Comments supporting an Article V Convention not based on facts will not be published.
I have several questions for people supporting this fantasy:
1. Who will be the representatives at this “convention”?
2. Have you read the Constitution? Since the government is not following the intent of the Constitution (hence this Convention), why would the representatives (politicians) be limited to the scope of the convention?
3. The last time we did this, the government was abolished (Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union) and the convention was renamed to be the Constitutional Convention.
4. What is the purpose of this legislation? As I understand it, enough states have already signed legislation to have this convention. And the government is ignoring it.
5. What will you do if the representatives decide that the 2nd amendment is no longer needed? See Matt Bracken’s Enemies Foreign and Domestic trilogy about the consequences of the Philadelphia Convention.
David DeGerolamo
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA
SESSION 2013
HOUSE RESOLUTION 1258
Sponsors: Representatives Brandon, Baskerville, R. Brawley, and Lucas (Primary Sponsors).
For a complete list of Sponsors, refer to the North Carolina General Assembly Web Site.
Referred to: Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House.
June 9, 2014
*H1258-v-1*
1 A HOUSE RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A CONVENTION OF THE STATES FOR THE
2 PURPOSE OF PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
3 UNITED STATES.
h/t Teri A
“Fantasy” is right.
Here’s the NCGA page about this bill:
http://ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2013&BillID=h1258&submitButton=Go
It has only five sponsors. Four of them are liberal Democrats (in a lopsidedly Republican NC House). They presumably want to override part of the First Amendment, to curtail political expenditures by corporations other than Big Media.
The fifth sponsor is the one House Republican who is openly at war with Republican House Speaker (and U.S. Senate nominee) Thom Tillis. I don’t know why or how he wants to amend the Constitution. Ask him, if you care.
This bill was introduced just ten days ago, during the current “short session.” That would be two strikes against it even if it had some viable sponsors.
The short session is… short. Not much gets done during the short session. It is mainly intended for tweaking the details of the 2nd year of a two-year budget cycle.
The short session will probably end in about three weeks, and they probably won’t be back. Most Members want to go home, get some rest, and start campaigning for the Fall elections.
At the end of the year, all bills not passed by both House and Senate will officially die. But since they probably won’t be back in session after early July, un-passed bills will really this dead when they adjourn, next month.
This bill was not DOA, it was DEBA (dead even before arrival). It has been sent to the Rules Committee (a/k/a the bill graveyard), and it will obviously never emerge.