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.
You're right, it was a tool provided by the Founders. But I would suggest that, in this day and age of the uniparty, it will not produce the results the Founders intended.
I keep hearing that somehow, only good amendments would be proposed and, even if a bad amendment was proposed, it would then need to be ratified by the states and that most of the states that would ratify are "Conservative", so the bad amendments would never make it. Statistically & theoretically, that would be absolutely true. In practice however, the right WILL bend over, in the name of "bipartisanship", to accommodate the left, just as they do each and every single day.
Think of it this way: the Convention begins. The right starts proposing amendments. The left, seeing that this is a forgone conclusion, begins proposing theirs. Then the contest begins to see which amendments go forward to the states for ratification. Well, the left will play the game they always do: smear the right into submission. We'll support YOUR amendments if you support OUR amendments. The right, being the rotten filthy surrender monkeys they are, agree, because bipartisanship effort. See? The right CAN work well with the left, you know, for the good of the people.
By the end of the convention/amendment processes, we see a couple amendments from the right go to the states, and a couple from the left (marriage 'equality', 2nd Amendment destruction, etc.). They all go out to the states. That's when the backroom deals among the right & left of each state starts. Again, because bipartisanship. The potential outcomes of ratification:
Ultimately, the states fight it out and, in the end, nothing gets ratified. Enough right leaning states take a stand, and the left throws their tantrums, and ratification ends in gridlock, or
The right and left of the several states come together on a couple of each others amendments, agreeing to support each other (bipartisanship!) on at least a couple issues and in the end, we end up ratifying one or two good proposals and one or two bad ones (we might be able to stave off 2nd Amendment attacks, but marriage 'equality? I doubt it).
I know, the delegates to the convention would be restricted to proposing amendments on just one subject (for example, term limits). Are you going to promise me, beyond a shadow of doubt, that if Article V is placed into action, that will be the ONLY topic they will address?
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.
This is something you and I agree on. Well, the low info voter & grift part. So, instead of stifling free speech with term limits, why not instead, propose that only those that own land in America are eligible to vote? It doesn't matter if you are male, female, black, white, gay straight. The only way you are eligible to vote is if you own land/home? That would go a long way in addressing those issues. Those that live off the government teet would not be allowed to participate in the process.
If either candidate gets 1237, then a contested convention is moot, but I caution against discounting it up front.
I hope that this ends up being the case, that Trump gets the magic # and we don't even do the contested convention. I'll even vote for Cruz should he make the magic # instead of Trump. But if the contested convention goes through, and the GOPE saddles us with a milquetoast, uniparty turd such as Kasich, Rubio, Yeb, Ryan, Romulan, et al, I WILL WALK. I will never, EVER, for any reason, vote Republican for the rest of my rebel life.