Replies

So, let me summarize, you are saying the 3/4 ratification threshold would make it nearly impossible to ratify more conservative amendments (not a more conservative constitution as you imply - Article V is about holding a convention to propose amendments 3/4 of the states must ratify, just like congress does), but it could result in something worse... which could... um... be stopped by 1/4 of the states refusing to ratify? Do I have that right?

For the most part, yes. Here's why:

The Constitution at its core is a conservative document -- more conservative than the country is at this moment. If you had a convention, the result is likely to reflect the current political makeup of the country, which means any Amendments that resulted are likely to move the Constitution to the left. Again, that's because we are not now as conservative a people as were the Founders and the people of that time.

That's not saying whatever emerged from the Convention would be hard left. Just that whatever amendments did emerge are much more likely to move the Constitution to the left than to the right.

Then there is the issue of ratification. I think ratification of any amendments that moved the country in a more conservative direction than the original Constitution would be DOA. The media could easily rally enough sentiment in 13 states to kill any such amendments.

But given the mass media influence, propaganda, etc., and the fact that the country is further to the left than it was at the time of ratification, there is some chance that we could see the ratification of some Amendments that essentially codify some leftist positions. Of course, they'd be sold to the public as something much less significant than they actually are. A "privacy" Amendment. An "equal rights" Amendment. An Amendment on "corporate" free speech that essentially would overrule Citizens United and permit the feds to regulate election advertising. Are you confident those things wouldn't be ratified 5-7 years down the road? Because I'm not.

Polls show that support for regulating free political speech, including so-called "hate speech" and "disinformation", have increased massively, especially among younger people. The free speech absolutism that used to be a bipartisan consensus has collapsed. Could a cleverly-drafted Amendment that permitted regulation of free speech be sold to enough gullible people to be ratified? Perhaps.

Right now, we have a rather unholy alliance between populists on the right railing against "elites" and "big corporations", and the left's traditional siding with government versus private business. I could see a well-planned PR campaign uniting those two factions to restrict the speech of "evil corporations", which would of course end up being applied to conservative public interest groups, etc..

So...yeah. I worry a lot about the results of an Article V convention given where we are today as a people, and how gullible people are all across the political spectrum. Conning them into voting for wording that is sold to them as one thing but actually could mean something quite different is entirely possible.

...A "privacy" Amendment. An "equal rights" Amendment..."
You know there already was an Equal Rights Amendment, back in the 70s, right? It never got ratified, no matter how hard the media, which still had a shred of credibility back then, pushed it. Okay, maybe you're not old enough to remember, so it's understandable if you haven't heard of it. It's not as if the Leftists in the media and academia like to dredge up and re-live their failures from long ago.

The funny thing is though, in the time since, Leftists re-grouped, learned from their failure, and went about imposing most of what they wanted, including the things conservative activism (which was in its infancy back then) warned the public about (gay marriage, job quotas, men in women's bathrooms, women in combat, etc.) one bit at a time.

So...yeah. I worry a lot about the results of an Article V convention given where we are today as a people, and how gullible people are all across the political spectrum. Conning them into voting for wording that is sold to them as one thing but actually could mean something quite different is entirely possible.

You do realize that Congress could propose the same sort of amendments you mention right now if they wanted to, right? There's nothing stopping them, yet they don't. Ever wonder why that is? Did you ever consider that the media aren't nearly as influential as they want you to think they are?

But then again, maybe you're right; maybe it's too risky to propose new amendments now. Maybe it's better to wait until some time later when things get really bad and the country is completely overrun by tens of millions of illegals and their then-adult (and voting) anchor baby children. I'm sure it will be easier to right the ship then.