Anyone who thinks this is a good idea just is not thinking clearly.
Our Constitution has all the personal protections we need, and all the limits on Federal power that is needed.
Who is better prepared to steamroll such a process....Progressives, or Conservatives? If you chose the latter, are you willing to back that choice up with your freedoms?
I am not.
An Article V Convention of States
cannot amend the Constitution.
-
The current State resolutions calling for an Article V Convention of States must all use the same language.
-
The current language being used is:
"...for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution which:
-
Impose fiscal restraints on the Federal Government;
-
Limit the power and jurisdiction of the Federal Government; and
-
Limit the terms of office for federal officials and members of Congress."
-
An Article V Convention of States is simply a formal gathering of delegates
by at least 34 states (two thirds) to discuss, debate, and "
propose amendments" to the Constitution.
- Each state would send delegates to the convention, selected by the various state legislatures.
States like California, New York, Massachusetts, and Illinois might send extremists,
but the convention will be a one state = one vote system.
-
Any proposal not within the stated purpose of the Convention of States
(
fiscal restraints; limits on power and jurisdiction; limits on terms of office)
would be unauthorized, rejected, and not approved by the Convention of States.
-
Any proposal that emerged as a "proposed amendment" by the Convention of States
would still require ratification by 38 states (three fourths), the same as with any other proposed amendment.
-
Read more at:
http://www.conventionofstates.com -
Scotus has illegally amended the constitution dozens of times since FDR.
Obama determines what the law is.
Tell me of the actual, not paper personal protections that are still in effect.
We have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.