#wolfpac — Public Fediverse posts

#HulkHogan Isn't Selling Tickets. Because Hogan Is NOT Cool!
Myself, D-Mac and Craig live Thursday's at 6pm at https://www.youtube.com/@HIACTalkRadio_2

#AEW #Wrestling #WWE #ProWrestling #Podcast #KevinNash #ScottHall #EricBischoff #AFW #AmericanFreestyleWrestling #NWO #Wolfpac

#HulkHogan Isn't Selling Tickets. Because Hogan Is NOT Cool!
Myself, D-Mac and Craig live Thursday's at 6pm at https://www.youtube.com/@HIACTalkRadio_2

#AEW #Wrestling #WWE #ProWrestling #Podcast #KevinNash #ScottHall #EricBischoff #AFW #AmericanFreestyleWrestling #NWO #Wolfpac

Article V efforts

Ohio State Reps. Riordan McClain, R-Upper Sandusky, and Bernie Willis, R-Springfield, have sponsored House Joint Resolution 3,
which calls for a convention of the states.

Their resolution, which has already had several hearings, includes explicit provisions aiming to limit the scope of delegates’ work.

Delegates are restricted to “proposing amendments that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government,
limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government,
and limit the terms of office for its officials and Members of Congress,” according to the resolution.

The measure also carries language specifying Ohio’s call can only be combined with others drafted
toward the “substantially same purpose,”
and to rescind the application after the fact if the eventual convention considers changes to the Bill of Rights.

It’s not a carbon copy of the model resolution provided by Convention of States Action, but it would fit under the heading of “substantially same.”

The organization has the backing of effectively every leading light in the conservative movement,
and it has successfully lobbied for convention resolutions in 19 states.

It’s not the only effort to organize an Article V convention, however.

The group #WolfPAC, founded by Cenk Uygur, is promoting campaign finance reform in the wake of Citizens United.

Wolf-PAC has passed resolutions in four states.

Although both groups insist it’s possible to limit the scope of a convention, it’s also uncharted territory.

Wolf-PAC points to peer-reviewed studies and opinions from U.S. Justice Department officials.

But because it has never been done before, there’s no judicial precedent.

💥“The convention could make its own rules and set its own agendas,” Turcer explained.

“And it is true that, whether it’s the state legislature or Congress, they might try to limit the convention.

💥But there’s no way to assure that the members of the convention would actually obey those rules.”

“It’s its own entity,” she added.

Convention of States notes that the biggest safeguard is the ratification process itself.

Whatever the convention comes up with still needs the backing of 38 states, whether within its original scope or outside of it.

“That means if only 13 states vote no, the answer is no. It doesn’t get much safer than that!” the Convention of States website insists.

Still, there’s no denying some measure of uncertainty.

No matter how narrowly convention backers draft their resolutions, even they acknowledge they have no say in the text of the eventual amendment.

A Congressional Research Service study from 2016 noted calling a convention to vote on a specifically worded amendment is one way Congress could argue states’ applications were “defective and invalid.”

Because the Constitution gives Congress or a convention the right to “propose” amendments,
calling a convention simply for an up or down vote misconstrues its function.

Its role is to deliberate and propose, not to approve or disapprove.

#article5 #ArticleV #RunawayConvention

Article V efforts

Ohio State Reps. Riordan McClain, R-Upper Sandusky, and Bernie Willis, R-Springfield, have sponsored House Joint Resolution 3,
which calls for a convention of the states.

Their resolution, which has already had several hearings, includes explicit provisions aiming to limit the scope of delegates’ work.

Delegates are restricted to “proposing amendments that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government,
limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government,
and limit the terms of office for its officials and Members of Congress,” according to the resolution.

The measure also carries language specifying Ohio’s call can only be combined with others drafted
toward the “substantially same purpose,”
and to rescind the application after the fact if the eventual convention considers changes to the Bill of Rights.

It’s not a carbon copy of the model resolution provided by Convention of States Action, but it would fit under the heading of “substantially same.”

The organization has the backing of effectively every leading light in the conservative movement,
and it has successfully lobbied for convention resolutions in 19 states.

It’s not the only effort to organize an Article V convention, however.

The group #WolfPAC, founded by Cenk Uygur, is promoting campaign finance reform in the wake of Citizens United.

Wolf-PAC has passed resolutions in four states.

Although both groups insist it’s possible to limit the scope of a convention, it’s also uncharted territory.

Wolf-PAC points to peer-reviewed studies and opinions from U.S. Justice Department officials.

But because it has never been done before, there’s no judicial precedent.

💥“The convention could make its own rules and set its own agendas,” Turcer explained.

“And it is true that, whether it’s the state legislature or Congress, they might try to limit the convention.

💥But there’s no way to assure that the members of the convention would actually obey those rules.”

“It’s its own entity,” she added.

Convention of States notes that the biggest safeguard is the ratification process itself.

Whatever the convention comes up with still needs the backing of 38 states, whether within its original scope or outside of it.

“That means if only 13 states vote no, the answer is no. It doesn’t get much safer than that!” the Convention of States website insists.

Still, there’s no denying some measure of uncertainty.

No matter how narrowly convention backers draft their resolutions, even they acknowledge they have no say in the text of the eventual amendment.

A Congressional Research Service study from 2016 noted calling a convention to vote on a specifically worded amendment is one way Congress could argue states’ applications were “defective and invalid.”

Because the Constitution gives Congress or a convention the right to “propose” amendments,
calling a convention simply for an up or down vote misconstrues its function.

Its role is to deliberate and propose, not to approve or disapprove.

#article5 #ArticleV #RunawayConvention

Article V efforts

Ohio State Reps. Riordan McClain, R-Upper Sandusky, and Bernie Willis, R-Springfield, have sponsored House Joint Resolution 3,
which calls for a convention of the states.

Their resolution, which has already had several hearings, includes explicit provisions aiming to limit the scope of delegates’ work.

Delegates are restricted to “proposing amendments that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government,
limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government,
and limit the terms of office for its officials and Members of Congress,” according to the resolution.

The measure also carries language specifying Ohio’s call can only be combined with others drafted
toward the “substantially same purpose,”
and to rescind the application after the fact if the eventual convention considers changes to the Bill of Rights.

It’s not a carbon copy of the model resolution provided by Convention of States Action, but it would fit under the heading of “substantially same.”

The organization has the backing of effectively every leading light in the conservative movement,
and it has successfully lobbied for convention resolutions in 19 states.

It’s not the only effort to organize an Article V convention, however.

The group #WolfPAC, founded by Cenk Uygur, is promoting campaign finance reform in the wake of Citizens United.

Wolf-PAC has passed resolutions in four states.

Although both groups insist it’s possible to limit the scope of a convention, it’s also uncharted territory.

Wolf-PAC points to peer-reviewed studies and opinions from U.S. Justice Department officials.

But because it has never been done before, there’s no judicial precedent.

💥“The convention could make its own rules and set its own agendas,” Turcer explained.

“And it is true that, whether it’s the state legislature or Congress, they might try to limit the convention.

💥But there’s no way to assure that the members of the convention would actually obey those rules.”

“It’s its own entity,” she added.

Convention of States notes that the biggest safeguard is the ratification process itself.

Whatever the convention comes up with still needs the backing of 38 states, whether within its original scope or outside of it.

“That means if only 13 states vote no, the answer is no. It doesn’t get much safer than that!” the Convention of States website insists.

Still, there’s no denying some measure of uncertainty.

No matter how narrowly convention backers draft their resolutions, even they acknowledge they have no say in the text of the eventual amendment.

A Congressional Research Service study from 2016 noted calling a convention to vote on a specifically worded amendment is one way Congress could argue states’ applications were “defective and invalid.”

Because the Constitution gives Congress or a convention the right to “propose” amendments,
calling a convention simply for an up or down vote misconstrues its function.

Its role is to deliberate and propose, not to approve or disapprove.

#article5 #ArticleV #RunawayConvention

Article V efforts

Ohio State Reps. Riordan McClain, R-Upper Sandusky, and Bernie Willis, R-Springfield, have sponsored House Joint Resolution 3,
which calls for a convention of the states.

Their resolution, which has already had several hearings, includes explicit provisions aiming to limit the scope of delegates’ work.

Delegates are restricted to “proposing amendments that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government,
limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government,
and limit the terms of office for its officials and Members of Congress,” according to the resolution.

The measure also carries language specifying Ohio’s call can only be combined with others drafted
toward the “substantially same purpose,”
and to rescind the application after the fact if the eventual convention considers changes to the Bill of Rights.

It’s not a carbon copy of the model resolution provided by Convention of States Action, but it would fit under the heading of “substantially same.”

The organization has the backing of effectively every leading light in the conservative movement,
and it has successfully lobbied for convention resolutions in 19 states.

It’s not the only effort to organize an Article V convention, however.

The group #WolfPAC, founded by Cenk Uygur, is promoting campaign finance reform in the wake of Citizens United.

Wolf-PAC has passed resolutions in four states.

Although both groups insist it’s possible to limit the scope of a convention, it’s also uncharted territory.

Wolf-PAC points to peer-reviewed studies and opinions from U.S. Justice Department officials.

But because it has never been done before, there’s no judicial precedent.

💥“The convention could make its own rules and set its own agendas,” Turcer explained.

“And it is true that, whether it’s the state legislature or Congress, they might try to limit the convention.

💥But there’s no way to assure that the members of the convention would actually obey those rules.”

“It’s its own entity,” she added.

Convention of States notes that the biggest safeguard is the ratification process itself.

Whatever the convention comes up with still needs the backing of 38 states, whether within its original scope or outside of it.

“That means if only 13 states vote no, the answer is no. It doesn’t get much safer than that!” the Convention of States website insists.

Still, there’s no denying some measure of uncertainty.

No matter how narrowly convention backers draft their resolutions, even they acknowledge they have no say in the text of the eventual amendment.

A Congressional Research Service study from 2016 noted calling a convention to vote on a specifically worded amendment is one way Congress could argue states’ applications were “defective and invalid.”

Because the Constitution gives Congress or a convention the right to “propose” amendments,
calling a convention simply for an up or down vote misconstrues its function.

Its role is to deliberate and propose, not to approve or disapprove.

#article5 #ArticleV #RunawayConvention

Article V efforts

Ohio State Reps. Riordan McClain, R-Upper Sandusky, and Bernie Willis, R-Springfield, have sponsored House Joint Resolution 3,
which calls for a convention of the states.

Their resolution, which has already had several hearings, includes explicit provisions aiming to limit the scope of delegates’ work.

Delegates are restricted to “proposing amendments that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government,
limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government,
and limit the terms of office for its officials and Members of Congress,” according to the resolution.

The measure also carries language specifying Ohio’s call can only be combined with others drafted
toward the “substantially same purpose,”
and to rescind the application after the fact if the eventual convention considers changes to the Bill of Rights.

It’s not a carbon copy of the model resolution provided by Convention of States Action, but it would fit under the heading of “substantially same.”

The organization has the backing of effectively every leading light in the conservative movement,
and it has successfully lobbied for convention resolutions in 19 states.

It’s not the only effort to organize an Article V convention, however.

The group #WolfPAC, founded by Cenk Uygur, is promoting campaign finance reform in the wake of Citizens United.

Wolf-PAC has passed resolutions in four states.

Although both groups insist it’s possible to limit the scope of a convention, it’s also uncharted territory.

Wolf-PAC points to peer-reviewed studies and opinions from U.S. Justice Department officials.

But because it has never been done before, there’s no judicial precedent.

💥“The convention could make its own rules and set its own agendas,” Turcer explained.

“And it is true that, whether it’s the state legislature or Congress, they might try to limit the convention.

💥But there’s no way to assure that the members of the convention would actually obey those rules.”

“It’s its own entity,” she added.

Convention of States notes that the biggest safeguard is the ratification process itself.

Whatever the convention comes up with still needs the backing of 38 states, whether within its original scope or outside of it.

“That means if only 13 states vote no, the answer is no. It doesn’t get much safer than that!” the Convention of States website insists.

Still, there’s no denying some measure of uncertainty.

No matter how narrowly convention backers draft their resolutions, even they acknowledge they have no say in the text of the eventual amendment.

A Congressional Research Service study from 2016 noted calling a convention to vote on a specifically worded amendment is one way Congress could argue states’ applications were “defective and invalid.”

Because the Constitution gives Congress or a convention the right to “propose” amendments,
calling a convention simply for an up or down vote misconstrues its function.

Its role is to deliberate and propose, not to approve or disapprove.

#article5 #ArticleV #RunawayConvention