I have no idea whatsoever why anyone is of the delusion that something good will come of such efforts. It’s one hell of a lot of hubris imagining that they can do a better job than the constitution which exists now. It is beyond that into fantasy the notion that a new one even if perfect will be any more followed than the current one (which isn’t).
My first thought is of unintended consequences that could take place during such a process in today’s political environment. I don’t trust many if any politicians to vote for the benefit of the country, the people, and our constitutional rights. I have even less trust in the majority of our dumbed down citizens as well.
I seem to remember the amendment to give 18 year olds the right to vote went through rather quickly.
There have been changes to the original intent that need to be undone, i.e. the direct vote of Senators.
Nobody is talking about a "new one". The COS is all about additional amendments to the "current one", starting with the number 28.
Proposal:
There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.
Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.
Disposal:
Once Congress, or an Amendments Convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:
The State Ratifying Convention Method has only been used twice: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.
Ratification:
Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three-quarters of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.
I have two reference works.
The first is from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative pro-business group. This document has been sent to every state legislator in the country.
Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers
The second is a 1973 report from the American Bar Association attempting to identify gray areas in the amendatory process to include an Amendments Convention. It represents the view of the ruling class of 40 years ago. While I don't like some of their conclusions, they have laid out the precedents that may justify those conclusions. What I respect is the comprehensive job they did in locating all the gray areas. They went so far as to identify a gray area that didn't pop up until the Equal Rights Amendment crashed and burned a decade later. Even if you find yourself in disagreement with their vision, it's worth reading to see how the ruling class will try to dominate an Amendments Convention.
Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee
http://www.conventionofstates.com/learn-why-convention-safe
The most common objection to an Article V convention is called the “runaway convention” objection.
It envisions a doomsday scenario in which delegates disregard the original issue, rewrite the Constitution, and change the entire American system of government. While this initial response is understandable, it is based on fear and misinformation.
Here are the facts:
1. There is a clear, strong single-subject precedent that would almost certainly be declared binding in the event of a court challenge. There have been over 400 applications from state legislatures for an Article V convention in the history of the Republic. No such convention has ever been called because there has never been an application from two-thirds of the states for a single subject. In addition to this, there is a huge amount of historical precedent that limits interstate conventions to a particular subject. (See Dr. Robert Natelson’s handbook here: http://www.alec.org/publications/article-v-handbook/).
2. Ratification of any proposed amendment requires the approval of 38 states. It only takes 13 states to vote “no” to defeat any proposed amendment, and the chances of 38 state legislatures approving a rogue amendment are effectively zero.
3. Improper changes to the process can be legally challenged by state legislators. The Supreme Court has held that Congress acted unconstitutionally when it changed the rules of the process in midstream. See, Idaho v. Freeman, 529 F.Supp. 1107 (D.C. Idaho 1981) (vacated on the ground of mootness.) CSG’s Senior Fellow for Constitutional Studies, Michael Farris, was lead counsel for Washington state legislators in that litigation—the last major Article V case in U.S. history.
4. There is absolutely no historical precedent for a runaway convention. Many opponents of a convention of the states make the historically false allegation that our Constitution was adopted as the result of an illegal runaway convention. Such an argument was invented by the enemies of the Constitution and is unsupported by historical fact. (See “Was the Constitution Illegally Adopted?” by Michael Farris at http://www.hslda.org/courtreport/v21n4/V21N401.asp).
American citizens must evaluate the relative safety of two choices. We can allow Washington, D.C., to continue abusing the Constitution and the rights of the people with the vague hope that someday Washington will see the light and relinquish power. Or we call a convention of the states, trusting it will behave properly and one of the many lines of defense will stop any misuse of power.
We believe the choice is clear. A convention of states is the safest means by which we can preserve our liberty.
.
Citizen’s Toolkit
Convention of States Handbook >
State Application for Convention
Convention of States Overview
Frequently Asked Questions
Sample Letter to Friends and Family
Sample Letter to Legislators
Convention Talking Points
DONATE TODAY
Follow @cosproject
@marklevinshow responds to recent criticism of #TheLibertyAmendments: http://t.co/6f3yFWPtUD @Self_Governance
4 hours ago
“Where an excess of power prevails…no man is safe in his opinions, his person…or his possessions.” - #JamesMadison @Self_Governance
18 hours ago
Weapons for the fight! http://t.co/z7l2EqRzZm @Self_Governance
1 day ago