Replies

I don’t think any honest “expert” can say for sure that a ConCon won’t devolve into something disastrous. Once one is called, how could it possibly be limited in scope? If a proponent can provably guarantee to all the skeptics that there’s absolutely, positively no way that such a disaster can happen, great! Otherwise it’s simply not worth the risk. Don’t forget that the American people are so addled that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a wide margin.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

it’s simply not worth the risk. Don’t forget that the American people are so addled that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a wide margin.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Like much of the Constitution, Article V is about the rights of the states. The Senate was about the rights of the states until the 17^th Amendment made it about the rights of the people within the states. Really, like the House, about the Federal Government itself.
The problem we have is that SCOTUS most famously over time, and the current administration, have disregarded the Constitution with impunity. They have been able to do so because, “the media.” Article V convention is a constitutional means of cutting self-serving Congress out of the loop. That’s all. Whether such a convention would limit itself to such matters or not, term limits and anything else which may be beneficial to society but uncongenial to Congress are the things by which such a convention could benefit society.
SCOTUS has arrogated to itself the sole final say as to the meaning of the Constitution. The states should institute a mechanism outside of Congress whereby they may limit mischief entailed by judicial activism. Communications being what they now are, there should be a way for the states to evaluate SCOTUS rulings and invalidate their presidential value when necessary. When a Rov v. Wade decision comes down, the states should be able to say, “The next time SCOTUS rules on this matter will be the first time it rules on this matter.” Perhaps by referendums within the states on the matter.

What you are referring to as a con-con is some kind of myth created by this sensationalist weirdo.

All amendments to the Constitution are effected by Article V. There is no other way to amend our U.S. Constitution. Congress has amended the Constitution 26 times using this process.

The states are also given the power to amend the constitution under Article V. It is the same process. There is no voodoo involved that is any different from congressional power to amend the Constitution. It's all one Section. The powers are not different.

Furthermore, Article V is about one thing. Amendments. Nothing more. No dissolution of the whole Constitution and no writing a new constitution. Just amending the Constitution.

There are multiple comments on other threads under the Convention of States heading which list the amendments Freepers would like to have implemented.

I don’t think any honest “expert” can say for sure that a ConCon won’t devolve into something disastrous. Once one is called, how could it possibly be limited in scope?

Isn't the scope naturally limited by Article V to only allow proposals for amendments to the existing Constitution?

-PJ

I refer you to the words of nathanbedford from a previous post:

"There are 99 houses in 50 state legislatures. Any leftist amendment would require only 13 of these legislative bodies from 99 to defeat ratification. In other words, three quarters of the state legislatures must ratify or 38 states. If 13 legislatures fail to ratify the amendment is defeated. Since ratification by legislatures requires both houses to consent, only 13/99 are required. That is very close to 13%."

"The problem will not be to stop left-wing amendments but to pass prudent conservative amendments which restore the Constitution by invoking the Constitution."

"If the Congress of the United States elects to have the ratification procedures conducted by conventions rather than legislatures, the method of selecting the delegates to those conventions would be chosen by the legislatures. If only 13 legislative bodies out of 99 object to the method chosen by the other body because it is considered to favor a leftist amendment, there is no ratification forthcoming from that state."

"By either procedure the odds of a liberal amendment getting past so many conservative legislative bodies in so many states is both arithmetically and practically remote."

"Finally, this is only the last line of defense, there are innumerable steps along the way which make a "runaway convention" virtually impossible and render the need for the states to fail to ratify very likely superfluous."