Looking for a few good....

[sparky]

posters with constitutional insight on this one>>>

Gohmert Calls for Amendment Convention by States
03/23/10

Gohmert Calls for Amendment Convention by States
WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) calls upon at least the 39 states that are disputing the Federal government’s latest power grab to review Article V of the U.S. Constitution and consider proposing an amendment to stop the runaway Congress and White House.

Rep. Gohmert stated, “The usurpation of the rights of the states and of the people perpetrated by the U.S. House last night is blatant, arrogant, and cries out for action. A potentially bankrupting ‘mother of all unfunded mandates’ needs to be stopped. The courts may or may not do it, but the states are not helpless. Article V of our U.S. Constitution anticipates a time when states perceive a looming crisis and provides an avenue for amending the Constitution. It makes clear that if two-thirds of the states are fed up with the federal government’s abusive action, then they simply apply for a convention, and the Congress SHALL call such a convention for proposing an amendment.”

Ever since the safeguard of State legislatures electing U.S. Senators was removed by the 17th Amendment in 1913, there has been no check or balance on the Federal power grab for the last 97 years. Article V requires a minimum of 34 states to request a Convention which in this case, would be an Amendment Convention for only ONE amendment.

“That one amendment would put a check and balance back on Federal usurpation of rights reserved to the States and people under the 9th and 10th Amendments. When drafted, the amendment would require ratification by only 38 states. We already have 39 states and that number will, no doubt, grow as people become aware of the foundational damage being done to the country,” said Gohmert.

Congressman Louie Gohmert : News Center 2010 : Gohmert Calls for Amendment Convention by States


~S~

 

[Xenophon]

Before an amendment can take effect, it must be proposed to the states by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or by a convention called by two-thirds of the states, and ratified by three-fourths of the states or by three-fourths of conventions thereof, the method of ratification being determined by Congress at the time of proposal. To date, no convention for proposing amendments has been called by the states, and only once has the convention method of ratification been employed.

List of amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[sparky]

Yes, and thank you Xeno, that much i do get, the connection Mr. G is making bettween the 17th, 9th & 10th, however, i'm a tad hazy on.

Seems Mr. G believes this is the way to confront federalization

in fairness, federalization has grown exponentially over the last 3-4 decades here

but it's a double edged sword, as far as i can see.......if indeed enough states were to create an isolationist amendment (for lack of a better term) , wouldn't they be cutting themselves from the federal teat as well.....?



~S~

 

[The Rabbi]

Not necessarily.
Remember the 55MPH speed limit? It was enforced at the point of a checkbook, withholding highway funds for states that didnt do it. It is the same with 21 drinking age btw.
I think it was No.Dakota that finally told the Feds to take a flying leap and they raised it back to 70. Other states followed suit and it was repealed.

 

[sparky]

Not necessarily.
Remember the 55MPH speed limit? It was enforced at the point of a checkbook, withholding highway funds for states that didnt do it. It is the same with 21 drinking age btw.
I think it was No.Dakota that finally told the Feds to take a flying leap and they raised it back to 70. Other states followed suit and it was repealed.

so there's some wiggle room here for individual states to do their own thing Rabbi?

but is this soley dependent on the fed $$$, or would it also require constitutional revisions ?

for instance Mr.G seems PO'ed at the HC bill (although he doesn't quite target it) as such if individual states were to offer their own HC system, would it be compliant, or in conflict?

~S~

 

[The Rabbi]

Not necessarily.
Remember the 55MPH speed limit? It was enforced at the point of a checkbook, withholding highway funds for states that didnt do it. It is the same with 21 drinking age btw.
I think it was No.Dakota that finally told the Feds to take a flying leap and they raised it back to 70. Other states followed suit and it was repealed.

so there's some wiggle room here for individual states to do their own thing Rabbi?

but is this soley dependent on the fed $$$, or would it also require constitutional revisions ?

for instance Mr.G seems PO'ed at the HC bill (although he doesn't quite target it) as such if individual states were to offer their own HC system, would it be compliant, or in conflict?

~S~

Not on health care which I think is a Federal mandate. But who the hell knows anymore?