If it was nonsense to them, then what was their reason for including it in Article V? What was their intent for it?
-PJ
The intent of constitutional amendments is to make necessary changes that our founders couldn’t anticipate. The fact that the states have a mechanism as well as congress is to ensure a balance.
Understand what I said. You guys are promoting an Art V as some hail mary pass to save the republic. If you made this argument to Madison in the day, he would have said (and he DID say as much in the federalist papers), “Nonsense! The Constitution offers ample protections for the states to defend themselves against the federal gov’t without resorting to such extremes.”
You CAN try to use an Art. V as you described. I believe you’ll get liberal amendments instead of liberty ones, or at worse, a deadlock years in the making that wastes whatever time we may have left to make a real difference. To my point, the founders would have scratched their heads about this contention that such dire measures are needed. The Constitution already creates sovereign states armed with the tools to win a fight with Washington. They just need the resolve to do so.
And once we begin the process of fortifying states with the resolve to simply tell Washington, “no,” we will reach critical mass in short order. 5 or 10 states, acting in concert, can defang the monster. We can reach critical mass here far faster than we can getting 38 state legislatures on board, AND picking the right delegates, AND forcing Washington to step aside.
Jaqueline says nobody’s offering an alternative. I offer you one that can be accomplished cleaner and quicker than an Art V convention and without the very real risks to the union that an Art V convention enables.