[conservatism_IS_compassion]

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.

[afsnco]

I agree completely that the SCOTUS is out of control. Same with the Executive for that matter. But there’s nothing I’ve seen that would limit the amendments that could be considered under an Article V convention.

Amendments can have disastrous results. The rights that the Constitution or an amendment gives, a subsequent amendment can take away, and vice versa. Prohibition came about via a constitutional amendment. Prohibition was repealed via a constitutional amendment. Why couldn’t the 1A or the 2A or the 4A or the 5A be repealed via a constitutional amendment if everything becomes fair game during an Article V?

I think the wiser course of action is to keep proposing and passing individual amendments to get where we want to go. The risk appears to be too great to throw it open to any and all amendments in an Article V given how moronic the majority of Americans obviously are.