If their plan works, these Republican toadies of the billionaires who fund and own them will rewrite our Constitution & state governors, the US Congress, and the President will have no say whatsoever…
Hi, Thom. Thanks for including all of the facts about a Convention of the States, many of which are omitted in discussions of such a convention.
Importantly, as you note, amendments to the Constitution require ratification of by thirty-eight (38) state legislatures. Given current partisan control of state legislatures (28R/19D/2split), that would mean that ten (10) legislatures CONTROLLED BY DEMOCRATS would need to approve any amendment in order for it to become effective. See State Partisan Composition (ncsl.org).
Thus, the ratification requirement gives Democrats iron-clad control over which amendments from a "rogue" Convention of the States would become part of the Constitution.
I believe that any discussion of the effort to call a Convention of the States should highlight the need for approval from ten Democratically controlled state legislatures to ratify an amendment.
The ratification discussion is frequently confused with the threshold for convening a Convention of States, which is 34. Convening the convention is not enough to enact amendments. Any proposed amendment would still require ratification by 38 states, which would require ratification by 10 state legislatures controlled by Democrats.
Thank you, Robert. I would note, since the release of yesterday’s Hartmann Report, I’ve heard from several alarmed people. Having neither read the Report nor your comment until early this morning, I could rely only on my sense that sufficient checks still existed to guard against an expedited call for a Convention of the States. While I’m thankful for your explicit explanation, admittedly, I’m more grateful for Today’s Edition Newsletter, which keeps me focused on the task at hand in lieu of spending calories on seeming threats that detract from the real work.
How ironic: "generic" calls for constitutional changes dating back to 1789 are receiving major billionaire promotion toward legitimacy in order to dismantle democracy, while the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment, which as of 2020 has been ratified by 38 states, is not being accepted (the process took too long!) despite its democracy-strengthening impact.
Can someone explain to this reader why the blue Democratic states could not opt out of the current Union during a Convention to form a new Union? The District of Columbia could be added at that time to the new Union. Most of the wealth would be concentrated in the new Union if it included California, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware, Washington, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Michigan. Hopefully Georgia, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Vermont, Maine, and Illinois would join.
It's an interesting and intriguing question. Most states admitted after the original 13 were admitted with enabling acts. Once could make the argument that the proposed amendments have caused the demise of one of the parties to the Enabling Act, e.g. the United States, and the admission is therefore no longer valid. If unprepared, it would be chaos but regional blocs could be fashioned following a model something like the EU.
I have often said that this country is too big to be governed well. Some people have identified distinct regions and suggested these regions could serve as a model for organizing several new Unions, and as you point out, the EU may be an appropriate model. The divisions in this country are more urban megalopolis versus everyone else. I am sure that there would be significant fights in the blue states where the rural areas are red. It is already happening in Oregon.
Europe also has the rural / urban divide. Two types of policies, the Common Agricultural Policy, and rural development initiatives operate to mitigate some of the differences.
Different countries handle local vs. national governance differently. Germany is a Federal State while France is a unitary government. The EU structure allows for that with the idea of subsidiary or allowing decisions at the most local level possible.
There are huge differences in the maturity of political systems from areas such as Greece or Hungary to places like Denmark or Finland. Getting it to work is challenging but is seen as better than the multiple wars in the 19th and 20th Century.
One should remember that the EU structures are 20th Century creations AND they have been materially revised at least three times since 1949. The U.S. presidential model was a great model for a small country in the 18th Century.
Of course Lincoln added a couple of states and split Virginia to get more electoral votes, Many states have toyed with secession. All states use English and except for Louisiana have state law based on Anglo Saxon common law.
I'd like to see all right wingers vote with their feet and move. Let them have a theocracy. A whites only paradise. Lots of wide open spaces in Siberia.
This group and all groups trying to slither their way to Constitutional Change are the snakes winding their way around our state governments and passing laws that enable them to hiss at our freedom. They are the ultra wealthy who’s funding all of the tenets that will destroy all of our freedoms. See Greg Abbot and Ken Paxton in Texas acting snakes in Texas. Where more than 70% oppose their agenda.
There is no seeming deterrent , even though a majority of the population strenuously oppose this.
We are still clinging to Democracy but a lot more noise must be made against these groups funding this garbage. We need to do it while we still have any shred of impact, Now .
Having seen some of the Republicans' views on government and economics, rewriting the Constitution and acting on the new document would absolutely guarantee an economic crash that would make the Depression of the 1930s look like a Sunday School picnic..... The balanced budget amendment alone would make running a functioning government almost impossible, and eliminating taxes - who would pay for all the government has to do (even though it wouldn't be doing much at all).....? Oh, and the right had better accept the fact that the guns will be going - when the oligarchs realize that the bottom 90% own most of the guns, they will be confiscated "for public safety"..... Sic transit gloria.....
For more than a year I've been asking some Republican friendlies a simple question,
CAN YOU LIST 10 GOOD CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN IDEAS ABOUT HOW TO MAKE AMERICA BETTER FOR EVERYBODY?
So far the only answer they've offered is "kill Joe Biden."
I think the theme of the 2024 campaign should be, REPUBLICANS HAVE NO IDEAS ABOUT HOW TO MAKE AMERICA BETTER FOR EVERYBODY.
If they do, what the hell are they? I hope Thom will pick this up and write a full article about how if Republicans didn't have bad ideas, they'd have no ideas at all.
Tom Pain - You ignore one very important aspect of the "conservative Republicans" as they exist today: they are not interested AT ALL in making America better for everybody. They are only interested in making America better for themselves and people like them, i.e. rich, white males. That's their be-all and end-all aim. The middle class and working class people who support "MAGA" think that DJT and the Republicans care about them and will magically wind the clock back to some mythical golden age where everyone who matters is white and Christian and other races, genders and religions will fade into nothingness. They are in for a very rude awakening if (and I hope it never comes to pass!) the MAGA Republicans get their wish to remake America in their billionaire overlords image.
I've been hearing about the Republicans plot to hold a Constitutional Convention and write a new Constitution since I was in elementary school 60 years ago, but they've never managed to actually do it. Hopefully they never will, but I think it would be too damn funny if they did.
Why?
Because REPULICANS HAVE NO IDEAS ABOUT HOW TO MAKE AMERICA BETTER FOR EVERYBODY, none, lots of bad ideas, but no good ones. And they can't agree on anything, they can't even agree on whether or not to impeach Joe Biden, and those who are for it can't explain what they're impeaching him for other than being Joe Biden.
So, my opinion of course, I think if Republicans managed to convene a Constitutional Convention it would be 10,000 years or more before they could agree on a new Constitution. Then they gotta get 3/4 of the states to ratify it, and 3/4 of the states haven't managed to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment in decades, which is infinitely simpler than a whole new Constitution.
Dad taught me well to be a good very conservative Republican, life and learning opened my eyes, looking at the Republican rabble in Congress now, the GOP has been overrun by a herd of infantile, ignorant, sociopathic and sometimes truly crazy people (as in seriously mentally ill).
These people are so disordered they actually believe that the worst president in history was the best president and should be again.
Google DONALD TRUMP WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY, you'll find a unanimous consensus of more than 200 presidential historians. that Trump was either THE WORST, or one of the two or three worst, and certainly the worst since 1900.
It's very hard to get hundreds of mentally ill people (i.e., GOP politicians) to agree on anything more complicated than "Trump good, Biden bad."
This is not a cliche, as pretty much only Tom Hartmann uses it. It’s not generally known. But it is an unmistakable marker of his prose and it is tired and looking forward to pottering around in its rose garden. There are many adjectives available to describe the rich in this country. Self-involved. Casually cruel. Selfish. Greedy. Grasping. Oblivious. Self-righteous. Sick. Covetous. Tragically incompetent. Ignorant. Blinkered. Narrow. Gormless. Fearful. Sociopathic. Wasteful. Presumptuous. Conceited. Unwise. Tragic. Unkind. Unaware. Unable to construct an accurate understanding of the world as it is for others. Stuck on a « hedonic treadmill. »
So adjectives are plentiful. « Morbid » means « sick » or « tending to/referencing death. » Nothing more. It is an unfortunate shorthand that stands in place of many, many better and more evocative adjectives.
Second, the sheer number of requests for an Article V convention may be surprising. According to Neale, there were 743 applications for a convention. Trying to stich together a rag tag set to reach 38 states, may be a destination too far.
Third, one effort came within one state of succeeding. Nebraska had started a process to request a convention to ratify what later became the 17th Amendment. The process halted when Congress referred the 17th Amendment to the state-by-state ratification process.
Last, and what I think is most important for progressives. Please, let's do a series of amendments of our own. For example,
- Declaration that individual rights in the Constitution are for living beings not legal fictions (corporations).
- Claifying the 2nd Amendment to allow the reasonable regulation of firearms, e.g. car registration model.
- Requring Congress to enact limitations on campaign finance and foreign influence in elections.
- Gender equality.
- Creating a semi-proportional repesentation of states in the senate, e.g. 1 to 3 depending on population.
- Citizenship = the right to vote and shall not be impinged once one is of age.
- Moving the Article I powers to a federal council rather than a president.
- Abolishing the Electoral College.
- And, of yes, term limits for federal judiciary at all levels.
It is time to take the offensive rather than always hang crepe about ALEC.
The GOP Federalist Society - having vigorously rammed hordes of Right-supremacist referees into a now-decomposing judiciary already afflicted by its gilded crown of "The Supreme Court Six" - heaves out the Red carpet for ALEC to stroll on in to OUR house, uninvited, and take the casual liberty of bashing it to bits in order for them to do "a little necessary remodeling".
The GOP sure are a shameless gaggle of rapacious vultures. Never ceases to amaze me how unabashed they are at pressing themselves on the non-consenting majority.
Having the Right-supremacists claim wizardship via a remake of the Constitution is as prudent as using a hammer to clean a window.
Hi, Thom. Thanks for including all of the facts about a Convention of the States, many of which are omitted in discussions of such a convention.
Importantly, as you note, amendments to the Constitution require ratification of by thirty-eight (38) state legislatures. Given current partisan control of state legislatures (28R/19D/2split), that would mean that ten (10) legislatures CONTROLLED BY DEMOCRATS would need to approve any amendment in order for it to become effective. See State Partisan Composition (ncsl.org).
Thus, the ratification requirement gives Democrats iron-clad control over which amendments from a "rogue" Convention of the States would become part of the Constitution.
I believe that any discussion of the effort to call a Convention of the States should highlight the need for approval from ten Democratically controlled state legislatures to ratify an amendment.
The ratification discussion is frequently confused with the threshold for convening a Convention of States, which is 34. Convening the convention is not enough to enact amendments. Any proposed amendment would still require ratification by 38 states, which would require ratification by 10 state legislatures controlled by Democrats.
Thank you, Robert. I would note, since the release of yesterday’s Hartmann Report, I’ve heard from several alarmed people. Having neither read the Report nor your comment until early this morning, I could rely only on my sense that sufficient checks still existed to guard against an expedited call for a Convention of the States. While I’m thankful for your explicit explanation, admittedly, I’m more grateful for Today’s Edition Newsletter, which keeps me focused on the task at hand in lieu of spending calories on seeming threats that detract from the real work.
How ironic: "generic" calls for constitutional changes dating back to 1789 are receiving major billionaire promotion toward legitimacy in order to dismantle democracy, while the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment, which as of 2020 has been ratified by 38 states, is not being accepted (the process took too long!) despite its democracy-strengthening impact.
Ms. Green. Good point.
Can someone explain to this reader why the blue Democratic states could not opt out of the current Union during a Convention to form a new Union? The District of Columbia could be added at that time to the new Union. Most of the wealth would be concentrated in the new Union if it included California, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware, Washington, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Michigan. Hopefully Georgia, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Vermont, Maine, and Illinois would join.
Now that is a thought.
It's an interesting and intriguing question. Most states admitted after the original 13 were admitted with enabling acts. Once could make the argument that the proposed amendments have caused the demise of one of the parties to the Enabling Act, e.g. the United States, and the admission is therefore no longer valid. If unprepared, it would be chaos but regional blocs could be fashioned following a model something like the EU.
I have often said that this country is too big to be governed well. Some people have identified distinct regions and suggested these regions could serve as a model for organizing several new Unions, and as you point out, the EU may be an appropriate model. The divisions in this country are more urban megalopolis versus everyone else. I am sure that there would be significant fights in the blue states where the rural areas are red. It is already happening in Oregon.
Europe also has the rural / urban divide. Two types of policies, the Common Agricultural Policy, and rural development initiatives operate to mitigate some of the differences.
Different countries handle local vs. national governance differently. Germany is a Federal State while France is a unitary government. The EU structure allows for that with the idea of subsidiary or allowing decisions at the most local level possible.
There are huge differences in the maturity of political systems from areas such as Greece or Hungary to places like Denmark or Finland. Getting it to work is challenging but is seen as better than the multiple wars in the 19th and 20th Century.
One should remember that the EU structures are 20th Century creations AND they have been materially revised at least three times since 1949. The U.S. presidential model was a great model for a small country in the 18th Century.
"EU may be an appropriate model."
In Europe each country has its own language, customs, etc.
We fought a civil war over "one nation under God" A. Lincoln. https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm
Of course Lincoln added a couple of states and split Virginia to get more electoral votes, Many states have toyed with secession. All states use English and except for Louisiana have state law based on Anglo Saxon common law.
I'd like to see all right wingers vote with their feet and move. Let them have a theocracy. A whites only paradise. Lots of wide open spaces in Siberia.
This group and all groups trying to slither their way to Constitutional Change are the snakes winding their way around our state governments and passing laws that enable them to hiss at our freedom. They are the ultra wealthy who’s funding all of the tenets that will destroy all of our freedoms. See Greg Abbot and Ken Paxton in Texas acting snakes in Texas. Where more than 70% oppose their agenda.
There is no seeming deterrent , even though a majority of the population strenuously oppose this.
We are still clinging to Democracy but a lot more noise must be made against these groups funding this garbage. We need to do it while we still have any shred of impact, Now .
Not so secret, Thom. I contribute to Common Cause.
These same billionaires are perpetuating inflation to discourage and disengage every day Americans
Good point. something to consider, although I doubt that it is a conscious undertaking, but a result of other actions and motives.
Having seen some of the Republicans' views on government and economics, rewriting the Constitution and acting on the new document would absolutely guarantee an economic crash that would make the Depression of the 1930s look like a Sunday School picnic..... The balanced budget amendment alone would make running a functioning government almost impossible, and eliminating taxes - who would pay for all the government has to do (even though it wouldn't be doing much at all).....? Oh, and the right had better accept the fact that the guns will be going - when the oligarchs realize that the bottom 90% own most of the guns, they will be confiscated "for public safety"..... Sic transit gloria.....
Chilling...to the bone.
For more than a year I've been asking some Republican friendlies a simple question,
CAN YOU LIST 10 GOOD CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN IDEAS ABOUT HOW TO MAKE AMERICA BETTER FOR EVERYBODY?
So far the only answer they've offered is "kill Joe Biden."
I think the theme of the 2024 campaign should be, REPUBLICANS HAVE NO IDEAS ABOUT HOW TO MAKE AMERICA BETTER FOR EVERYBODY.
If they do, what the hell are they? I hope Thom will pick this up and write a full article about how if Republicans didn't have bad ideas, they'd have no ideas at all.
Tom Pain - You ignore one very important aspect of the "conservative Republicans" as they exist today: they are not interested AT ALL in making America better for everybody. They are only interested in making America better for themselves and people like them, i.e. rich, white males. That's their be-all and end-all aim. The middle class and working class people who support "MAGA" think that DJT and the Republicans care about them and will magically wind the clock back to some mythical golden age where everyone who matters is white and Christian and other races, genders and religions will fade into nothingness. They are in for a very rude awakening if (and I hope it never comes to pass!) the MAGA Republicans get their wish to remake America in their billionaire overlords image.
I've been hearing about the Republicans plot to hold a Constitutional Convention and write a new Constitution since I was in elementary school 60 years ago, but they've never managed to actually do it. Hopefully they never will, but I think it would be too damn funny if they did.
Why?
Because REPULICANS HAVE NO IDEAS ABOUT HOW TO MAKE AMERICA BETTER FOR EVERYBODY, none, lots of bad ideas, but no good ones. And they can't agree on anything, they can't even agree on whether or not to impeach Joe Biden, and those who are for it can't explain what they're impeaching him for other than being Joe Biden.
So, my opinion of course, I think if Republicans managed to convene a Constitutional Convention it would be 10,000 years or more before they could agree on a new Constitution. Then they gotta get 3/4 of the states to ratify it, and 3/4 of the states haven't managed to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment in decades, which is infinitely simpler than a whole new Constitution.
Dad taught me well to be a good very conservative Republican, life and learning opened my eyes, looking at the Republican rabble in Congress now, the GOP has been overrun by a herd of infantile, ignorant, sociopathic and sometimes truly crazy people (as in seriously mentally ill).
These people are so disordered they actually believe that the worst president in history was the best president and should be again.
Google DONALD TRUMP WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY, you'll find a unanimous consensus of more than 200 presidential historians. that Trump was either THE WORST, or one of the two or three worst, and certainly the worst since 1900.
It's very hard to get hundreds of mentally ill people (i.e., GOP politicians) to agree on anything more complicated than "Trump good, Biden bad."
This is not a cliche, as pretty much only Tom Hartmann uses it. It’s not generally known. But it is an unmistakable marker of his prose and it is tired and looking forward to pottering around in its rose garden. There are many adjectives available to describe the rich in this country. Self-involved. Casually cruel. Selfish. Greedy. Grasping. Oblivious. Self-righteous. Sick. Covetous. Tragically incompetent. Ignorant. Blinkered. Narrow. Gormless. Fearful. Sociopathic. Wasteful. Presumptuous. Conceited. Unwise. Tragic. Unkind. Unaware. Unable to construct an accurate understanding of the world as it is for others. Stuck on a « hedonic treadmill. »
So adjectives are plentiful. « Morbid » means « sick » or « tending to/referencing death. » Nothing more. It is an unfortunate shorthand that stands in place of many, many better and more evocative adjectives.
Thom--Thanks for the awareness.
One the liberal side of the spectrum, there has been too much gloom and doom about this and not enought proactive work.
First, a good read for all is Thomas Neale's CRS report on the subject https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R42589.pdf.
Second, the sheer number of requests for an Article V convention may be surprising. According to Neale, there were 743 applications for a convention. Trying to stich together a rag tag set to reach 38 states, may be a destination too far.
Third, one effort came within one state of succeeding. Nebraska had started a process to request a convention to ratify what later became the 17th Amendment. The process halted when Congress referred the 17th Amendment to the state-by-state ratification process.
Last, and what I think is most important for progressives. Please, let's do a series of amendments of our own. For example,
- Declaration that individual rights in the Constitution are for living beings not legal fictions (corporations).
- Claifying the 2nd Amendment to allow the reasonable regulation of firearms, e.g. car registration model.
- Requring Congress to enact limitations on campaign finance and foreign influence in elections.
- Gender equality.
- Creating a semi-proportional repesentation of states in the senate, e.g. 1 to 3 depending on population.
- Citizenship = the right to vote and shall not be impinged once one is of age.
- Moving the Article I powers to a federal council rather than a president.
- Abolishing the Electoral College.
- And, of yes, term limits for federal judiciary at all levels.
It is time to take the offensive rather than always hang crepe about ALEC.
This is some scary sh@t, Thom. I subscribed to both.
Thank you for the critically important information.
Thanks. The irony is astounding.
The GOP Federalist Society - having vigorously rammed hordes of Right-supremacist referees into a now-decomposing judiciary already afflicted by its gilded crown of "The Supreme Court Six" - heaves out the Red carpet for ALEC to stroll on in to OUR house, uninvited, and take the casual liberty of bashing it to bits in order for them to do "a little necessary remodeling".
The GOP sure are a shameless gaggle of rapacious vultures. Never ceases to amaze me how unabashed they are at pressing themselves on the non-consenting majority.
Having the Right-supremacists claim wizardship via a remake of the Constitution is as prudent as using a hammer to clean a window.