Skip to comments.

Alaska Senate and Florida House Pass Convention of States Application

Convention of States Project ^ | April 21, 2014 | Jim Kinney

Posted on by Da Bilge Troll

Momentum for the Convention of States Project has spread from the peach trees of Georgia to the mountains of Alaska to the beaches of Florida.

The Alaska Senate passed the Convention of States application (HJR 22) on Saturday by a vote of 12-8, and the Florida House passed the Convention of States application (SM 476) today by a voice vote.

Congratulations to our teams in Alaska and Florida! Theyve done a fantastic job and deserve all the credit for this important victory. Thanks to everyone who made a call or wrote an emailyour voice was heard, and were two steps closer to holding the first ever Article V Convention of States.

In both states, the House and the Senate passed identical versions of the bill, so no reconciliation will be necessary.

Once we receive final confirmation from the state legislature, Alaska and Florida will join Georgia in their call for a Convention of States to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.



TOPICS:

Activism/Chapters

Constitution/Conservatism

Extended News

News/Current Events

KEYWORDS:

articlev

convention

conventionofstates

To: Da Bilge Troll

Does it matter which house of a State legislature passes the resolution? Do both houses have to pass it for it to count?



To: Jacquerie

Thanks for the link. I did take a look. But I think they are not responding to a more basic question. The underlying assumption that seems to underpin these efforts is that the individual states are more likely to support a limited role for government than the Federal government would. I think that assumption is a false one. The states exert far more control over our day to day lives than the Federal government does. So we want an arrangement where at the end of the day the states have even more power? Where is the evidence that the states will act with any more restraint than the Federal government?



To: RKBA Democrat

To: Jacquerie

An interesting article and thank you for providing. But it still doesn’t answer the basic question: where is the evidence that the states will act with any more restraint than the Federal government? That is to say, where is the evidence that states and localities are any less likely to smash down doors over relatively minor offenses (numerous states), ban certain classes of weapons (CT, NY), increase taxes (numerous states) conduct road side cavity searches (TX), etc?



To: Jacquerie

When will this really get national attention? In my opinion, the less attention, the better, at least at this point. IIRC Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, (others?) have expressed public support Support from national pols is good but irrelevant since this is entirely a states matter.



To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Now that it has been determined that states cannot rescind their resolutions, what is the count of states? I don't believe that has been determined. There has been no lawsuit filed to my knowledge. There are currently two separate Article V convention efforts underway - the one in the above article which follows Mark Levin's plan - and another (prior) track that is restricted only to a balanced budget amendment. It is the prior one that has the rescissions under debate. It would not affect this "track" at this point.



To: RKBA Democrat

how to deal with the problem of the individual states not exactly being friendly to the idea of limited government or expanded liberty. That may be true of some states, but not all. The Missouri legislature, for instance, is very interested in both of those. I'm sure there are others as well. It remains to be seen how many fall on each side.



To: CraigEsq

Do both houses have to pass it for it to count? Yes, if the legislature is bi-cameral (Nebraska, IIRC, is uni-cameral) then both houses must pass the resolution. No governor's signature is required, however.



To: House Atreides

the progressives and RINOs will seize effective control by stacking the participants How will they do that since a) each state gets 1 vote and b) the participants are chosen by the state legislatures and c) any amendments proposed must still be ratified by 38 states? The worst-case scenario is that nothing comes of it at all!



To: Da Bilge Troll

Please put me on y’alls PING List.



by 30 posted onby Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)

To: Publius

You have given us a lot of information. If there is a ping list, please add my name.



by 31 posted onby matchgirl (An Ambassador is dead and Al Qaeda is alive.)

To: Graewoulf; Jacquerie; Publius

Please put me on yalls PING List. Well, I don't have a ping list but there are two that I know of for this topic. Send a PM to Jacquerie and Publius - er, never mind, I'll just ping them here.



To: Da Bilge Troll; matchgirl

Done!



To: Da Bilge Troll; Jacquerie

Graewoulf is now on my list.



by 34 posted onby Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)

To: Publius

Got it.



To: Carry_Okie

I agree. We ain't got George Washington, Ben Franklin, James Madison, etc. no mo!" We have the likes of a Community Organizer as President, a black crook as Attorney General and states like Massachusetts, New Jersey, "Nu Yawk," Illinois, Delaware, Rhode Island, California, Washington, Oregon etc. etc. Just the type of States we wish to have send delegates to any "Convention." Good Lord such a convention would probably pass an amendment declaring marriage to be man with man,and man with animal; all wealth to be taken from any person whose net worth is greater than $0.50 and given to just everybody in the whole world! No white may vote or hold public office, etc. etc.



by 36 posted onby AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)

To: Publius

“Thank you, thankyouverymuch.” (Elvis Presley)



by 37 posted onby Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)

To: Da Bilge Troll

Is this different from a Constitutional Convention?



by 38 posted onby wastedyears (I'm a pessimist, I say plenty of negative things. Consider it a warning of sorts.)

To: Publius

I’m sure we’d all like for the Second Amendment to be amended to simply read “The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.”



by 39 posted onby wastedyears (I'm a pessimist, I say plenty of negative things. Consider it a warning of sorts.)

To: Repeal The 17th

The liberals would still hijack it, and call for an amendment to remove the Second Amendment.



by 40 posted onby wastedyears (I'm a pessimist, I say plenty of negative things. Consider it a warning of sorts.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794

FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson