Convention of States - Article V

[crossfire]

And no one represents the states interests. You could modify the wording to take care of the issues of the past.

How would you define a "Republican Government" guaranteed to the States in the Constitution in Article IV, Section 4?

Article IV, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.​

Here is how James Madison defined a Republican form of government in Federalist Paper #39:

If we resort for a criterion, to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people; and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behaviour. It is essential to such a government, that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic. It is sufficient for such a government, that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified; otherwise every government in the United States, as well as every other popular government that has been or can be well organised or well executed, would be degraded from the republican character.​

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

How would you define a "Republican Government" guaranteed to the States in the Constitution in Article IV, Section 4?

​

Article IV, Section 4:​

​

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.​

Here is how James Madison defined a Republican form of government in Federalist Paper #39:

If we resort for a criterion, to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people; and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behaviour. It is essential to such a government, that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic. It is sufficient for such a government, that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified; otherwise every government in the United States, as well as every other popular government that has been or can be well organised or well executed, would be degraded from the republican character.​

He says here that persons administering the government should be directly or indirectly appointed by the people. That would apply to the original appointment of senators by the state legislatures.

 

[metis]

To do in the US what the Scandinavian countries do would put a high tax burden on middle class and poor people.

But what's more important: people or $? Internationally, we rank 17th: Standard of Living by Country | Quality of Life by Country 2023

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

But what's more important: people or $? Internationally, we rank 17th: Standard of Living by Country | Quality of Life by Country 2023

I don't think I understand your point. Can you explain?

 

[metis]

I don't think I understand your point. Can you explain?

It should be clear based on what I had previously posted, so I'll just pass on the above.

 

[crossfire]

He says here that persons administering the government should be directly or indirectly appointed by the people. That would apply to the original appointment of senators by the state legislatures.

What about the part in red? If the State Legislatures impede the appointment of Senators as they historically have, and thereby impede the republican form of government guaranteed to the States by the Constitution, then what choice does the federal government have but to find a way to guarantee that the Senators are appointed via direct elections? The State Legislatures hung themselves from their own petards in this matter. I guess this might reveal which States are actually not interested in a republican form of government.

 

[crossfire]

So with the recent debt ceiling negotiations it is obvious that no one in in either party cares about limiting spending. Both parties basically agreed to adding $4,300,000,000,000 to the national debt over the next 2.5 years or so instead of cutting spending to pay the bills so to speak. We have a government that is not accountable to the people due to widespread corruption and greed in Washington not just on the budget issue. Inflation, crime, immigration for example are all issues that no one in congress is tackling. I think this is obvious. There have been proposed amendments to the constitution that would force politicians to be accountable to the people and increase our liberties. These include:

Proposals I think both parties can agree on:

Imposing term limits for congress at 12 years total.

Set supreme court justices at 9, justice term limits of 12 years and replace 3 justices every 4 years. Limit chief justice position to 6 years. 3/5th of the states can override a supreme court’s opinion if enacted within 24 months.

Budgets must be submitted to the president by congress each year on May 1st, if budget not enacted by congress and the President then an automatic 5% cut across the board is enacted, and that is the new budget. Budget must be balanced unless 3/5th of congress votes in times of emergencies to deficit spend.

All federal departments must be reauthorized every 3 years by individual authorization bills by majority vote of congress.

Revamp commerce clause to reflect original intent to prevent states from impeding commerce and trade not allowing the federal government to regulate commerce or force individuals to participate in commerce.

Make eminent domain illegal

2/3 of state legislatures agree on an amendment it becomes part of the constitution, bypassing congress and no convention of states is needed as described in article V.

Voter ID is required to vote.


I think most conservatives would agree on these:

Repeal the 17th amendment

No US citizen shall be taxed more than 15% of their income, no matter the source. Tax deadline is one day prior to federal elections.


I think most progressives would agree on these:

Revamp 2nd amendment

Abortion amendment


Since the Congress will never propose these by the process in Article V, a convention of states (COS) is required to force amendment to the constitution that bypasses congress. This is also described in article V. This gives power back to the states and the people when the federal government is not doing the will of the people and is generally corrupt. There is already a movement and 19 states have already passed a COS resolution, 34 states are required to pass resolutions to make the COS happen with many more having proposed resolution in their congresses. Then 38 states need to ratify and constitutional amendment from the COS to become part of the constitution.

Convention of States Action

Article V offers the only constitutional solution as big as the problem. Together, we can end federal overreach.

conventionofstates.com

What amendments would you propose?

Speaking of Article V, it looks like Gov Newsom of California has just proposed a 28th Amendment via an Article V convention.

Governor Newsom Proposes 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution | California Governor

Principles of proposed 28th Amendment broadly supported by the American public and gun owners SACRAMENTO – Today Governor Gavin Newsom proposed a 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to…

www.gov.ca.gov

 

[crossfire]

And no one represents the states interests. You could modify the wording to take care of the issues of the past.

Senators were not beholden to the State Legislatures even if the State Legislatures appointed them. However, the State Legislatures still have the option to call for advisory votes to formally inform their Senators as to what the State Legislature's stance is on any given issue, so it will at least be on the record for the public to see.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

It should be clear based on what I had previously posted, so I'll just pass on the above.

So when someone asks for clarification you just say you should understand so I won't clarify anything for you. Ok.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

What about the part in red? If the State Legislatures impede the appointment of Senators as they historically have, and thereby impede the republican form of government guaranteed to the States by the Constitution, then what choice does the federal government have but to find a way to guarantee that the Senators are appointed via direct elections? The State Legislatures hung themselves from their own petards in this matter. I guess this might reveal which States are actually not interested in a republican form of government.

If a state cannot determine who wants to serve as a senator they will have no say in what goes on in the federal level. The constitution says they guarantee each state a republican form of government, that is it. The writers of the constitution must have thought legislatures appointing senators was a republican form of government since they wrote it into the constitution.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Speaking of Article V, it looks like Gov Newsom of California has just proposed a 28th Amendment via an Article V convention.

Governor Newsom Proposes 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution | California Governor

Principles of proposed 28th Amendment broadly supported by the American public and gun owners SACRAMENTO – Today Governor Gavin Newsom proposed a 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to…

www.gov.ca.gov

We will see what the actual text of the ammendment will be.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Senators were not beholden to the State Legislatures even if the State Legislatures appointed them. However, the State Legislatures still have the option to call for advisory votes to formally inform their Senators as to what the State Legislature's stance is on any given issue, so it will at least be on the record for the public to see.

ok

 

[metis]

So when someone asks for clarification you just say you should understand so I won't clarify anything for you. Ok.

It was my reference & link to the Nordic Model that has a proven track record that I provided with another link.

 

[crossfire]

If a state cannot determine who wants to serve as a senator they will have no say in what goes on in the federal level. The constitution says they guarantee each state a republican form of government, that is it. The writers of the constitution must have thought legislatures appointing senators was a republican form of government since they wrote it into the constitution.

If the State Legislatures can't/won't choose a Senator, then the people of the State won't be represented in the Senate either. At least the people can get that job of choosing Senators done! The State Legislatures always have the option of advisory votes, just as the people have the option to write to their Senators.

 

[Brickjectivity]

There have been proposed amendments to the constitution that would force politicians to be accountable to the people and increase our liberties. These include:

The only way I can see this happening is not through a formal bureaucratic method. It will only happen if a single individual or very small group becomes extremely popular (with a high percentage of the population) and begins to advocate for article V. For example if someone were as popular as Ghandi was in India, they might get an article V convention to happen. Another way it might happen is for a dictator to force it. Otherwise its very unlikely. As bad and as slow and junky the current government is, article V is extremely risky. We can go to bed in America and wake up in a completely different thing. Almost anything is possible if anything at all goes wrong with that article V convention. What if the convention is suddenly captured by terrorists? What if the convention decides to take away all private ownership? It will suddenly be the law of the land that nobody wanted. What if the convention decides to sell a state? That can happen, too. Or it might declare Jesus Christ president for life. There are no railings. Its a dangerous thing to enact.