"...give it a shot" he says.

Most people don't know that the POTUS has zero role in the amendment process. So it doesn't matter what a candidate for POTUS or even the incumbent POTUS says about it.

.

Question for our Lawyers...

Article V of the US Constitution states:

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.

As I recall, The Equal Rights Amendment failed when 35 States ratified the proposed Amendment and 38 were needed for two-thirds to pass.

Newsom is calling for a Constitutional Convention. If the Convention is set to deal with issue X, by the time they leave they may also choose to deal with issues Y and Z. I do not read anything in Article V about the X, Y, and Z decisions of the Convention needing to be ratified by two thirds of the States after the Convention.

Crazy example, let's say during the Convention they choose to change Article V to allow Congress to make laws and change the Constitution by simple majority vote and without the President having veto power over bills and without the Supreme Court being able to rule a law as being unconstitutional.

Again, I am making a crazy example, but I don't see any checks and balances in the Constitutional Convention other than another Constitutional Convention being called to fix the previous Convention.

.

IANAL, but I believe you are correct. Once a Constitutional Convention has been opened there is no restriction on what matters could be discussed and decided. Ratification would still be required by 3/4 of the state legislatures, I think. This "open ended" nature of a Constitutional Convention is a major reason that none have ever been called--too dangerous.

flashguy

1. on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention
This has never happened. But there is a push for it in several States.

2. for proposing Amendments
It does seem rather open ended. How would you limit what can be proposed?

3. 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
Of course, the more broad in scope a Convention becomes, the less likely three fourths of the several States would ratify any proposed Amendments.

I would also note that three fourths of the several States is 38 States. That's a high-hurdle. And States like Montana and Mississippi count as much as California and New York. Population doesn't matter.

You couldn’t get the number of states needed to agree on pizza toppings much less this 28th “amendment”

It’s both pandering to the base as well as throwing whatever they can at the wall in fear of losing more ground to a potential Supreme Court decision.

But hell as long as we’re throwing shit out there that will never happen. I propose a 29th amendment that says the number 28 can’t be used in amendments.

Constitutional amendments at least in FL are subject to rules for qualification, and if met, hit the ballot.

What we've seen here is the amendments are written in such a way that no layman could discern what they are really voting for, or against.

They are a way for specialty groups to go around the elected officials and get specialty things done by proxy. It's very dangerous, last time there was a group trying to ban all assault weapons in FL, they didn't get enough votes to get it on the ballot, but it could happen.

quote:

The Democratic governor’s proposal would raise the federal minimum age to buy a firearm to 21 from 18; mandate universal background checks; institute a “reasonable” waiting period for all gun purchases and ban assault rifles nationally.

On the one hand, he is acknowledging that to pass gun restrictions would require a Constitutional amendment. On the other, if getting rid of all guns is the goal, these half-assed measures aren't going to do jack shit.

Seems to me Fentanyl is killing more people everyday than “assault weapons”, but they don’t seem to give a crap about that.

If it weren’t for the fact that the average CA voter is dumb enough to elect a replacement who is worse, I’d be praying for a (slightly smaller than Para’s) comet to turn our governor into a grease spot.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:

quote:

The Democratic governor’s proposal would raise the federal minimum age to buy a firearm to 21 from 18; mandate universal background checks; institute a “reasonable” waiting period for all gun purchases and ban assault rifles nationally.

On the one hand, he is acknowledging that to pass gun restrictions would require a Constitutional amendment. On the other, if getting rid of all guns is the goal, these half-assed measures aren't going to do jack shit.

27th Amendment took 200-years to get ratified.
Newsome thinks he's gonna play the long game by proposing something so off-the-charts, that the Left might as well get the ball rolling now and let it germinate in open discussion.

What's more troubling to me is not the proposed gun restrictions, it's the fundamental change in viewing the Constitution. The Constitution and its amendments are supposed to be limits on the government. This proposal is placing limits on the citizens.

I don’t have anything to add to this discussion other than to say fuck Gavin Newsome. I wish only the worst for him. Literally I hope he gets ball cancer and that he gets a version that hurts real bad.

This is political fodder. Playing with fire. Just like the reparation money he promised to the black community. Unfulfilled promises have consequences. The blow back on him and his party could be massive.

Most or all of these measures have been law in California for decades before his governorship. What have they done for the state?

I would not underestimate Newsome and the forces bankrolling him as laughable.

quote:

Originally posted by divil:
I would not underestimate Newsome and the forces bankrolling him as laughable.

The requirements for amending the Constitution are outlined in this thread. It's a pipe dream, political posturing and nothing more.

quote:

Originally posted by 2000Z-71:
What's more troubling to me is not the proposed gun restrictions, it's the fundamental change in viewing the Constitution. The Constitution and its amendments are supposed to be limits on the government. This proposal is placing limits on the citizens.

Essentially, that's what Leftists have been doing for the last 50-years. Virtually none of the leading voices on the Left are well versed in how the Constitution was constructed let alone what the supporting papers from the framer's have said. As you rightly point out, the Constitution is what the government CAN do, not what citizens are ALLOWED to do. Somehow, the Left has bent themselves to believe that the country should exist in a 'permission-based' society.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
As you rightly point out, the Constitution is what the government CAN do, not what citizens are ALLOWED to do. Somehow, the Left has bent themselves to believe that the country should exist in a 'permission-based' society.

There is precedent for restriction of citizens in the Constitution: The Eighteenth Amendment.

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

In turn, Congress created the Volstead Act to enforce the Eighteenth Amendment. One might argue that it was the Volstead Act, which specified the penalties for possession of alcohol manufactured after the Eighteenth Amendment became effective, which was the actual restriction on citizens, but without that Constitutional amendment, there would never have been the Volstead Act.

Having said all that, the point is moot, because there's not a snowball's chance in Hell that Governor Grandstand's idea will go anywhere, and he knows it.

Yes, posturing is all that was or is.
I'm surprised he didn't throw in the favorite loony liberal phrase "If we only save one life" or "it's for our children" while he's at it.