Amending Constitution by convention of states unlikely to succeed

In recent years, some conservatives have responded to the gridlock in Washington with a call for a convention of states to amend the Constitution. Conservative author and talk show host, Mark Levin, has compiled a laundry list of “liberty amendments” that he would like to see ratified at a convention of the states. Those unfamiliar with the concept of such a convention might wonder how, as Levin told CNS News, Americans can “turn to the Constitution, to save the Constitution, if you love the Constitution, before there is no Constitution.”

The idea of a convention of the states comes from Article V of the Constitution, which describes the amendment process. Amendments have traditionally been proposed by Congress, but the Constitution does provide an alternative method. If the legislatures of two-thirds of the states call a convention to propose constitutional amendments, then those amendments will take effect when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. This means that agreement of 34 states would be required to call a convention and 38 states would be required to ratify any proposed amendments.

Alternatively, only 13 states would be needed to block any amendments proposed by a convention of the states. It is safe to assume that any Democrat-controlled state legislature would not ratify Levin’s amendments. Statescape.com lists state legislatures by party control. State legislatures that are currently controlled by the Democrats include:

1. California

2. Colorado

3. Connecticut

4. Delaware

5. Hawaii

6. Illinois

7. Maine

8. Maryland

9. Massachusetts

10. Minnesota

11. Nevada

12. New Jersey

13. New Mexico

Even though Republicans control more state legislatures than the Democrats, the Democrats clearly have control of enough states to block any proposed constitutional amendments from a state convention. There are, however, even more states under Democratic control. The list continues:

14. Oregon

15. Rhode Island

16. Vermont

17. Washington

18. West Virginia

With control of 18 state legislatures, the Democrats have the ability to go further than blocking ratification. They can block the convention of states itself. Only 17 states are required to block a convention.

The true picture is even worse for proponents of a convention of states. Of the remaining states, not all have legislatures controlled by Republicans. Even controlling only one house of a state legislature would be enough to block the convention in most cases. Another five states have legislatures where control is split between the two parties (Iowa, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and New York).

Split legislature states combined with Democratic states make a total of 23 states that could not be counted on to call a convention or ratify amendments. This means that convention proponents would need to persuade Democrats (as well as conservatives and moderates) in at least 11 of the above states to call a convention. Fifteen states from this list, at minimum, would be needed to ratify any amendment.

Even if a convention was called and the states present could agree on proposed amendments, it might take years for ratification. Lexis Nexis notes that the ratification time for amendments varied between three months and more than 202 years. In this time of divided political beliefs, longer is probably more likely.

In order for conservatives to make the proposed changes to the Constitution, they must win a war of ideas in the states and elect more Republicans to state legislatures. If conservatives can win this battle of ideas at the state level, they may also gain control of Congress and the White House, eliminating the need for a convention of states in the first place.

At present, according to the Convention of States Project, the total number of states whose legislatures have passed laws calling for a convention of states stands at precisely… three. Only Georgia, Florida and Alaska have issued the call for a state constitutional convention. By the time that enough states can be persuaded to call a convention, the direction of the United States, whether advancing toward big government or returning toward a limited constitutional government, is likely to already be decided.

Read the full article on National Elections Examiner

Palestinian statehood move in UN may spark Mid East Again

Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, has indicated that he will petition the United Nations to recognize Palestine as a national state as early as this Friday. When the UN takes up the question of Palestinian statehood over the next few weeks, it may well spark another explosive confrontation in the Middle East.

At first glance, bestowing statehood on the Palestinians makes about as much sense as deeming that Georgia and the other southern states are still part of the Confederate States of America and are merely occupied by the United States. Many observers may be confused as to how a group of people without land could be considered a nation. The fact that the Palestinian Authority does not possess a defined territory, one of four requirements for national recognition under the 1933 Montevideo Convention, is part of the legal case against Palestinian statehood in a recent Wall Street Journal column.

There was once a Palestinian state. When the UN voted in 1948 to create the modern state of Israel, it also created an Arab state (see map here). On the first day of Israel’s existence, it was attacked by the combined armies of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon. When the war ended in 1949, Israel’s size had increased with its battlefield successes (see map here). Israel occupied some of the land that had been set aside for an Arab state. Other parts of the Arab state were occupied by Arab nations. Transjordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt occupied Gaza. The West Bank and Gaza were among the lands later captured by Israel in the Six Day War of 1968.

Mahmoud Abbas has said that Palestinians have been living under Israeli occupation for 63 years, which means that Abbas considers the beginning of the occupation to be the 1948 war. This would seem to indicate that Abbas wants the Arab state to include not only the West Bank, but approximately half of Israel as well.

Abbas’ position is in keeping with the Arab pattern of refusing all peace proposals that does not end Israel’s existence. In 2001, Yasir Arafat turned down an Israeli proposal to give the Palestinians 91 percent of the West Bank. Even when Israel unilaterally withdraws from occupied territory, as it did from Gaza in 2005, there is no peace. Gaza residents promptly voted to place the terrorist group Hamas in charge. Gaza has since been used a base to launch rockets into Israel, leading to another war in Gaza in 2008. An earlier withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000 allowed Hezbollah to fill the void. Israel fought another war in Lebanon in 2006 after Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers.

CNN reports that 120 of the 193 members of the UN General Assembly favor Palestinian statehood. A General Assembly vote would be nonbinding, however. The binding vote would take place on the 15-member Security Council. To his credit, President Obama has promised a US veto of the matter if it comes before the Security Council.

If Palestine is declared to be an Arab state, it would give the Palestinians access to international bodies such as the International Criminal Court and the Human Rights Council. This would give the Arabs more avenues to attack Israel diplomatically as well as giving their military attacks against Israel more legitimacy. There is also an outside chance that they might one day persuade other countries to put together a coalition backed by a UN resolution that would attempt to oust Israel from the occupied territories militarily, although this would almost certainly face a US veto as well.

In the end, UN consideration of a Palestinian state would be likely to inflame passions on both sides and make peace even more difficult to achieve. Tensions have already been rising between Israel and Turkey and Egypt in past months. Merely introducing the question of Palestinian statehood would further exacerbate the problem. A US veto would likely cause further anti-Americanism in the region as well.

According to the Jewish Virtual Library, Israel is Georgia’s 23^rd largest trading partner. In 2010, Georgia’s exports to Israel totaled more than $164 million. Trade between Israel and Georgia is increasing. Israeli trade with Georgia in 2010 increased by more than 42 percent from 2009.

It is unlikely that any peace attempts in the Middle East will meet with success until the Palestinians renounce violence. The Israelis have demonstrated their willingness to trade land for peace several times, but their unilateral withdrawals have been interpreted as weakness by the Arabs. Peace will require a willingness by the Muslims to coexist with the Jews. At this point, they are not.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/un-plan-for-arab-state-may-spark-middle-east-again

Budget cuts threaten Georgia parks

An often overlooked aspect of the national financial crisis and the subsequent political emergency is the impact on Georgia’s state parks. As tax revenues dropped in the wake of the financial collapse, Governor Sonny Perdue and the General Assembly slashed the Department of Natural Resources parks budget by almost forty percent, from $27.4 million to $16.8 million.

To read the rest of this article, please go to:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5942978/budget_cuts_threaten_georgia_parks.html?cat=9