If you take a peek at my profile page, you'll notice that I do not support an Article V Convention. Basically, my reasons are:
1. The outcome of such a convention, in these days of the uniparty, would NOT be the rainbows and unicorns Article V supporters suggest it would be.
2. I'm sick of so-called "Conservatives" whining and moaning about big government and the lack of personal responsibility, only to come up with a big government solution that takes the responsibility out of the people's hands and places it square on the shoulders of big government (term limits). It's sad to see so-called "Conservatives" stomp their feet and throw a temper tantrum just because they can't seem to get their way in an election.
3. The biggest issue that Article V supporters push is term limits. We already have term limits - voter imposed term limits - it's called vote the bastards out. Mandated term limits, like campaign finance regulations, stifle free speech. If I want to donate my entire paycheck to a given candidate, I should be able to do so. Likewise, if I want to vote for a given candidate over and over again, I should have every right to.
Trump has done one thing with his campaign, and that is expose the nominating process for the scam that it is. If the Establishment can't get their guy elected through the illusion of choice, they'll use the "rules" to get their guy in. I and millions like me will NOT stand for that nonsense. WE WILL WALK from the GOP, and I guarantee I will never, EVER, for any reason whatsoever, vote for another Republican as long as I live.
If, at the end of the primaries, Cruz has the majority of the delegates, whether or not he makes the "magic number", I'll vote for him. Likewise, if Trump gets the majority, I'll vote for him. Anything less will be the continuation of the GOPE bending us over and screwing us. I don't know about you, but I am sick and tired of nonsense, and won't be a part of it anymore.
If you take a peek at my profile page, you'll notice that I do not support an Article V Convention.
Well, I have to say that I am somewhat shocked about that fact.
It's sad to see so-called "Conservatives" stomp their feet and throw a temper tantrum just because they can't seem to get their way in an election.
I don't see amending the Constitution as a temper tantrum. I see it as using the tool provided for us by the FF within the Constitution to make the will of The People superior to a corrupt political establishment. I see it as the last resort before we have to physically remove their posteriors from the city of Washington D.C. No, I don't mean with force or at gunpoint. That's a discussion for another time.
The biggest issue that Article V supporters push is term limits. We already have term limits - voter imposed term limits - it's called vote the bastards out.
That method should work in theory and would work in practice if half of the electorate a) weren't low-information voters and b) didn't depend on career politicians to bring home the bacon. The grift has to end.
If the Establishment can't get their guy elected through the illusion of choice, they'll use the "rules" to get their guy in. I and millions like me will NOT stand for that nonsense.
Execllent because a contested convention (not brokered) is the perfect place to get in the faces of the elites and take a stand. Don't walk out. Send your elected delegates armed with knowledge of the process. The "rules" are a double-edge sword. The rules are written and voted on by delegates that we the voters send to represent us. A nominee chosen by the GOPe is not a forgone conclusion. The delegates have control if we will educate them before we send them.
If either candidate gets 1237, then a contested convention is moot, but I caution against discounting it up front.