Article V Convention Used in Attempt to Change Our Constitution (1 of 2)

http://hubpages.com/politics/Deception-Used-in-Attempt-to-Change-Our-Constitution ^ | Alexander Reagan

[Alexander Reagan]

What makes you think a convention will make things better? Do not believe the propaganda.

[Alexander Reagan]

With a constitutional convention streamed live on C-Span and reported regularly on every TV channel, every radio station, and blasted at the speed of light across the world on the internet, will only provoke violent confrontations out side the convention hall and through out this nation.

All the survivalist types better get ready to hunker down because a storm is a brewing.

[Alexander Reagan]

There are purportedly over 700 proposed petitions to Congress to call a convention. So my guess is that Congress does not feel so compelled to call a convention.

I suspect in over 200 years, Congress has rejected hundreds of petitions for a convention because they are for item specific, general subject matter, and convention restrictive purposes and not for a general convention as were the first two in 1789 by New York and Virginia. See this link for these petitions. ( http://foavc.org/file.php/1/Amendments )

[alpo]

They cannot ignore a term limit. Even the low information voters can count. Well, some of them.

[Milton Miteybad]

My, but that's one fevered flight of fancy. ;-)

Frankly, I can't think of a more improbable scenario than the one you describe. Remember...you're talking about a society that ratified the Sixteenth Amendment (in the usual manner, mind you), along with all of the execrable abridgments of the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments (for starters) that measure eventually entailed.

If you aren't bothered by any of that (which now circumscribes your entire life, financial and otherwise), then you can't possibly be concerned about anything that might emerge from the proposed Convention of States. It would make no sense to be bothered about the latter if you're not already apoplectic with white-hot rage about the former.

[CSM]

“Which is why they wrote term limits into the Constitution, right?”

Actually, they did give us the amendment process, and as a result we DO have the 22nd amendment. Without it we would likely get another Obama term.

The fact of the matter was that until FDR, no President even considered serving for more than 2 terms. Obviously, it took a Progressive to break that tradition and led to an amendment. Now we have a legislative branch full of progressives that will protect their position above all else, and as a result I would support another Amendment.

That said, we can clearly differ on specific amendments and duke it out for support from the States. That is why the threshold is so very high for passing amendments!

[CSM]

“Figure out a way to institute voter initiated term limits,”

That is what this proposal does! Do you even understand the Amendment process?

[CSM]

“There are purportedly over 700 proposed petitions to Congress to call a convention. So my guess is that Congress does not feel so compelled to call a convention.

I suspect in over 200 years, Congress has rejected hundreds of petitions for a convention because they are for item specific, general subject matter, and convention restrictive purposes and not for a general convention as were the first two in 1789 by New York and Virginia. See this link for these petitions. ( http://foavc.org/file.php/1/Amendments )”

*************************

With this post, you prove that you don’t even understand an Article V Convention of the States. There is but ONE amendment process, but TWO ways to initiate that process. One way to propose amendments is for them to originate in Congress. The other is from a Convention of States! Both result in the restrictive process that you reference.