Thanks for posting this.
On the same subjected I posted this yesterday:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3304160/posts
Please be aware that a ‘marriage amendment’ won’t be enough. Our Article V amendment must be broad and specific to cover all the abuses of the federal government.
Ideally one or at most two amendments should cover the whole problem. It takes only one amendment to get across the finish line and then others can follow but I don’t think much more will be needed. See the link above for more detail and information.
It would be foolish to try to formulate one amendment to cover all of the issues that need to be addressed. Not only would it be too complicated and difficult for most people to understand, it would increase the likelihood than nothing would be passed, or if it were to be passed and ratified, could easily be misinterpreted by the Supremes.
It would be much better to have a group of amendments, each covering a single discrete topic. An amendment limiting application of the Commerce clause to actual commerce between the states, and not just applying it to any activity that could possibly tangentially affect such commerce, would be a good one. Repealing the 17 amendment would be another good one. And one prohibiting SCOTUS from recognizing or creating any new "right" not specifically mentioned in the Constitution would be a good one as well.
Can't wait til SCOTUS twists and perverts them to mean whatever THEY want them to mean!
Ideally one or at most two amendments should cover the whole problem.LOL! If you want someone to jump on board with that, you might want to identify what "the whole problem" is.
I am still mystified as to why anyone would think that the delegates to "this" group will be any more trustworthy than the congressmen we elect, the senators we elect, the governors we elect . . . .
The Concon allows the states to pick the delegates, but doesn't stipulate how. Let's just imagine, shall we, how the state of OH would pick it's conservative delegates. Oh, wait: they wouldn't be conservative. If the governor (Kasich) picks them, they would be GOPe with many Dems thrown in for "balance" and "fairness." If the GOPe Senate picks them---the same senate that imposed a special tax on those evil and dangerous tanning beds---no change. Same with the OH house or the OH Supreme Court.
"Well, the state would call it's own nominating convention." Really? How would that work. Who would chair that one . . . Kasich? DeWine? (who, BTW, is already slated as our next OH governor. You heard it right. The guy who couldn't hold his senate seat will be governor).
And how do you propose to get Democrats to sit home or sit on their hands while all this is going on? GOP is a minority in OH. But I'm sure that MOST of the states would be way more reliable than OH, right?