LET ARIZONA VOTE: AZ SENATOR BIGGS THWARTING CONVENTION OF STATES VOTE

well that would be an amendment that I would certainly agree on.

and I would also like to see an amendment that gives “standing” to ANY citizen suing the government to obey the law.

Washington will never impose term limits on itself. That will take Article V. And if you are going to call a Convention of States (NOT A CON CON), it should be limited to only those topics that would restrict federal power. Then anything within those defined parameters would be up for discussion, including term limits.

You should look at Mark Levin’s book too. He has a number of good suggestions there also. The purpose is not to create a new Constitution—it is to restore the written Constitution.

The window of opportunity is closing. When the Amnesty bomb hits, we will no longer have enough Red States to get anything done. We will lose our Republic forever. Texas, in particular, is in the cross-hairs. This Wendy Davis nonsense is being driven by Soros and him minions. Texas is a huge obstacle to the blue states in completing a complete totalitarian takeover by the feds. Red states will become purple, purple states turn blue—and then it’s over. Unless we take a stand NOW.

It’s not a personal attack. You stated the constitution and its amendments are being ignored and that is simply a false statement. Are they slowly being compromised? Yes but certainly not ignored.

Oh, right. Gotcha. Maybe a better descriptor is “violated.” The present constitution and amendments are routinely violated, and somehow a new one won’t be. Like gun laws in Chicago.

If what we have isn’t being “ignored” it’s because they make a show out of “violating” it.

I really should clarify something: I have nothing against the attempt, and I’d lobby Briggs, if he were my guy, to allow this to pass. I’d also fight like heck to see it done correctly. I just don’t think people should see this as some sort of panacea. If we went all the way, and got a lot of new paper in place, it will be another whole war just to make sure the new Constitution isn’t treated as shabbily as the old one.

Well if this is a States convention Boehner and McConnell don’t have a say in it!!! If the Washington DC crowed call the Convention then they get to vote!!!

The only role Congress has in an Amendments Convention is to set the time and place once two-thirds of the states request it. That role is purely ministerial, and Congress has no discretion in the matter. Read Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #85.

Where is that written in the Constitution I mean Federalist # 85.. Is there footnotes in the United States Constitution to go to the Federalist Papers?

Are you truly that ignorant of your own country's Constitution? Are you truly unable to parse a sentence (Article V)?

Hamilton, Madison and Jay wrote the Federalist Papers to "sell" the Constitution to the New York Ratifying Convention, whose ratification of the new Constitution was most definitely not a sure thing. The three men explained each section of the Constitution in fine detail over the course of 85 papers. In the 19th Century, the Supreme Court ruled that the Federalist Papers could be used to figure out the original intent of the Framers. So yes, in effect, the Constitution has invisible footnotes linking to the Federalist Papers. The US Supreme Court said so.

Do yourself a favor, and take the FReeper Book Club course on the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers located at these links. When you've educated yourself, come back and post on these threads.

I have no doubt that if given the chance at a convention all the “rules” you “think” apply will be thrown out the window.

Let's assume that what you say is true. We'd be looking at a second civil war.

So what is the alternative? As I see it, we're headed there anyway.

It seems to me that the worst-case would be the same, so isn't the "risk" of a convention worth it to avoid that?

Are the Federalist papers in the Constitution???? Did the many states ratify the Federalist Papers? I thought the federalist papers where ideas explaining the thoughts about what went into the Constitution!!!

Do you believe in this??? Libertarian and secular humanist