Important Constitutionally Conservative Movement

Advertisement

Editor:

On Tuesday, Feb. 11, the Arizona State House Federalism and Fiscal Responsibility Committee met for the third day in a row for further discussion, debate and finally a vote on HCR2027 Calling for A Convention of States for the Pur­pose of Proposing Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; and HB2305 Joining a Compact of States to Propose a Balanced Budget Amend­ment under Article V of the United States Constitution.

Both items passed in committee, and were sent to the full house with a “Do Pass” recommendation.

Just to be clear, both of these proposals are authorized under Article V of the U.S. Constitution. They involve local, state-driven efforts that are independent of Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution; amendments, which then would be sent out to the several states for ratification. Neither of them is a radical “constitutional convention” that would be extra-judicial and would never be used except by those wishing to scrap our current form of government and establish a new one.

A Convention of States is a very well defined, carefully regulated process for the people of each state to propose to those in the other states ideas that are limited exclusively to curtailing the power and authority of the federal government; ideas that currently enjoy broad support by Americans of both major political parties, both genders, all age groups, and people from all across the economic spectrum, ideas that Congress simply refuses to address.

Fortunately, the Founders wrote into the Constitution a little-known but very powerful method whereby we the people could propose these ideas for consideration by all, should there ever come a time when the Congress would fail in its responsibility to do so. That time has come.

This is happening, folks. Arizona now joins at least eight other states that are currently moving similar bills through their respective legislatures, and this is just since the movement formally began at the beginning of the year!

If you are an out-of-state subscriber to the Payson Roundup, here’s a Web site that will provide you with everything you need to find out where your state is (or isn’t) in what will most certainly be the most important constitutionally conservative political movement in modern history.

Convention of States Project: http://conventionofstates.com/

If you are in Arizona and want to keep tabs on the progress of these bills, or better yet, get involved, then why not do like the president — pick up a phone or grab a pen! Below is a link to the state Legislature’s Web site. This is a grass roots movement, and its success depends entirely on folks like us contacting our legislators to express our support, and to encourage theirs.

Arizona State Legislature: http://www.azleg. gov/

Article V — It’s a solution as big as the problem.

Michael Alexander

Comments

Michael Alexander 10 months ago

UPDATE! ==> The House Rules Committee (of our Arizona Legislature) has scheduled a hearing on HCR2027 for this coming Monday at 1pm in Room HHR4 at the Capitol. This is the piece of legislation to allow Arizona to join with other states and demand that Congress call for a Convention of States to propose amendments to the US Constitution. These amendments would impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress. The government is NOT going to fix itself... it's up to us. Follow this link, join the Group, get informed and get involved. It's time we remembered... this is our country!

https://www.facebook.com/groups/arizonaconventionofstates/

0

Donald Cline 10 months ago

You can also go to http://www.conventionofstates.com/welcome][1]. Facebook is eevill ... some of us won't go near it.

0

Michael Alexander 9 months, 4 weeks ago

Excellent alternative, Donald... I should have included it as the "source." Another non-Facepage is this one - the members of the Rules Committee... they need to hear from us: http://www.azleg.gov/CommitteeInfo.asp?Committee_ID=9&Session_ID=112

0

ALLAN SIMS 9 months, 4 weeks ago

Since I don't live in the area anymore, I'm posting as an outsider. So, pardon the intrusion, and possible ignorance. :-)

But, if I'm not mistaken, the congress has to call the proposed convention.

What happens if they don't, or won't call it?

Is it legal if our states just do it on their own? Would our dictator accept it, if it isn't officially called by the congress? And, if he doesn't, what then?

I want to talk to the state folks here in Texas and get their take on this, as well. If I find out anything, I'll be glad to let you know.

Best regards

Allan Sims

0

ALLAN SIMS 9 months, 3 weeks ago

Well, reading what you supplied here, I see the statement I'd referred to, wherein it says: " 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"

It says, (Dropping out those parts not relative to this particular question.) “The Congress…shall propose…or on the application of the legislatures…of the several states…shall call a convention…”

Thus, that means that it is congress that calls the convention, not the states themselves. The states must apply for congress to call that convention. They can merely apply for it. They (themselves) cannot legally convene without the congress calling the convention. Now, maybe I’m reading that incorrectly, and surely hope I am; but I don’t think so.

If I read it correctly, it would be a slight effort on the part of congress to refuse the states the right to convene; and if the states did so without that consent, it would be a small step to consider such move a treasonous act, would it not? And, I suspect our ‘friend of the people’, President Hussein … would be delighted to arrest those subverters, who attempt what could be classified as ‘insurrection’ wouldn’t you think?

Now, I’m all for the convention, and think it the last great chance we have to recreate the great nation (That has so recently passed away), without blood and carnage. I simply think the convention may never take place because of this technicality in the law; leaving either servitude or death in a gutter somewhere as the last breath of freedom.

Your thoughts?

0

Ronald Hamric 9 months, 3 weeks ago

Mr. Sims,

As many of us often find it difficult to ascertain the "intent" of what the founders wrote throughout that document, it is important for one to review the debates that took place around the wordings adopted for such. Those debates and understanding of why they chose the wording they did can be found in the Federalist Papers. We too often today hear people say "Well I think it means this, that , or the other." Want to know how the people who wrote that document wanted things understood? Read their debates on it. This conflict on wording comes up often in the 2nd Amendment discussions, where folks want to find a meaning to "shall not be infringed" that better suits their personal political agenda. The founders chose "shall not" instead of a more flexible "may not", so I personally think it is rather clear as to their intent. Likewise in the 5th, they put in "or" to provide the citizens with a method to make amendments if the Congress itself became unwilling to listen and act on the behalf of the states.

1

ALLAN SIMS 9 months, 3 weeks ago

Well, folks, I hope you’re right. I surely do. Although I read the King's English (Used by all educated colonists, thus those who wrote the Constitution) fairly well. The "or" is simply contrasting the two methods. The sentence starts out saying what congress can do, one the one hand, then the "or", then the contrasting method of what they can do: "on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments"

In that second option, the comma after the word states, shows the words between the "or" and "shall" are a conditional phrase. The word "shall' without the insertion of 'the congress' or 'the states' indicates that the congress, and not the states in this complicated sentence will be the one to do the calling.

Now, I don't expect you to accept that, since you've both expressed how you see it. But, if I can see it worded differently than you, don't you think that slick politicians, bent on their own purposes of keeping the money coming into their own pockets, can do the same? Thus, leaving the interpretation to the courts, when the congress refuses? And, I suggest that the courts will come down on the side of the government, just as it did for Obamacare, regardless of the will of the people; and certainly regardless of the will of the states.

Worse yet, they can drag it out, in court, to the point that it would be moot; and by then we will already have been dominated beyond our ability to recover.

I, for one, am prepared stand in the streets, or on the rim, or make a last stand up near Apache Butte. But, I pray this convention of states will pull the fat out of the fire.

Best regards, and thanks for you different insights.

Allan

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.