“So they can ignore the amendments too?”
Easy answer, with STRUCTURAL changes that cannot be just be ignored. Since the 17th amendment, no senator has been chosen by a state legislature. Since the 22nd amendment, no president has been elected more than twice (though granted both the Clintons and the Bushes are trying to get around that with the wife and the brother).
And amendment limiting the terms of congress (or even better, an amendment allowing the states to do so, or to instituted recalls) could not be ignored.
An amendment limiting the time judges spend on the judiciary could not be ignored.
An amendment requiring that all executive agency regulation be voted on in congress before such regulations take effect, could not be ignored.
An amendment allowing the states or the congress (or both) to overrule a judicial opinion could not be ignored.
The founders struggled in their time to create “a more perfect union” and they gave the people and the states the means to perfect it even further, through the amendment process.
Good points!
But are those the kinds of amendments the state legislatures are presenting for the Article V?
Levin read about one he/his group proposed. It was something about banking/financial concerns. It did not seem to address the ‘real’ problems we have with DC.
If/when those pushing for an Article V publish a list of their ‘demands’, the interest may turn. Until then, it seems each state can propose whatever they want.
Why not? There's a Representative from Florida by the name of Alcee Hastings who was impeached, convicted and removed from office as a Judge. According to our current Constitution, he's not allowed to hold public office.
Here's how it's stated in Article I, Section 3, Clause 7: “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”