We affirm the original text of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We affirm that the nation’s Charter, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution contain the foundational law of the federal union. We condemn, therefore, all legislative, executive, and judicial action that departs from the texts and intent of the Charter and the Constitution and their original meaning.
We oppose any attempt to call for a Constitutional convention, for any purpose whatsoever, because it cannot be limited to any single issue, and such convention could seriously erode our Constitutionally protected unalienable rights.
CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE 2012-2016 PLATFORM PAGE.
It would give it a fig leaf.
“That’s only if the constitution is not completely replaced.”
No. If the constitution is going to be replaced by extra-legal means, then worrying about an Article V convention seems beside the point. The Constitution could be extra-legally replaced tomorrow. But if we’re talking about a convention following the Art. V process, then yes, it would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states just like an amendment passed by Congress. Whether it’s a regular traditional amendment or an amendment to replace the Constitution as a whole with a new one, isn’t relevant to that question. Congress already has the exact same power any convention would have.
“I don’t see why you think it is hyperbolic.”
Because completely scrapping the US Constitution to replace it with a total rewrite has, within a rounding error, zero support. Repealing the 1st Amendment? Ditching the Preamble that schoolkids have been memorizing for centuries? Totally junking all of the millions of pages of court decisions and established interests built on almost every single clause of the document? Good luck with that.
The situation simply isn’t remotely like what happened in 1787-9, and a convention isn’t going to change that.
“Either way, nothing gets done without the same ratification by a super-majority of the states that a Congressionally-proposed amendment would require.”
That’s only if the constitution is not completely replaced.
“But this idea that they would or could repeal the Bill of Rights or totally rewrite the Constitution is more than a little hyperbolic (and yes, that’s sort of what happened in 1787, but this isn’t 1787 and the existing Constitution with all its long-standing veneration isn’t the Articles of Confederation.) ”
I don’t see why you think it is hyperbolic.
I think the fears of and hopes for an Article V convention are both overblown. All a convention does is replace Congress in the amendment process. No, I don’t trust the establishment politicians we would likely get in a convention with that power, but then I again I don’t trust Congress and the state legislatures with that power either. Either way, nothing gets done without the same ratification by a super-majority of the states that a Congressionally-proposed amendment would require.
The main good argument against a convention is that it wouldn’t produce anything both substantive enough and plausibly ratifiable in order justify the effort of holding the damn thing. A balanced budget amendment or term limits or whatever else isn’t really any more likely from the convention process than than the usual Congressional route- once there is enough demand for it. But this idea that they would or could repeal the Bill of Rights or totally rewrite the Constitution is more than a little hyperbolic (and yes, that’s sort of what happened in 1787, but this isn’t 1787 and the existing Constitution with all its long-standing veneration isn’t the Articles of Confederation.) And ultimately, there is a good reason the convention option exists, that shouldn’t be categorically rejected.
Here’s another resolution on the issue:
2015 Montana Legislature
Additional Bill Links PDF (with line numbers)
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7
INTRODUCED BY R. WEBB
A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE AND THE HO– USE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF MONTANA APPLYING FOR A CONVENTION OF THE STATES UNDER ARTICLE V OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
WHEREAS, the founders of our Constitution empowered state legislators to be guardians of liberty against future abuses of power by the federal government; and
WHEREAS, the federal government has created a crushing national debt through improper and imprudent spending, and
WHEREAS, the federal government has invaded the legitimate roles of the states through the manipulative process of federal mandates, most of which are unfunded to a great extent; and
WHEREAS, the federal government has ceased to live under a proper interpretation of the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, it is the solemn duty of the States to protect the liberty of our people — particularly for the generations to come — by proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States through a Convention of the States under Article V for the purpose of restraining these and related abuses of power.
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:
Section 1. The Legislature of the State of Montana hereby applies to Congress, under the provisions of Article V of the Constitution of the United States, for the calling of a convention of the states limited to proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States that 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.
Section 2. The secretary of state is hereby directed to transmit copies of this application to the President and Secretary of the United States Senate and to the Speaker and Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, and copies to the members of the said Senate and House of Representatives from this State; also to transmit copies hereof to the presiding officers of each of the legislative houses in the several States, requesting their cooperation.
Section 3. This application constitutes a continuing application in accordance with Article V of the Constitution of the United States until the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the several states have made applications on the same subject.
– END –
I know various states are pushing legislation to open this convention up. In Montana they want to get rid of Citizens United and work on a Balance Budget Amendment using this convention. But it’s like a special session of a state legislature where the main issue maybe education funding, but the session can be opened up for all kinds of things if the majority agrees.
“Would that include the decision to not use eminent domain, since it’s spelled out in the Constitution? Or to not kill someone for treason?”
The Constitution does not require capital punishment for treason.
>We condemn, therefore, all legislative, executive, and judicial action that departs from the texts >and intent of the Charter and the Constitution and their original meaning.
Would that include the decision to not use eminent domain, since it’s spelled out in the Constitution? Or to not kill someone for treason?
The top part is.
There’s not a whole lot I agree with the “Constitution” Party on, but this is an exception to the rule.
It’s bad enough that the US government doesn’t really feel much need to abide by the Constitution as it exists, but at least it’s there to wave at them and try to force them to adhere to. A constitutional convention would open the door to putting the official seal of “consent” on all kinds of fuckery.
As the link at the bottom suggests, this is a plank from their national platform.
This is deja vu all over again. The NTU almost pulled this off in the 80’s. More scare tactics!