via the LPNM Blog:
Whereas the Libertarian Party of New Mexico is a political party with the goal of increasing liberty in New Mexico; and
Whereas the federal government of the United States in all its branches has been recently engaged in limiting the powers belonging to the several states and to the people in violation of the Constitution of the United States; and
Whereas, the Constitution provides a remedy to the states and the people for the purpose of addressing said violations in the form of an Article 5 Convention of the States to amend the Constitution:
Be it resolved that the Libertarian party of New Mexico endorses the political work necessary to pass a resolution in the New Mexico legislature to apply for a Convention of the States to amend the Constitution as an exercise in asserting the powers reserved to the states and to the people in order to preserve and increase liberty.
Resolution passed by the LPNM Central Committee on Sunday, 2 August 2015
I tend to agree.
It’s not clear whether any such limiting rules could be binding. I’m also not convinced that it won’t happen.
As for a constitution 2.0, it could happen. The convention that led to the present constitution was not expected to, and did not have authority to, do anything except make incremental changes to the Articles of Confederation. Instead they just replaced them entirely.
The proposed plan is that they’d be bound by both the enabling legislation and public promises to adopt a strict set of rules which binds them to do nothing but vote up or down on the pre-specified text without amendment. It wouldn’t be a deliberative body, it would be rubber-stamp or nothing, and then to the state legislatures for the regular ratification process.
I’m not necessarily defending this as practical, but I do think it could be done and their plan is reasonably sound on a theoretical level. In that context making it the Governors makes it more likely that plan would be stuck to, the whole idea being to ameliorate fears of a runaway convention.
But it’s still not going to happen.
>Nobody is proposing Constitution 2.0. They’re proposing a 28th Amendment, and maybe a 29th and 30th at the most. But mainly just a balanced budget one….The delegates would simply be the 50 state governors.
Wonderful, especially as those guys do such a nifty job balancing their own budgets!
Nobody is proposing Constitution 2.0. They’re proposing a 28th Amendment, and maybe a 29th and 30th at the most. But mainly just a balanced budget one.The idea being pushed by the main group backing it now, is that even the text of the amendment would be specified ahead of time by the states, and the convention would only meet pro forma to rubber stamp it and send it out for ratification. The delegates would simply be the 50 state governors.
The main realistic worry I’d have is that balanced budget and/or term limits (the two most often cited, and both mainly of appeal to the right), will get paired with a political censorship “campaign finance reform” amendment to appease the left. But those are the only three proposals I could see coming out of this, the only proposed constitutional amendments that have any serious widespread support. Perhaps as a distant fourth, maybe something dealing with DC and the territories, or the explicit “right to vote” amendment some Dems have been pushing. But beyond that? Making substantive changes to either individual rights guarantees or the structure of the federal government? Not gonna happen under anything like the present circumstances. It’s much easier to interpret those provisions away and not enforce them, than to explicitly amend or repeal them.
I do find it curious that people appeal to the intent of the Founders to oppose this, when it was the Founders who put this provision in Article V, and by some indications expected it to be used a little more often than “never.” In some state constitutions (more in the past than today), a constitutional convention (or at least a referendum on having one) is required every X number of years. Some states are on the sixth or seventh constitution.
Its all a joke. There won’t be any convention. But, if there were, it wouldn’t accomplish anything good. But, if it did, the pols would simply ignore it, just like they do now.
Like I said… it is all BS! Can they rescind? It all depends on what the PTB wants.
Can states rescind? They can’t when it comes to ratifying a constitutional amendment. Some have purported to, but it was ruled invalid. It’s an open question as to applications for a convention, as is the idea that only applications on a single subject (vs. all for any amendment) should count.
Really, what it would take is some state making the case that 2/3 had been reached and then suing Congress to call the convention. But even then the courts will probably defer as a political question.
Review the National Taxpayers Union’s Balanced Budget Amendment in the late 70’s and early 80’s. It very nearly got the 38 state legislatures to issue the call. But the usual OMG the world is ending stuff got some states to rescind so we will never know if the New World Order would have really re-written the Constitution in toto. It’s all BS.
@George Phillies
That’s the complete text of the resolution.
@NF That’s kind of what I figured, and why I’m a bit surprised LPNM endorsed this. Not that I really object.
I think on balance it’s unlikely to ever happen and even less likely to accomplish much. The main thing it can do- and how’s it’s always worked before- is cajole Congress into passing an amendment the usual way. The exact details of how a convention would be done are also a complete can of worms, since there’s zero precedent and a lot of contradictory ideas. But the hysteria that they’re going to repeal the Bill of Rights and abolish baseball and apple pie is ridiculous. You might as well worry about repealing the Declaration of Independence.
Because here’s the thing: right now, the power to radically amend the Constitution in whatever manner you wish to posit, is in the hands of just a few thousand people. Majorities in three-quarters of the state legislatures and two-third in each House of Congress- those people could repeal the 1st Amendment and abolish the state governments and appoint a King of America, tomorrow, without any public referendum or election. The real entrenchment protecting the Constitution isn’t *just* procedural, it’s political and deeper than that, cultural.
A convention wouldn’t have any power that Congress doesn’t already have, and the state legislatures would play the exact same role in ratification either way. But still, as a matter of political reality Congress will always pass whatever amendment is being pushed for (possibly in their preferred watered-down form), before having to call for a convention (and even how to count how many states have asked for one is in dispute- there isn’t any official list)
I don’t suppose they listed any examples of their leading claim, did they?
Runaway convention guy here, weighing in. This is a horrible idea.
Oh Boy! Cue the music for the “runaway convention” folks to weigh in as to what a horrible idea this is!