Wikipedia says that only two more state legislatures need to act to require Congress to call a convention to propose a Balanced Budget Amendment. The LP — like state legislatures — has also previously endorsed the Liberty Amendment, which would repeal the 16th amendment and set a deadline of three years to close all federal enterprises not explicitly authorized by the Constitution.
Libertarian Party Prosperity Plan
By wredlich on April 16, 2009 2:12 AM
wredlich
Warren Redlich is CEO of SpinJ Corporation, which became owner of IPR in November 2012. He was the 2010 Libertarian candidate for Governor of New York, and has run for office as a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, and Liberal.
Amendment XXVIII:
Section 1. Articles I-IV and VI-VII and Amendments I-XXVII of this Constitution are herewith repealed.
Section 2. Upon ratification of this Amendment, Article V and this Amendment of this Constitution are herewith repealed.
Seems to me to be a pretty simple way to kill the whole thing in a con-con.
They weren’t “wise” in a good sense of the word; they had every intention of fomenting a coup to install Leviathan government (and they succeeded). The AOC were sufficient for defending liberty; not sufficient for the government the “founding fathers” wanted to foist on Americans. Libertarians need to stop deifying the “founders” and most of all their evil creation, the Constitution.
Bill…
I visited your website, I admit I wasted 9:59 seconds of my life watching the Why we need an AVC….
In the vid, you talked about change (15 times in 10 min.) and fear (14 times in 10 min.) But never…not one time…did you say what you wanted to change…OR…what you propose to change it to.
This vid did NOT explain why we need an AVC. Other than the simple fact it is in the Constitution….why do you bother?
With all the “change”…I thought I was watching a BObama commercial….
Not my point.
An amendment can repeal something in the constitution, contrary to the statement I was responding to.
The 21st amendment was first passed through the U.S. Congress. I don’t think any of the successful amendments were first passed through the state-application process.
As to scraping the Constitution, Article V is clear. Amendments may only be proposed “as part of this Constitution,” meaning a Article V Convention cannot write a new Constitution.
Circular reasoning. If the old constitution is scrapped, the rules in effect are those of the new constitution (whatever those are), unless the coup is rejected – which is by no means certain.
As to repealing any amendment including the First Amendment, of the over 750 applications from the states there is not one that asks for repeal of any amendment, except the 16th and none even address the first ten amendments. Also, a convention has no power to do anything except propose an amendment or amendments. Therefore they could not “repeal” anything in the Constitution.
So what are the 18th and 21st amendments?
There are so many misstatements of fact in the above comments, I hardly know where to begin. I guess at the beginning is the best.
The Wikipedia article referred to in the above comment is incorrect both as the number of applications for an Article V Convention and the number of applications regarding that amendment subject. In sum, all 50 states have submitted over 750 applications for an Article V Convention. The Constitution requires a convention call when 34 states submit 34 applications. As to a balanced budget, as the Constitution only requires a simple numeric count of applying states, the issue of any application is constitutionally irrelevant but for the record, there are a total of 36 applications for the balanced budget issue. The actual texts of the applications can be read at http://www.foavc.org.
It is true amendments can proposed by a convention. It is equally true Congress has the same power. Therefore, in fact, if Congress were so disposed what the author above fears, Congress does not require a convention to have it occur. They would simply use their own power already granted them and do as he states. As they have not, it should obvious to all the Constitution does not allow what he states might happen. Further, the author ignores the ratification procedure which is designed to prevent such actions from happening.
As to Bryan’s question about a convention called by the states? If he refers to the national convention the above mentioned facts clearly show yes they have–about 20 times over. If he is referring to state conventions, again the answer is yes. According to our best research, there have been over 700 state conventions in this country through its history–all held without incident. This is obvious because otherwise someone like Bryan wouldn’t have asked his question in the first place if the conventions were common knowledge. In short, this huge number of conventions has been so innocuous I’d wager Bryan can’t even name one state (unless he lives in it) that currently is discussing state conventions. There are several by the way.
As to scraping the Constitution, Article V is clear. Amendments may only be proposed “as part of this Constitution,” meaning a Article V Convention cannot write a new Constitution. And each amendment proposal must be ratified individually. You cannot ratify them as a group. The only time such an action was tried was the Bill of Rights and if you read the ratification actions of the states, they may have voted them at the same time, but each amendment proposal is individually noted as being ratified. There is no group ratification by any state.
It is myth that the 1787 convention was called to amend the articles of confederation. If you read Federalist 40 you’ll read the actual call Congress issued which was to make “the Constitution” to deal with the “exigencies of government.” In short, change the Articles to a Constitution. This the convention did and if anyone doubts that the intent was to replace the Articles and those in the states or Congress didn’t know about it, I suggest reading the U.S. Constitution at Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: “No state shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance or confederation:…”
As to repealing any amendment including the First Amendment, of the over 750 applications from the states there is not one that asks for repeal of any amendment, except the 16th and none even address the first ten amendments. Also, a convention has no power to do anything except propose an amendment or amendments. Therefore they could not “repeal” anything in the Constitution.
I suggest all above go to http://www.foavc.org and learn the truth about a convention and then go to your Constitution, the Federalist Papers and a history book on United States history written before 1960 and learn the real facts about this nation and how its constitution works.
If a Constitutional convention were called, all they need to do is repeal everything after the first 5 words of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law…” 😀
I didn’t think there had been, and like I said earlier, some of the “convention goers” went in with the desire to get rid of the AoC.
Now I’m really spooked. Because this would set precedent for re-writing the entire thing…And Article V only mentions the way the Convention can be called and ratified, it does not restrict their actions.
Bryan, the only precedent was the convention which created the current constitution. When it was called, it was only for the purpose of amending the articles of confederation.
No one knows. We could easily end up with an entirely different constitution, perhaps one which scraps the requirement that states adopt it. At that point, whether the new constitution would be recognized as overriding the old one would depend on which side would be able to muster the most physical force or credible threat of force.
It’s not easy…for a reason.
Has there ever been a convention called by the states? I don’t recall ever hearing of it, but I would have one question about #6, especially if there is precedent.
In the case of a convention would the amendments coming out of it be considered as individual amendments (similar to the “usual” process), or would they be considered as a group, which would very dangerous.
I’m not sure what would happen in the case of a Constitutional Convention.
While it requires 2/3 of the states to call a convention, it requires 3/4 of the states to ratify each amendment.
I suspect that is not easy to do.
A Constitutional Convention is like anything else. Be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it…and the results can be scary.
A Constitutional Convention is a VERY bad idea.
LJ, if you remember our current Constitution was written by men, fortunately very wise men, who were charged with making changes to the Articles of Confederation. Some went into it planning to get rid of, rather than revise it. They did…
Article V only states that 2/3 of the states can call a convention for proposing amendments. This Article could/should be read to mean that these conventions would be “open ended”. It does not specify any restrictions, and if a convention were called they would be within their rights to add amendments as they see fit.
In today’s world it would be horribly politicized. Because the D’s and R’s control the government, they would set the rules. Right now, this would mean the D’s would get at least a slight majority, which means gun restrictions, anti-commerce/pro-labor language and health care could easily be included in changes they would propose.
how do you know?
Wikipedia says that only two more state legislatures need to act to require Congress to call a convention to propose a Balanced Budget Amendment.
That could be dangerous though, since Constitutional Conventions are not limited to one subject.
See also
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/just-in-time-for-tea-libertarian-plan-scraps-irs-bans-bailouts/