Yes. And it’s been 32 years since the last amendment. Here’s what Article V says:
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
In a trial convention of states in 2023?, a similar amendment was proposed. If I remember correctly, 2/3 of both houses of Congress OR 2/3 of state legislatures could override any SCOTUS decision. The Supreme Court, according to some historians was supposed to be the least strongest of the Presidency/Congress/SC. The founders would be horrified that many members of SCOTUS in the last 100 years have been so political in nature, ignoring the Constitution and the Federalist Papers which go into detail why the Constitution is written the way it is. And that is exactly why there is a second method of proposing amendments in the Constitution. Remember, Franklin said they gave us a Republic - IF we could keep it, and his worries are rapidly becoming true.
You logic is flawed. For as long as the SCOTUS has the unchecked, unbalanced, unreviewed power to decide what the constitution means, it can act with few constraints.
An amendment, properly approved by the states, to require that all decisions holding unconstitutionality be automatically referred to congress - the most democratically chosen of all parts of government - is necessary as a check and balance on the courts. As was pointed out, the courts were considered to be only referees deciding law, not deciding what the law or the constitution mean. If you don’t amend the constitution to change that and to limit the power of SCOTUS by putting check and balance on it, you will always have legislation from the bench.
If, to be considered and affirmed opinion, each such holding of unconstitutionality were required to be reviewed, debated and either affirmed or denied by super majority of the CONGRESS - the appointed lawmaking body, not the courts - the legislation from the bench can be stopped. Congress might affirm the SCOTUS but in doing so it should be required to state the particulars publicly and should require votes recorded by name. And, this must not be a simple majority vote. It must be a supermajority of at least 2/3rds but should probably be a 3/4ths majority just as is required to pass a constitutional amendment.
This has got to be done in the next 4 years or we’ll lose the ability to do it at all. Democrats will see to that after the 2nd Trump Administration. Go for COS!
Yes, the Founders would be horrified to see the level of power we’ve allowed the Supreme Court to exercise today. They (the Founders) thought the judiciary to be the weakest of the three branches of the gov’t.
The proposal from the Convention states
Section 1. The legislatures of the states shall have authority to abrogate any section of Congress, President, or administrative agencies of the United Stats, whether in the form of a statute, decree,order,regulation,rule, opinion, decision, or other form. This provision shall not apply to presidential action taken pursuant to Article 2,Clause1 and to presidential appontments.
i only wished to clarify a poist by lad.
There was discussion about Judicial Decrees and it was stricken
@PLK
Is there a link somewhere to the text of the CoS petition you reference? I’d like to see it and keep a copy for reference.
I like the idea of the states being able to reject acts of congress and the POTUS. I presume that would require some sort of super majority. I’d like to know what steps would be necessary to take such actions and what, if any, contraints are proposed on the process. I’d also like to see the super majority set low, perhaps 3/5ths, 30 states, instead of anything higher.
Yes, go to Conventionofstatesaction.com. tag simulations , then tag resources.
That should bring up the minutes and proposed amendments.
Please understand that the delegates had a short time to work on them but, in my opinion came up with an extrodinary piece of work. I think you will find all the proposals would be able to pass out of an Article V Convention and have a good chance of passing a radification process
You might find an interesting article by Mickael Farris in Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy Volume 40, number1 , April 2017 and The Law of ArticleV by Robert Natelson by Apis Books, Don’t know if there is a download on Natelson’s book but you should find some You-Tube videos with him and also Ferris.
Hope this was helpful
It takes 34 states to call a CoS and it takes 38 to ratify an amendment. While I would like to see the bar lowered to 30 (3/5ths) to call a CoS and 34 to ratify, I will never see that happen. My point is that it should be easier but not so easy that changes are made too often whip-sawing meanings.
I would also like to see a means for a petition of the people, bypassing states’ legislatures. It would have to be based on a percentage of the registered voter population, preferably by state with at least half the states’ populations participating. Ten percent might be a good number. That’s just to call for a CoS - again with a specific, immutable agenda - wherein the agenda would be debated and eventually voted upon and, if resulting in an amendment proposal, then put to a vote of the people - not legislatures - with a super majority of 3/4ths of those voting - not those registered - required to ratify a vox populi amendment.
Term limits are new, I will give you that. The Constitution says only that the government can borrow on the credit of the US, and that should be limited The 10th Amendment severely restricted the duties of the Federal Government, so how did we get from those very few to almost unlimited regulatory powers over everything we do in business and private life? SCOTUS hardly ever considered the 10th Amendment in making their decisions in the last150 years or so. Only recently has it been rediscovered. The worst decision of all came from a 1942 opinion on an Ohio farmer who grew too much wheat in defiance of FDRs agricultural edicts. In question was the ‘commerce clause’ in the Constitution. As I understand it, ‘commerce’ in the rhetoric of the founders’ time meant ‘shipping’. The farmer did not sell any of his wheat on the market. However the supreme court opined that ‘because he did not sell his wheat, he affected the market’. So he lost and went to prison. This tragic opinion allowed all kinds of unelected bureaucrats to make regulations on everything we do, so we are now essentially a regulatory state. This can be corrected in COS by specifying what ‘commerce’ is. Other amendments can work against the regulatory state which was not around at the time of the original Constitution. Other amendments can limit the power of Congress by requiring a supermajority to annex another state or define the numbers of supreme court justices so if they are to be changed they would take 3/4 of the Senate to admit a new state and a Constitutional amendment to add to the supreme court. Just as there has to be equality under the law, voting should be secure and uniform for federal elections. There is an egregious difference between the security of mail in ballots and voting in person. Mail in ballots should go except for the minor exceptions that are found in most states. Citizenship must be proven to register. Make election day a holiday so the hardship whiners are mollified. Machines are hackable so paper ballots should be mandated. An amendment would be necessary if election day is changed from the first tuesday after the first monday in november. I am a firm supporter of COS but I disagree with term limits because they would make mandatory retirements from government, of both good and bad legislators, judges and other personnel. The real problem or disease of government is POWER. Take it away and many ills, which are only symptoms of the disease, would go away naturally. The high cost of elections would go away because there is no real power to pay off contributors. Businesses would not lobby legislators because the power to regulate is gone I can see a requirement for anyone one in government to pass a competency test, especially judges who should know the Constitution and why it was set up the way it was. But by and large, the perceived issues would go away. Jefferson said it best in the Declaration of Independence: “He (King George) has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.”: This is exactly what has happened to our limited government of the original Constitution.
If you were to go to ConventionofStates.com and tag simulation you would see a drop down page Tag resources and you can read proposed amendments that address both the commerce clause and the definition of navigable waters
Those that believe the new Trump adminitration eliminates the need for a Convention of States (COS), please don’t be fooled. We need an Article V “convention for proposing amendments” now more than ever to make DOGE and other federally limiting changes permanent. Without a COS to first propose and a state ratification process too then confirm additional amendments to the constitution, Trump’s temporary executive orders will be overwritten come the next liberal-progressive president.
Patrick, what you are reading from is a proposed amendment from a trial convention held in VA in 2024. The COS petition the States ratify to call the Convention allows for term limits on the judiciary. Those at the trial convention obviously left the judiciary out for some reason.
They did not have much time to truly hammer out the details of their proposals at the simulation. I trust that the official convention delegates will get much more time for that thoughtful deliberation!
I am sure they will. And there will be many more suggested amendments coming out of the DOGE expose. If it would have been a week long, they probably would have substantially less attendance at the trial convention. I can see a true convention taking several weeks or a month or more. I have read the petitions but don’t remember any limitations on time. That may come in the State authorization bills once the petition is passed.
Mainly it is because the 10th Amendment has not been taken under consideration by the Supreme Court in most of its decisions. The wording could hardly be more clear: the federal government is limited to the functions listed in the Constitution and if they are not, they are the responsibility of the States or the People. Probably at least 80% of the money appropriated by Congress goes to functions NOT listed in the Constitution.
If memory is correct, the discussion had to deal with a judicial decree that would give a a financial judgement to some one . If the courts decission was over ruled it would be taking something away from someone that had a decree ruled in there favour. I was refering to Federal Legislative and Executive Jourisdiction :Proposal Two