Article V ping!
If this poll is remotely accurate, what the heck downside can there be to an Article V state amendments convention?
Let’s Roll.
I don’t think that there is any downside to a convention, at least not one that i can think of, but I’m pretty sure that establishment politicians and their mouth pieces have been demagoguing the prospect of having one.
They don’t want anyone having any say so over them.
Jacquerie, Publius:
I am looking for the link or FR thread to news about Congress setting up a Contact Point to receive or tabulate applications. It was posted here on FR several months ago. If you have a link or find one, please post to me, thanks.
The downside is that a convention would propose amendments to change the rules in a game in which our opponents are not following any rules. They have installed umpires who make up new rules daily simply by misinterpreting the existing rules. In such a situation nothing is to be gained by writing a new rule book. Plus the fact that many, if not most, of prior changes appear to have been bad decisions, the sixteenth alone was enough to guarantee the end of anything resembling freedom and the seventeenth finished the job. The only ones being followed to the letter are the ones that should not have been passed. The parts of the rule book which are supposed to guarantee us a free country have been ignored for decades. Who can see any possibility that simply passing some amendments is going to correct the problems caused by refusing to abide by the current rules? We would at best wind up passing new laws forbidding the breaking of the old laws and at worst with a catastrophe that no one can possibly imagine at this point. There would probably be ZERO potential for positive results. The only way I could see a positive result is if a convention could be limited to the possible REPEAL of several existing amendments and I know of no way to do that regardless of what some say.
In short I doubt there is a worse idea with less of a possibility of a positive outcome being circulated by anyone at the present time. I suspect that the wildest eyed of liberals would probably be in favor of it though.
If you should ever succeed in calling this convention I humbly suggest that some esteemed person who happens to bear the surname of Murphy be selected to spearhead the effort. That way we can refer to the results as “Murphy’s laws”, a name which no doubt will be quite fitting.