Constitutional convention?

[CUDA]

discuss

WASHINGTON – Momentum is building behind what would be an unprecedented effort to amend the U.S. Constitution, through a little-known provision that gives states rather than Congress the power to initiate changes.

At issue is what's known as a "constitutional convention," a scenario tucked into Article V of the U.S. Constitution. At its core, Article V provides two ways for amendments to be proposed. The first – which has been used for all 27 amendment to date – requires two-thirds of both the House and Senate to approve a resolution, before sending it to the states for ratification. The Founding Fathers, though, devised an alternative way which says if two-thirds of state legislatures demand a meeting, Congress “shall call a convention for proposing amendments.”

The idea has gained popularity among constitutional scholars in recent years -- but got a big boost last week when Michigan lawmakers endorsed it.

Michigan matters, because by some counts it was the 34th state to do so. That makes two-thirds.

In the wake of the vote, California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter pressed House Speaker John Boehner on Tuesday to determine whether the states just crossed the threshold for this kind of convention. Like Michigan lawmakers, Hunter's interest in the matter stems from a desire to push a balanced-budget amendment -- something that could potentially be done at a constitutional convention.

“Based on several reports and opinions, Michigan might be the 34th state to issue such a call and therefore presents the constitutionally-required number of states to begin the process of achieving a balanced budget amendment,” Hunter wrote.

“With the recent decision by Michigan lawmakers, it is important that the House – and those of us who support a balanced budget amendment -- determine whether the necessary number of states have acted and the appropriate role of Congress should this be the case."

If two-thirds of the states indeed have applied, the ball is presumably in Congress' court to call the convention.

But Article V is rather vague, and it's ultimately unclear whether 34 states have technically applied. In the past, states like Oregon, Utah and Arizona have quietly voted to approve the provision in their legislature.

But some of the 34 or so have rescinded their requests. Others have rescinded, and then re-applied.

Alabama rescinded its request in 1988 but in 2011, lawmakers again applied for a convention related to an amendment requiring that the federal budget be balanced. It was a similar story in Florida in 2010.

Louisiana rescinded in 1990 but lawmakers have tried several times, unsuccessfully, to reinstate the application since then.

It's unclear whether the applications still count in these scenarios.

Some constitutional scholars like Gregory Watson, an analyst in Texas, say once states ask, there may be no take-backs.

“There is a disagreement among scholars as to whether a state that has approved an application may later rescind that application,” Watson told The Washington Times. “If it is ultimately adjudicated that a state may not rescind a prior application, then Ohio’s 2013 application for a Balanced Budget Amendment convention would be the 33rd and Michigan’s 2014 application would be the 34th on that topic.”

Others say if a state changes its mind, it can no longer be part of the 34.

Even if the requisite number of states have applied, questions remain about how such a convention would work -- and whether, as Michigan wants, such a convention could be limited to only discussing a balanced-budget amendment.

It still may be a long shot, but some analysts are warning about the unintended consequences of such a move.

In Louisiana, Budget Project Policy Analyst Steve Spire argued against the state's resolution, saying the convention could permanently damage the nation’s political system.

The last time there was a successful amendment was more than four decades ago – the 26th Amendment which changed the voting age to 18. States ratified the 27th Amendment on congressional pay increases, but it took more than 200 years to do it.

[callmeslick]

this is sort of old news, unlikely to EVER see critical mass simultaneously(unless you apply the very recent stuff in this article around not counting rescinded requests), and would introduce an enormous number of problems. Among them would be that once the convention is convened, ANY subject can be brought to the fore. Given that a supermajority of Americans, for instance, support things that the right(which is touting this idea) find anaethema, they might wish to think twice. Also worth pondering is that a forced balanced budget leaves little legal room for the nation to deal in a reasonable manner with sudden shortfalls in revenue(think economic debacles like the Great Recession) beyond slashing the expenditures of government, which leads to a death spiral that would kill the nation's economy, and such damage could well be permanent. Thus, it's a really bad idea that could lead to VERY unexpected side resutls. The article cited hints at these. You could easily convene a convention around one idea, such as balanced budget and see a resultant set of amendments around Gay Marriage, a re-write of the 2nd amendment, a complete rewrite of the 1st with free speech restricted to NOT include campaign giving, and other liberal ideals which hold broad appeal. Trust me, I've talked to a few very prominent left wing types(FAR more left of myself) who have been licking their lips waiting to pounce on this. According to one or two who are trained in Constitution law, there is no way that a Constitutional Convention can be limited in regards to topic matter once convened.

[Tunnelcat]

That second method gives state lawmakers more power than the voters to amend our Constitution, if I read it right. I would much prefer having the states retain the ability to vote on all ratifications for all Constitutional Amendments, instead of giving that power to a bunch of lawmakers huddling in some back room convention. Sounds pretty snaky when I put it that way, doesn't it? It smacks of politics and political machinations. In this case, it's nothing but an end around run by Republicans in an effort to get their balanced budget amendment cast in stone in our Constitution. The end effect would essentially create an amendment that would require at big cut all our social programs and safety nets, something that Republicans have been dreaming about since FDR. To hell with the economic consequences. However, lest Republicans forget in their zeal to get what they want, lefties could also use this tactic to their advantage as well. It's a 2-edged sword that cuts both ways. I think the Constitution needs to be given far more respect.

[Top Gun]

The actual issues being discussed aside, it would be interesting to see this happen, since it's never occurred before. The wording does seem to be far too vague as to whether or not a convention would be limited to a single amendment, and if it wasn't you'd have all sorts of proposals being floated at the same time. It also seems strange to me that a state rescinding its call for a convention would still be counted amongst that number: you'd think that you'd need 34 states simultaneously calling for it in order for it to proceed. There would also be the question of which method an amendment decided like this would go up for ratification: would it require the approval of 3/4 of the state legislatures, or 3/4 of special ratifying conventions. (The latter method has only been used once before, for the 21st Amendment.)

[callmeslick]

also, there really isn't a damn thing vague about the wording of Article V--'convene a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments' in NO way suggests that such a convention, once opened, can be restricted to any topic. In fact, Jefferson spoke of this clause, and was in favor of re-visiting the ENTIRE Constitution on a generational basis(in other words, every 30 or 40 years).

[Will Robinson]

'It's more what you would call guidelines than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl citizen'

I think the current crew of the Black Pearl, under Cap'n Obama and first mate Reid, have already demonstrated that so no need to open it up further.

And for TC...
You cry about a call for a balanced budget and cite how it would cause cuts in programs. Hmmm.
i wonder, do you see the fundamental flaw in the foundation of that complaint?

You should if you have any desire for the future of programs to be financially viable.
The ability to maintain fiscal responsibility is paramount to everything the Fed is supposed to provide for the citizen.

You are, perhaps unwittingly, adopting rhetoric as wisdom. The call for some kind of a 'balanced budget' isn't inherently a bad thing and you shouldn't perpetuate that talking point. Instead we should accept it as an important component to sound governance and expect to find the devil in the details and demand he is exorcised as a part of the implementation. The alternative is the mess we have now...and worse.

[Z..]

Haven't really heard much about this, so haven't quite formed an opinion yet. But I wonder what you all think about some of these 200+ year old laws being dusted off.

As with anything government related, they'd just pass a quick law invalidating someone else calling the shots. You conservatives know it as well as I do, those employees won't let the rules change that aren't in their favor. This stuff seems fun to talk about but won't really happen, in my opinion I guess.

[flip]

I like the idea. It reverses the trend and puts many more people in the debate. Anything that depends on the consensus of 38 state legislatures to ratify is bound to be more heavily debated and thought out than the ACA, which was forced on the US by a very small group and if you think the ACA doesn't change this countries nature you are sadly deceived. If anything, it starts to turn the balance back towards the states in the minds of the populace and that can only bring good. If 38 states agree to ban gay marriage, then gay marriage should be banned. It's a return back to majority rule and not this little circle jerk weve been subjected to for the last 30 years. I support it on principle alone.

EDIT: I also think your pinko friends would be licking more than their lips .
EDIT: If anything, they should amend to institute term limits, I'd be happy as a pig in slop then.

[Top Gun]

If anything, it starts to turn the balance back towards the states in the minds of the populace and that can only bring good. If 38 states agree to ban gay marriage, then gay marriage should be banned. It's a return back to majority rule and not this little circle jerk weve been subjected to for the last 30 years. I support it on principle alone.

Uh, this is exactly the opposite of how rights work. Many of the provisions enumerated in the Constitution are designed specifically to protect minorities from the "tyranny of the majority;" that's pretty much the entire basis of the 14th Amendment. You'll notice that even some of the states that have amended their individual constitutions to include "marriage protection" are now facing legal challenges, because said amendments can be held to violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which applies to state governments. On its face, a federal amendment banning same-sex marriage could be seen as violating the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment, without specifically changing said amendment...and that would raise the interesting question of whether or not a constitutional amendment can itself be unconstitutional. That's something that, to my knowledge, has never been addressed in the US, though it has come up in the constitutional law of other countries.

[flip]

Yeah, I don't care one way or the other about gay marriage because I agree with you that anyone's religious beliefs cannot be forced and maintain a free society. Nope, I'm gonna push for Term Limits for Congress. Shouldn't be anyone that can't get behind that

[callmeslick]

the core issue with a forced balanced budget is that(as I've tried to spell out before) Federal budgets are completely different from the household budgets with which some like to compare them. For a big example, no one can lower their personal expenditures and force their income downward sharply, which is precisely what happens every time a central government slashes expenditure, especially during recessions. What a forced balance would do, of course, is exactly that: when a recession hits, and revenue drops, you are forced to slash spending(no time to raise taxes), and thus put your revenues into a death-spiral.

[Will Robinson]

slick, there isn't a mutually exclusive divider between "some kind of balanced budget", as I phrased it, and the current policy of spend-into-massive-debt-to-buy-voter-loyalty. In between the two extremes lies a vast expanse of varying degrees of fiscal responsibility.

So for you to try and dismiss what I said by characterizing it as some all or nothing scenario just makes it clear that you are merely a party loyalist who is very much a part of the problem.

[callmeslick]

slick, there isn't a mutually exclusive divider between "some kind of balanced budget", as I phrased it, and the current policy of spend-into-massive-debt-to-buy-voter-loyalty. In between the two extremes lies a vast expanse of varying degrees of fiscal responsibility.

agree completely, Will. It's just that you can't get to that state via anything by way of a Constitutional amendment.

So for you to try and dismiss what I said by characterizing it as some all or nothing scenario just makes it clear that you are merely a party loyalist who is very much a part of the problem.

wasn't addressing your statement, Will. Sorry for the misunderstanding here.

[woodchip]

the core issue with a forced balanced budget is that(as I've tried to spell out before) Federal budgets are completely different from the household budgets with which some like to compare them. For a big example, no one can lower their personal expenditures and force their income downward sharply, which is precisely what happens every time a central government slashes expenditure, especially during recessions. What a forced balance would do, of course, is exactly that: when a recession hits, and revenue drops, you are forced to slash spending(no time to raise taxes), and thus put your revenues into a death-spiral.

Yes Federal budgets are different. Household budgets do not have a 7% income increase each year no matter what. If you want to start to balance the Federal budget, do away with the baseline budget system in place now and tie it to the GDP increase percentage. And just how, by slashing spending, does that decrease revenues? Or are you looking at payroll taxes from Federal workers or tax dollars used to buy goods from private businesses and the resultant taxes from the profits as some sort of revenue stream?

[callmeslick]

Woody, the government has the ability(and IMHO, the obligation) to increase revenues apace with budgeted spending. Much of the current deficit is due to giveaways from our revenue stream, as opposed to some sort of unprincipled spending.

[woodchip]

So what you are say is, that during recessionary times, to increase the govt. revenues, the govt should increase taxation. Speak about a death spiral. And giveaways are a principled method of spending? Must be the new math.

[callmeslick]

So what you are say is, that during recessionary times, to increase the govt. revenues, the govt should increase taxation. Speak about a death spiral. And giveaways are a principled method of spending? Must be the new math.

not what I am saying at all. In fact, during a recession, the government should use deficit spending to overcome free-market income pressures. What I am saying about revenues is that one shouldn't slash revenues(a la GWB) because we start running surpluses in good times. That is exactly what we should be doing....running surpluses when the economy is good, and spending those surpluses in the form of deficit spending when times are hard, or when unforseen expenditures(disasters, military events) occur. That is prudent finance, that is the way we should be running things, and if anything is to be learned from the past 14 years, doing otherwise is a ticket for serious problems. The giveaways I was referring to were on the revenue side, giving money to taxpayers who didn't need the breaks, and weren't in most cases even asking for same(except the really greedy ones)

[Tunnelcat]

And for TC...
You cry about a call for a balanced budget and cite how it would cause cuts in programs. Hmmm.
i wonder, do you see the fundamental flaw in the foundation of that complaint?

You should if you have any desire for the future of programs to be financially viable.
The ability to maintain fiscal responsibility is paramount to everything the Fed is supposed to provide for the citizen.

You are, perhaps unwittingly, adopting rhetoric as wisdom. The call for some kind of a 'balanced budget' isn't inherently a bad thing and you shouldn't perpetuate that talking point. Instead we should accept it as an important component to sound governance and expect to find the devil in the details and demand he is exorcised as a part of the implementation. The alternative is the mess we have now...and worse.

So who's bringing this up NOW, after all other options have failed? Why, Republicans of course, who can't seem to pass what they want while those pesky Dems are in control. They WANT to cut social programs, it's in their DNA, but NOT their cherished bloated military programs, and forcing a balanced budget amendment to be put through on their terms will allow them to do just that.

But why are we worrying? We just need patience, for now.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... t-victory/

However, Medicare will become the predominant budget sink in the future as baby boomers age. So what would you do Will besides use a axe upon Medicare to cut the budget? Rising health care costs will continue be a be the elephant in the room, despite, or maybe in spite of, Obamacare. Throw all those sick seniors out of the program just to make the budget balance? How's that for respecting your elders?

[Tunnelcat]

I rest my case.

http://news.yahoo.com/paul-ryan-still-t ... itics.html

[Top Gun]

What an absolute doucherod. Get bent Ryan.

[flip]

Yeah, you gotta wonder about a person's mentality when you see all the wasteful spending done by government and their solution is to cut from the poor. Those safety nets were not even necessary until "Those who made Mer'ca" decided to use their fortunes, monopolies and influences to seal every else's fate.

[Top Gun]

I mean there are certainly elements to Medicare and food stamps and the like that could use some reforming and streamlining, but just cutting the hell out of them without offering any sort of feasible replacement, all for the sake of "balance"? That's just bull★■◆●.

[Will Robinson]

I mean there are certainly elements to Medicare and food stamps and the like that could use some reforming and streamlining, but just cutting the hell out of them without offering any sort of feasible replacement, all for the sake of "balance"? That's just ****.

If "balance" is just some random arrangement of letters with no real meaning to you then, yea, it's just "****".
On the other hand...

[Tunnelcat]

A better word would be "priority". So who should get more priority with the budget when times are tight, the poor and sick, or the wealthy and the military? You choose Will.

[flip]

Georgia just signed on, may get those term limits after all

[vision]

A better word would be "priority". So who should get more priority with the budget when times are tight, the poor and sick, or the wealthy and the military? You choose Will.

You know which he will choose. The poor are poor by choice. They just need to exercise their personal liberty. Don't blame rich people for being smart and free.