What part of MUST BE RATIFIED BY 38 STATES do you not understand?
If you think the left has the numbers to ratify an amendment in 38 states then the war has already been lost. That being said I can assure you they don't, or we would have been a communist country a long time ago. The left has packed the courts with their ilk for this very reason. THEY DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS TO PASS THEIR AGENDA BY ANY LEGITIMATE MEANS.
Perhaps you don’t read very well but no one here, to the best of my knowledge, disputed that our existing constitution requires three fourths of the several States to effectuate any alteration to our Constitution. However, what is contended is, will that requirement be honored? The only precedent we have is what took place in 1787 during the framing and ratification process of our existing Constitution.
The historical facts are, the Convention of 1787 was called for “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. The Delegates to the Convention were not authorized to draw up an entirely new Constitution which in fact they decided to do. And after doing so, the Convention decided to also ignore the Articles of Confederation's requirement that a unanimous consent be obtained to alter the Articles. They changed that requirement to an approval by a mere nine states to put into effect the new government and new Constitution they created.
So, instead of insulting posters, address the historical facts which tell us the three fourths requirement may be a pipe dream if a convention is called!
Another important question is, how many delegates does each state get to send to the convention? Will it be by a rule of apportionment in which our “progressive” states like California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and a few others will have an overwhelming representation at the convention because of their large population size? And if they do, could they not steamroll their progressive agenda through the convention and force it upon the entire United States by adopting a rule for ratification in which a simple majority vote in the Senate is all that is needed for ratification?
The fact is, there is a compelling argument to be made that the above mentioned pinko progressive states would indeed be entitled to a representation at the convention in proportion to their population size! Does our Constitution not set a new rule by which representation shall be by the rule of apportionment which overruled the Articles of Confederation’s equal representation rule? And who will get to decide this question if raised after a convention is called by Congress? Would it not be our existing tyrannical Supreme Court?
These and other important questions must be answered. But one thing seems certain, a convention cannot be controlled once it is convened! Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote to Phyllis Schlafly in 1988, regarding another convention: “ have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “
JWK
"What about a runaway convention? Yes, it is true that once you assemble a convention that states have called, they can do anything they want." ___ Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli
At the Convention of States Project's website, and under their Frequently Asked Questions the first question presented and then answered is:
Why Do We Want to Call a Convention of States?
“Washington, D.C., is broken. The federal government is spending this country into the ground, seizing power from the states and taking liberty from the people. It’s time American citizens took a stand and made a legitimate effort to curb the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. At the Constitutional Convention, George Mason insisted that the States be given the power to amend the Constitution to curb abuses by Washington, D.C. The Founders gave us the solution for today. It is time to use their solution.”
The problem is indeed identified by the Convention of States project. Our federal government is usurping power not granted and trampling upon the inalienable rights of the American People. A recent example being the passage of Obamacare by Congress and the Supreme Court engaging in judicial tyranny when upholding Congress’ legislative tyranny, not to mention the president’s willful usurping legislative power and imposing his own version of Obamacare upon the people.
And to curb this assault upon the People’s constitutionally limited system of government, the Convention of States project comes to the people’s rescue and suggests they forgo rising up and demanding an adherence to their written Constitution. The Convention of States project’s solution is to take the people out of the equation and find their remedy in our corrupted state governments, our tyrannical Supreme Court and a despotic Congress. Are these not the actors who would be in total charge of a convention should one be called? Would calling a convention under Article V not give them the “legal opportunity” to make constitutional the tyranny which is now rained down upon the people?
One must ask, who would actually attend a convention should one be called? Would it not be the very snakes who now cause our sufferings? Could James Madison be right, and that an election into the convention " would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric...?
Let us take a look at what has already happened in New Hampshire in 1984 when a convention was called to amend its state constitution.
During the 1984 New Hampshire Convention to alter its State Constitution, which was challenged in U.S. District Court, of the 400 delegates 64 were attorneys, eight were judges, four were state senators, and 113 were state representatives and there were two legislative lobbyists….the very people who are now causing our misery!
The suit went on to charge “there has been over 175 lawyers, judges, senators and representatives out of the total of 400 constitutional convention (delegates) elected, (who) are already holding a public office both in the legislature and judicial branches in violation of the separation of powers doctrine, and this count does not include wives and immediate family members who have been elected on their behalf.”
Now, let us take a look at who is behind the calling of a constitutional convention. See: Exposing the Convention of the States (COS) as an Article V Constitutional Convention … and Who’s Behind It All, including Soros & Levin
JWK
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.