Replies

They ignore the current constitution. What good would it do to get another one?

Not another one... An Article V convention for the proposal of Amendments... The original Constitution would be unchanged...

Start with something the ENTIRE political spectrum agrees on... TERM LIMITS... You get a Term Limit amendment passed and a few things begin to clear up...

Among Article V supporters, repeal of the 17th amendment is front and center.

Other structural amendments that enhance federalism, such as 3/4 state override of laws and scotus decisions, are changes that cannot be ignored.

They ignore the current constitution. What good would it do to get another one?

It would not be a new Constitution. Rather, highly targeted amendments to the existing Constitution. Polling (sorry, no link) shows the two most desired amendments are term limits for politicians and judges and forcing the US to balance it's budget each year.

The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps: Proposal, Disposal, and Ratification.

Proposal:

There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.

The Congressional Method requires the House and Senate to pass an amendment by a two-thirds majority.
The Amendments Convention Method requires the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to petition Congress to call a Convention for Proposing Amendments. The states may request a single-subject convention or a general convention open to all subjects. Once the two-thirds threshold is reached, Congress is required to set a time and place for the convention.

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:

State Legislature Method, or the
State Ratifying Convention Method.

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.

Forbidden Subjects:

Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and one implicitly forbidden subject.

Explicitly forbidden:

No amendment may be added to the Constitution concerning slavery until 1808. We’re past that deadline.
No amendment may be added to the Constitution to change the principle of equal representation in the Senate. If California wants five senators, every state has to have five senators.

Implicity forbidden:

Throwing out the Constitution of 1787 and replacing it with a new document. Article V only authorizes “a convention for proposing amendments to this Constitution”; therefore, the Constitution of 1787 is locked in place forever. Congress and an Amendments Convention have exactly the same Proposal power; therefore, neither Congress nor an Amendments Convention can start over. Both bodies can only propose amendments.

I have two reference works for those interested.

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 dislike 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 the view of the ruling class toward the process.

Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee

Repeal of the 17th amendment is the my that will make correction possible even if no other amendment is ratified.

The need is to restore limits on the feral government. The basic thrust of the amendments is to unequivicably empower the states resist and in some cases overrule the feral government. That is it in a nut shell. The restoration of federalism.