The Constitutional Vanguard Takes on Article V This Week — Plus, A New Private Forum!
As many regular readers know, my pet project The Constitutional Vanguard promotes liberty, free markets, and the Constitution. More than just a newsletter, the group has its own private Facebook page — and I have now created a private forum on this website for members of the group. Instructions on signing up for the private forum can be found at the foot of the emails I send out this week, beginning tomorrow morning.
(The private forum is not the all-purpose private paid forum for general discussion that I have been contemplating. The topics will be specific to the principles of the group. But it’s a solid experimental step towards creating such a forum.)
This week the newsletter will focus on Article V of the U.S. Constitution, and on efforts to call a Convention of the States to rein in federal power. What are the benefits and risks of calling a Convention of the States? Should we worry about a “runaway convention”? And what federal abuses could be reined in by the Constitutional amendments that such a convention could propose?
These are the topics I will address in the newsletter, in three installments: on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. I’m guessing that Article V will be a large part of what the group will be discussing in the private Facebook group and in the private forum.
I don’t intend to wall anyone out of this content. I keep an archive of the emails, and after the emails go out, I intend to add them to the archive, ideally within 24 hours. That archive is publicly available at this link, which has an open comments section. So the content I send out in the emails can, with some effort and time delay, be read and commented on by anyone who wishes to do so.
But the quickest and easiest way to get the content is to join the mailing list, which you can do here. And right now, that’s the only way to join the forum or the private Facebook page.
The list is growing all the time. We have over 200 members in the private Facebook group, and just shy of 700 members in the group as a whole. I don’t want to use peer pressure or anything — but all the cool kids are doing it. I’d like for the Article V newsletters to go out to as many people as possible. I’m hoping to get folks people excited about the concept — and I hope to address the major concerns and questions people have about the concept.
So what are you waiting for? Come and join us!
Ding.
Patterico (115b1f) — 11/13/2016 @ 3:34 pmLooking forward to it. Glad to see that serious folks and not trolls are the goal.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 11/13/2016 @ 3:41 pmmy concern, is a runaway convention, robin’s research suggest they have plans to hijack, then again their ground game proved deficient this time,
narciso (d1f714) — 11/13/2016 @ 3:56 pmthat old red dirt the first thing you learn
happyfeet (28a91b) — 11/13/2016 @ 4:04 pmIf there’s going to be a article v convention, this is the time to do it. Republicans hold more state legislatures and governorships than at any time since 1928. There are only four states that hold the legislature and governor after this election.
LBascom (d82ccd) — 11/13/2016 @ 4:20 pmLink: https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/249131/
LBascom (d82ccd) — 11/13/2016 @ 4:21 pmShould we worry about a “runaway convention”?
The “runaway convention” concerns always seemed to me to be a bit exaggerated. Sure, a convention called to do “A” may be hijacked and do “B” and “C”. But whatever amendment or amendments are agreed to still must be ratified by 3/4s of the states. A convention cannot amend the Constitution by itself.
SteveMG (ea62d2) — 11/13/2016 @ 4:51 pmI have signed in as “alastor” – I admit to some disappointment that I could not be “Alastor” …
Oh, and, as yet, I cannot change my password … may we hope that we will be able to select our own password soon, please ?
alastor (2e7f9f) — 11/13/2016 @ 5:06 pmThe only amendment that needs to be passed is one that allows a supermajority of states to propose Amendments directly. After that the Article V Convention is only needed for a rewrite.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/13/2016 @ 6:46 pmLBascom–
It may be six states. CT & DE look tied in the upper house, Dem in the lower house, with Dem Governors.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/13/2016 @ 7:01 pmIn general, though, the power of STATES needs to be increased. It’s impossible politically to go back to indirect election of Senators, but a few things that were suggested in 1787 might be more practical now, such as 2/3rds of the states being able to remove federal officials.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/13/2016 @ 7:04 pmQuestion: wouldn’t a planned hijack be stopped by merely dissolving the convention? I know that’s not the best way, since a convention would have to be reconstituted, but that sure would stop any weirdness in a smoking hurry.
As Kevin notes though, any hijack attempt would have to be ratified as an amendment by the states. Note that the ERA, after all this time, still lacks I think it is 2 states for ratification.
Bill H (971e5f) — 11/13/2016 @ 7:35 pmI don’t this is the larger concern,
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/08/could-an-article-v-convention-backfire-on-conservatives
back in the 60s, the constitutionalists were outlawyered, by the progressives, if you listen to the court transcripts,
narciso (d1f714) — 11/13/2016 @ 7:41 pmThe post-election week keeps getting better.
Ed from SFV (3400a5) — 11/13/2016 @ 7:56 pmAlastor, or alastor (sorry about the whole capitalization thing):
Can you see the forum? You should be able to once you have set up an account. I think.
Patterico (115b1f) — 11/13/2016 @ 11:27 pmNote that the ERA, after all this time, still lacks I think it is 2 states for ratification.
I thought the ERA had the “7 years” language.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/13/2016 @ 11:29 pmPatterico – I am able to access the Forum, yes, thank you !
However, when I try to “Edit My Profile”, I get “You do not have sufficient permissions to access this page.” … at URL https://patterico.com/wp-admin/profile.php …
So – unless I am looking in the wrong place, as yet, I cannot change my password …
alastor (2e7f9f) — 11/13/2016 @ 11:39 pmIt might have. Now that you mention it, I vaguely remember something of a poison pill feature having to do with a time to ratify limitation. Yah, I could do as Rosie O’Donnell suggested so famously several years ago, but I had forgotten all about the time requirements.
Bill H (971e5f) — 11/14/2016 @ 1:34 amWould the supreme court give any more adherence to the actual words of a new amendment than they do now to the existing Constitution?
Luke Stywalker (1fa347) — 11/14/2016 @ 2:46 amMajor concern is history. Recall the Constitutional Convention basically broke the law under the Articles of Confederation.
If however they keep it simple-balanced budget, limitations on bills and amendments, procedural things to stop the dysfunction, that would be greeted positively. If it were to veer off into social policy, would quickly be viewed as a runaway train.
Personally would end the requirement of juries. After an early career as both a DA and then a defense attorney, it’s out of control. Know this will not happen because too many people on both sides of the aisle have a Norman Rockwell view of a system that is off the rails.
Bugg (820f2c) — 11/14/2016 @ 4:43 amI two theories about why Trump and his supporters hate conservatives so much, and why conservatives (especially NeverTrump and/or conservative lawyers) are their favorite targets.
Theory 1: Trump supporters feel betrayed because they supported conservatives in the past and feel like they were owed the support in return.
Theory 2: Trump and his supporters have a problem with conservative ideology because it is rigid and rule-based, while their approach is more flexible and pragmatic (as evidenced by their preference for negotiating results). They see rules as easy to manipulate for the benefit of the few and the detriment of the average guy, and they see conservatives as an interest group that is difficult to co-opt — hence the need to personally discredit conservatives and thereby discredit their ideology.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/14/2016 @ 7:35 amI’ll look into it later.
Patterico (115b1f) — 11/14/2016 @ 7:40 amsome are, some are not, that’s a brush the size of the titanic, it’s not my new, it maybe that of some of the new comers, possibly people are tired of a standard, the administration, has no ability or desire to uphold,
narciso (d1f714) — 11/14/2016 @ 7:42 amThis is exactly what NeverTrump people feared — Trump agreeing to liberal policies:
What I didn’t expect was that it would happen before Trump even takes office or that he would pick Obama as his mentor.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/14/2016 @ 9:35 amThey will do to Trump what they did to Chief Justice Roberts, and Trump will fall harder because he’s a liberal at heart. Who in the GOP will stand up to Trump? Lee, Sasse, and maybe Cruz won’t be enough. The Beltway must be giddy with anticipation.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/14/2016 @ 9:37 amNew York values always involve selling out.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/14/2016 @ 9:40 amSo, all I get from the forum link is a 404
When I try to sign up to the forum, it says my email address is taken, no doubt based on the list-serv signup 6 months ago.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/14/2016 @ 3:39 pm