinton lacks a fundamental grasp of the convention of states process, she is clearly concerned any movements to restrain the power of the Federal Government.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“Hillary Doesn’t Understand What a Convention of States Actually Is…”
The Electoral College was a part of the genius of the Founding Fathers, to prevent tyranny by a majority, and to maintain the Union by protecting states’ rights.
Well, guess which tyrant wants to create tyranny of a majority and destroy states’ rights? America’s perennial loser and traitor, Hillary Rotten Clinton.
Even she’s not this ignorant: she’s an experienced beneficiary of the two-tier justice system in the United States. The protections under the Constitution were created with a sick f–k like hillary clinton in mind.
What a disgusting, lying sack of shit Hillary Clinton is. A criminal, corrupt lying whore. And a loser. How pathetic.
This and…
I really think that she has gone off the deep end and is now living in Looney Tunes Land.
She is a lying sack of sh*t. Or incredibly stupid. Or both. I’m convinced it’s both. I’m going to appear to go O/T but I’m really not. Apparently Hillary tweeted on the 24th that Trump needed to send the USNS Comfort to Puerto Rico. The ship is underway. The WaPo is speculating that the only reason the Comfort is underway is because Hillary “shamed” him into sending her.
Hello! Does any journo school grad even have the mental capacity to understand the logistical challenges of getting a large ship underway? This is no doubt even more challenging for T-AH-20 USNS Comfort as the medical personnel assigned to the embarked hospital only when the ship is about to deploy. USNS ships have civilian merchant marine crews. They know nothing about medical care except basic first aid. To get that ship underway the commander of the embarked hospital would have to get essential personnel aboard to ensure it was properly supplied with medical essential. This would be in addition to normal stores which I’m sure the merchant marine crew is quite capable of handling. Then they’d have to cancel leave, etc., to ensure the the entire medical, medical support, and technical support staff is aboard. Then, fully fueled, supplied, and victualed she can get underway. If anybody imagines that this ship is underway on the 27th because of a tweet Hillary Clinton sent on the 24th then they are complete idiots.
Naturally, the WaPo imagines just such a thing.
This ignores the fact we did send a hospital ship. she’s not designated a hospital ship, as she is in fact a combatant.
so she isn’t painted white, doesn’t have dark red crosses, and isn’t lit up at night to conform with international conventions. There are two other navies in the world that operate dedicated T-AH designated, dedicated hospital ships but none exceed the capabilities of Wasp-class USS Kearsarge (LHD=amphibious assault ship). It has several operating theaters, at least two dental surgeries, medical laboratories, and can handle 600 battle casualties. This is second only to the USNS Mercy and Comfort (100 hospital beds per ship) and as far as I can tell far exceeds the capabilities of the dedicated hospital ships of the Chinese and Russian navies. There might be one converted container ship (and there’s nothing wrong with that; the Mercy and Comfort are converted merchant ships) that at least on paper compares to the Wasp-class in terms of advertised bed-space but I wouldn’t want to volunteer to test the quality of care.
Then of course since she’s a combatant the Kearsarge has multiple battle-dressing stations and in a humanitarian situation those facilities will be able to provide the first aid that may be all many of the victims may require.
Then of course, the Kearsarge doesn’t sail alone. She’s the flagship of what I’m familiar with as an Amphibious Readiness Group but now I understand is termed an Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG). So she sails in company with two other large gator navy vessels. They USS Arlington and USS Oak Hill. The Arlington is an LPD and the Oak Hill is an LSD. LPD stands for Landing Platform, Dock, and LSD doesn’t stand for a hallucinogenic. That would be Landing Ship, Dock.
I’m not quite sure what the medical departments’ capabilities are in these LPD/LSD amphibs. If they’re comparable to the LHD’s capabilities (approximately 1,900 embarked Marines, capable of accommodating 600 casualties) then the combined facilities of those ships alone slightly exceed the Comfort’s capabilities.
And they were on station when Maria threatened the island. Or, rather, they were doing storm avoidance ready to charge in. They’re no good to anyone if they become casualties themselves.
The whole liberal line is complete and utter BS. The Press is dying to make this look like it’s a repeat of Bush/New Orleans and even that is a a lie. But Trump’s administration really did as much as anyone could have done
*1000 hospital beds.
That’s the capacity of the Mercy and Comfort. Not 100; I misse a zero.
This is what’s going on right now off Puerto Rico. It’s like a ballet, isn’t it? And by by the way, LSE stands for Landing Signals, Enlisted. That’s an enlisted man conducting this ballet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBlbAvcQruc
“Navy LSE during VERTREP”
This is not one of the moments I ever questioned why I bothered to spend twenty years of my life in this business.
One would think that having been in the presence of a adjunct professor of constitutional law for several years that she would have gained some insight…. unless both she and said professor were too caught up in the negative rights of the law. “Checks and Balances” only apply to their bank accounts.
I’ve long suspected that this ‘adjunct professor of Constitutional law’ only ever read Article I of the 14th Amendment.
I’m shocked the educated journalist interviewing her did not correct her.
You forgot the /s.
Two errors: “Credentialed” not “educated”. “Propagandist” not “journalist”.
lol. Noted.
She is becoming more pathetic with each passing day. Grasping at straws doesn’t begin to describe what she is doing. She’ll keep going until that metaphorical shepherd’s hook comes out of stage-left and pulls her away.
This may be the only way we can get some serious changes to the direction of the federal government, although it is probably less than I’d like. Mark Levin wrote a whole book about his proposed amendments such a convention could offer. Getting 34 state legislatures to approve them is a potential challenge.
I suspect two would pass easily: a well-crafted balanced budget amendment and a term limits one. Term limits for federal judges and justices would get some “living Constitutionalists” off the SCOTUS, but it would also force off originalists like Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alioto, and (now) Neil Gorsuch. Term limits for U.S. Senators and House Reps?
I’d like to see all means-tested federal welfare programs phased out – ended at the federal level after some transition period. Say block grant them for 8 years, reducing the grant 1/8th each year until no more federal funds are provided. Each state would then decide what they wanted to fund locally – versus letting private charities take care of the truly poor. We have something like 85 federal means-tested welfare cgms today – approx. $700+ billion per year. Unlike the feds, nearly all states have balanced budget amendments. They can’t borrow the money like the feds.
Does she listen to herself? I think she’s losing it.
She’s becoming a political Norma Desmond. Or, one of those pathetic old men you used to see in Horn & Hardart Automats in NYC in the 50s and 60s. “I was in Vaudeville!”
Bill Clinton sure ain’t her Bill Holden.
When she figures out a way to make a buck on it, she will change her mind.
Whoops. I screwed up. It takes 2/3rds of the states to CALL the convention, but 3/4ths to APPROVE any proposed amendment to the Constitution. That would be 38 state legislatures would have to vote (majority of both their houses, I guess) to approve any amendments recommended by the convention. Today, the GOP has control of around 30 states – 33 governorships? (I forget exactly now.) The Dem’s control maybe 13 completely – “blue” states.
Am I supposed to be surprised that the Hildabeast doesn’t understand something in the Constitution?
She understands it and she fears that YOU will understand it as well. The framers gave the electorate a mechanism to use when their elected representatives refuse to acknowledge the will of the people. At first blush it seems like a bit of genius, but after a little thought you realize that our swamp cockroaches were alive and well in the 1700s too. Clinton-like parasites have aways plagued mankind.
Was there a Sessions-like character asleep at the switch in the 1700s as well?
A COS would be a major mistake. We got the current constitution thanks to a coup by men who were just supposed to tweak the much superior Articles of Confederation. The Anti Federalists were right. The Constitution has lead to an all powerful Federal government just like it was intended to do.
A COS is NOT a mistake, in fact it is the tool the Framers gave us to stop and reverse an out of control government. The anti-Federalists did have some points, and got others completely wrong. In some cases, they attempted to deceive.
But what they got right CAN be fixed with a convention of states to amend. Give that up and you have forever given up on the Constitution itself.
The Democrats and courts have already totally rewritten the Constitution without bothering with that meddlesome amendment process. Hillary is just afraid that we’ll put it back to what the framers intended.
Notice the sleazebag raises her left hand when making a point.
Then there’s this other sleazebag:
Michelle Obama: Women who didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton ‘voted against their own voice’
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/michelle-obama-women-vote-hillary-clinton-voted-voice/story?id=50131692
Women’s brains shrink to one-fourth size when they vote.
“Progressive” brains shrink to 1/4 their size when they vote, sex of the voter has nothing to do with it.
“The process is neither an open, runaway, constitutional convention nor can it somehow result in a constitution written anew.”
It very well could be. Such a convention is a creature of the Constitution and a distinctly Federal body, as opposed to an actual convention of the states. They can propose any myriad number of things and crouch it in flowery and spiffy language, and get around the state legislatures to appeal directly to impressionable people.
No, the convention would not be a “Federal body.” It would be called by the Congress but run by the states and restricted to considering issues prescribed by the various states when they called for the convention. The idea of the “runaway convention” is a myth pushed by the progs in order to scare people off the idea of an article five convention.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-judiciary/332172-how-progressives-promoted-the-runaway-convention-myth-to
https://www.conventionofstates.com/answers_to_john_birch_society
Those links are not very convincing.
A convention called by Congress for proposing Amendments to the Constitution is a creature of the Constitution, and not of the states. As such, the ascribed power of the states in this regard is limited to initiating the process, and ratifying the results. The power to propose is reserved to the Congress and to the Convention. “Propose” does not mean two different things in the same sentence. The states are not given the power to propose, but only the right to petition Congress to call a Convention that would propose amendment.
For this to be otherwise, “petition for a convention” would mean “proposing an amendment,” but “proposing an amendment” doesn’t mean “proposing an amendment”.
Also, the convention is not a creation of the states, but of the Constitution. The various “conventions of States” had restrictions by the states because they were not creatures of the Constitution. Many examples of “conventions of the states” occurring after the ratification of the Constitution exist; none of these “conventions of the states” were Article V conventions.
Who proposes?
“Congress… shall propose”
“a convention for proposing”
Who proposes? Congress or the convention.
What does the state do?
“application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states” to petition Congress to call for a convention.
“ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states”
What does the state do? They petition congress to call a convention and they ratify proposed amendment.
Additionally, before the adopted language was chosen, the previous method initiated by the states would have required the Congress to vote on actual specific amendment. In the changed language, the only mandate the states could impose was on Congress to call a convention, the purpose of the convention to be to propose the amendment… not just act like a committee to finalize wording.
You would really benefit from reading up on the topic, you’ve been misinformed. Levin’s book would be a great place to start.
Levin is the one who is misinforming people.
An Article V convention is a Constitutional convention – it can be nothing else. It is a convention for framing changes to the Constitution. The states do not run the convention. After the FEDS determine that the threshold for calling a convention has been met, the feds issue the ‘call.’
The call contains the time, place, agenda (the reason the states listed on the applications), and may contain how the delegates are to be chosen. People assume the states will choose the delegates. A good guess, but not for sure because we’ve never had an Article V and we just don’t know what the feds will do.
After the call is issued and the delegates are chosen the states don’t run the convention – the convention runs the convention. The convention is a sovereign body and answers to no one. It is the People acting in their highest authority to create our government. Once the convention starts all bets are off and any amendment can come out of the convention. That is the authority of an Article V/Constitutional convention.
It is accurate that any amendment must be ratified by 3/4 of the states, but do you want to put our Constitution in the hands of the people in the Country now? Look at how our elected officials have betrayed us time and time again. Does anyone honestly think the People wouldn’t get screwed? I won’t take that chance.
This is the Constitution! Leave it alone and change the people running the government!
She doesn’t have to understand what it is.
All she has to do is open her pie-hole, spew on any topiic factually or not, and her supporters/the Left get a case of the vapors. And the Democrats with by-lines won’t correct her either.
Let the dumbing down of America continue…
A convention of states? An ideal excuse for delay.
I’d be perfectly happy if the government started taking the Constitution seriously just the way it is. Pretty obvious stuff, really … stop pretending that “shall not be infringed” doesn’t mean exactly what it says … limit the Commerce Clause to actual commerce … relatively simple items like that.
It might be nice to clarify exactly what “cruel and unusual punishments”, “freedom of speech”, “establishment of religion”, and “unconstitutional” mean, but that could be more contentious. If they could just do the straightforward stuff, it would be a huge improvement.
America’s biggest leap toward the modern totalitarian surveillance state wasn’t the Homeland Security Act of 2002; it was the imposition of the permanent personal income tax after ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913. This established the government’s need to know all about every last citizen and inhabitant … name, where he lives, where he vacations, where he does his banking, who he works for, who works for him, what he spends his money on, who he’s married to, who he lives with, etc. Without the personal income tax, there’s no need to know any of that. But the Feds are in such a colossal financial hole that it’s probably many decades too late to do anything about it.
No, sorry. You’ve flunked Hillary 101. What Hillary says has no bearing on what she knows or believes.
In fact, you can basically take it as a given that she does not know or care if anyone has actually proposed a Constitutional Convention or an Article V Convention or anything else.
She says it because she wants OTHER PEOPLE to believe it, or at least register enough of it to be angry at conservatives and vote for her for president in 2020.
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at the thought of her running again. The question is, is she going to quit drinking before the next election cycle?
My dad, a rather die hard Democrat, wishes she’d just go away.
Is there any well known Democrat who hasn’t swallowed hemlock? Hillary is back, and everyone wants her to go away. Obama threatens to come back, but he is poisoned by domestic spying.
Warren? Biden?
Do the have a leader?
If you read the actual state laws COS has passed you’ll see Hillary has a point. Felony arrest of convention delegates for failure to follow COS “instructions”. No voting by the American people on who is a delegate. http://www.foavc.org/Pages/Page_Five_B.htm. As to why no convention has been called despite the fact the states have applied http://www.foavc.org/Polis/Numeric.pdf read http://www.foavc.org/reference/file96.pdf