In today’s mailbag from my ever alert and engaged local 9-12/Tea Party group:
“It looks like our state legislators are pushing through a request (bill) for an amendment to the US Constitution. If memory serves me correctly, this could open up The US Constitution to a full blown convention with some nasty unintended consequences.
We cannot allow the current occupiers of DC to make changes to our Constitution. They may mean well, but figures can lie and liars can figure….
A much better way to balance our budget be a bill to require them to borrow no money and to start a savings account by year XXXX. They can’t do that without balancing the budget.
Let me know if this bothers you, too.
http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2012/8005
http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2012/0499
(clipped)
State Action
In 1983, thirty-two states had passed resolutions requesting a constitutional convention for proposing a balanced budget amendment; two short of the required thirty-four states.8 However, after the enactment of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget Act of 1985, Florida and Alabama rescinded their applications for a constitutional convention.
The Amendment Process
Article Five of the U.S. Constitution establishes the process to amend the Constitution. The amendment process consists of essentially two steps:
1. an amendment must be proposed and
2. the amendment must be ratified by 38 states.
An amendment may be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of the U.S. Congress or by a national convention. A national convention may be assembled if requested by at least 34 state legislatures. To become part of the Constitution, proposed amendments must be ratified either by approval of at least 38 state legislatures or state ratifying conventions. Congress decides which method of ratification must be used. Any amendment ratified by 38 states becomes a valid part of the constitution.
In order for the Florida Legislature to ratify an amendment, a majority of the members present and voting in each house must vote in favor of a concurrent resolution approving the amendment.
It would appear the author is concerned Florida is considering submitting an application for a convention call. Obviously the author believes only 32 states have submitted such application and such applications can be rescinded. Both beliefs are false. He states a convention “may” be assembled if 34 states request (two-thirds). This is also false.
1. Public record shows 49 states have submitted over 700 applications for a convention call. You can read the applications at http://www.foavc.org.
2. Applications cannot be rescinded. The Supreme Court has ruled in several decisions that Article V contains no implied powers or additions meaning unless it expresses it, it does not exist. There is no mention of such state power in Article V.
3.The Constitution expressly states Congress “shall” call a convention when the states so apply. This means they have no choice; the call is peremptory.
Therefore as 49 states have applied already (including the state of Florida) cannot rescind any application and the Constitution mandates a convention call, a convention is required. Congress is in violation of the Constitution for not doing so.
You may be interested in the following:
On January 17, 2012 at 8:48 AM local time the Department of Justice received the JOHN GUISE FEDERAL CRIMINAL COMPLAINT against members of Congress for FAILURE TO OBEY THEIR OATHS OF OFFICE and call an Article V Convention. Under federal law ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES has 30 days from the time of receipt of the complaint, January 17, to conduct a preliminary investigation and determine whether to act on the complaint or close it.
This means he must decide the issue by February 21, 2012. (The 30th day is February 20, a national holiday). Under the law, the attorney general is limited in his preliminary determination solely to the creditability of the evidence of the complaint, which, in this case, is the official record of the Congress of the United States, the Congressional Record. According to federal law, Attorney General Holder must determine whether it is in “the public interest” to require members of Congress to obey the Constitution. If the attorney general decides it is not in the public interest that Congress obey the Constitution, his official decision will likely serve as an official model for future constitutional disobedience by the government.
That would presume that Eric Holder, Barack Obama, and members of Congress observe the laws, which their actions show they do not. They do so only when convenient to their objectives. Otherwise, they ignore them.
Don’t expect to see anything come out of this criminal complaint any more than we’ve seen with the citizens’ petition for justice regarding the eligibility (or non eligibility) of this usurper president.
In other words, don’t hold your breath.
Re: the Constitutional Convention — you are correct in your reading of the law. However, this is quite possibly the WORST time we could ever choose to open that Pandora’s box — the Marxists in control of our government will seize the opportunity to rewrite (and destroy) our founding document to suit their purposes. They already ignore it. It’s a small step now toward rewriting it in their favor.