I plan likewise to impeach and remove the president. Please be advised my scenario is just as valid as your scenario. Horsepucky. My 'what-if's' are based on literal past and current behaviors of the Oligarchy in D.C. From the President on down.
I cited State Legislatures having Homosexual Marriage law bans (as in my state) by overwhelming will of the people. They have been struck down by activist courts via ridiculous stretches of judicial argument. My question is what happens when these same courts do the same thing to whatever comes out of an Article V convention?
The current oligarchy has demonstrated that it will not be restrained by any law that restricts their agenda and power. They will circumvent it. They will ignore it. They have created legal arguments and precedents to ignore the current Constitution. My 'what-ifs' are based on the existing fruits of the very oligarchy an Article V process would attempt to yoke.
You hold that such 'hypotheticals' are as absurd as asserting you can single-handedly impeach the judiciary and the president because what will actually transpire is an 'unknown'.
Sorry, but common sense based on fruits is a better indicator of what is probable than simple daydreaming.
trespass against that rule of law in form and substance by jurists or president will turn public opinion and even the media against them to some presently unquantifiable degree making impeachment easier.
They have trespassed against the rule of law already, and public opinion and even some media scorn has NOT dissuaded them from enacting their agenda and circumventing the Constitution. Amnesty? ObamaCare?
The fate of whatever is advanced at an Article V convention will by no means be immune from the same trespass and indifference by the whole of the federal government who can and will render the power of the States null and void in interfering with Federal matters.
Do not forget, the amendment process envisions procedural as well as substantive revisions making it more difficult for both the Supreme Court and the president to behave extra-constitutionally because they have been removed from the process.
That supposition totally ignores the Oligarchy's present violations of similar separations of power, Rights and other limitations placed upon them in the existing Constitution.
What I am beginning to understand is that the proponents of Article V have absolutely no plans, nor any thought process given to counter what an illegal post-Constitutional Oligarchy is going to do to neuter their efforts to yoke the Beast.
Proponents are completely focused on the process, assuming that the process itself is enough to prevent what the Oligarchy has already done to the existing rule of law.
I'll say this again, a lawless oligarchy will not abide by additional laws of restraint placed upon it, because an Oligarchy is a law only unto itself.
It is the advocates of Article V who are trying to reshape the battlefield.
While at the same time, underestimating the enemy.
Oh, stop your nonsense. The alleged "oligarchy" still submits itself to elections, still submits itself to judicial review. Just because you happen to disagree with the results of those elections or disagree with the results of judicial review, does not mean that we have an oligarchy or that the oligarchy is behaving extraconstitutionally.
If you're ignorant of the reasoning of the courts based on the 14th amendment which mandates homosexual marriage, it does not mean that they are not operating within legitimate range of judicial review. I also disagree with the decision but I do not say that it is tyrannical. Likewise, I disagree with the courts upholding Obamacare, I think it was wrongheaded, I think it was basically unconstitutional, but that does not make it tyrannical and that does not mean that the courts are controlled by the "oligarchy."
It is impossible to to argue with definitions like" lawlessness" or "oligarchy" which are not found in the dictionary. Just because you do not like what the process produces does not make it "lawless." It does not make judges or politicians "oligarchs." If they are trespassing good sense when they wield their "Pen and phone," or even transgressing the Constitution in doing so, that does not mean that in another context they will be empowered to trespass against explicit amendments of the Constitution. Just because the Supreme Court rules for Obamacare and upsets you doesn't mean the Supreme Court will feel empowered to reach out and commit some wrongdoing in an area in which its jurisdiction has been explicitly withdrawn by amendment. The entire context will have changed.
But let's assume that you are dark conspiratorial suppositions come to pass, let's go ahead with Article V and then fight your fight at least from higher ground, from a more explicit expression of the Constitution which makes the "oligarchy" explicitly rather than implicitly wrong which explicitly controls the court, which changes the process.
It is now time for you once again to say:
"DO IT"!
