"Constitutional Convention"

[Locutus]

bit of a dramatic headline here but perhaps some of you scholarly or know-lottsa-stuff types could lend us your opinions:

SOMETHING HUGE JUST HAPPENED AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS IGNORING IT

You may be aware of Mark Levin's book "The Liberty Amendments" released last year which called for a "Convention of the States". Article 5 of the Constitution gives the several states the ability to convene a convention in which the Constitution may be amended, changed, or even scrapped.

Last week Michigan's legislature voted and passed a resolution calling for a Constitutional Convention. They are the 34th state to do so, and this should trigger the Convention of the States.

Pretty major, yet the MSM is ignoring it.

Read on.

SOMETHING HUGE JUST HAPPENED AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS IGNORING IT

 

[FiveParadox]

It looks to me that this is just a bunch of dramatic, and conspiratorial, political theatre.

First of all, even Senator Mike Green (31st District—Mayville), the Republican sponsor of Michigan’s petition for a constitutional convention, admitted that this would make Michigan only the 23rd petitioning state (out of the 34 required by Article V of the constitution). The article is also riddled with errors, such as the nonsense that a convention of the states has never before been held (the 21st amendment to the constitution was ratified at a convention of the states).

There would also seem to be some argument that a convention of the states would not, in fact, preclude a role for Congress in the constitutional amendment process. The text of Article V seems to vest in Congress the authority to determine whether a proposed amendment should be ratified through the “usual” amend formula (i.e., ratification by three-quarters of the states’ legislatures), or the convention method.

This would seem to suggest that even if a state proposes an amendment to the constitution (such as the “balanced budget amendment” put forward by Michigan), that it is up to Congress to determine whether that proposal should move forward to a convention of the states, or to ratification in Congress and the states’ legislatures. This argument, if upheld, could be interpreted to give Congress a veto over constitutional amendments.