Article V...Constiutional Convention

April 15th, 2014 | SgtBob

[SgtBob]

U. S. Constitution

[Siegfried X]

This could lead to massive spending, budgets deficits many times larger than now. The amendment could read something like:

The Federal government shall provide to the states all the money which they request.

The states would have a magical money machine. Just have the Feds print more money.

[Repeal 16-17]

Along with the fact that an Article V Convention is for proposing amendments, while a constitutional convention is for proposing a new constitution, another thing to keep in mind is that anything an Article V Convention would propose would then be submitted to the States for ratification. The Convention would have the same authority for proposing amendments as does the Congress.

If the Convention proposed anything the States disliked, then the States could reject the proposed amendment and so the proposal would not become part of the Constitution. The last two amendments proposed by the Congress (Equal Rights Amendment and District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment) were rejected by the States, so the States are certainly not rubber stamps regarding proposed amendments.

Finally, there's no way the Convention would be able to impose amendments or a new constitution. Any such attempt would be viewed as illegitimate and would destroy the Convention's credibility. Any thought that the federal government, the States, or the People would acquiesce in such an act is laughable.

[TomGuy]

Many comments in this related thread:

Sarah Palin: Elect Candidates who Support “Convention of States”

[mabarker1]

Yer plenty sharp Sarge, now back in yer scabbard afer Ya poke out your eye;)

[Jacquerie]

Mason fled in disgust when he realized what those lunatics Hamilton and Madison actually had in mind...

Gosh, that is a horrid and unsubstantiated cheap shot!

Mason attended the entire convention.

Tell me of Madison's and Hamilton's lunacy.

[Sasparilla]

Con Con? No thanks.

[GraceG]

Well the congress critters could actually get together and propose an amendment to nullify the states being able to propose amendments.....

Heck they just might if not enough of the states get serious about an article V convention to propose NEW amendments to take their power back from FedGov...

[SgtBob]

You, obviously, missed the misspelled title;-)

Thanks!

[SgtBob]

Educate yer damned self! 34 States HAVE NOT signed on to a Constitutional Convention! They ARE considering an Article V Convention of the States.

READ THE CONSTITUTION!

Don’t mean to yell, but after yesterday, stoopid posts need it.

[SgtBob]

Thanks. My home state was one that rescinded. So sad...

[SgtBob]

Read my post, again, and the read Article 5...sheesh...

[SgtBob]

TELL ME WHERE THE HELL I SAID WE NEED A DAMNED CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION!?

SOME O’ YOU ASSES JUS’ CANT READ!

MY FRUSTRATION IS BECAUSE OF YESTERDAY’S POST, AND THE IGNORANCE OF FREEPERS!

(those of you, to whom this does not apply...you know who you are...thanks fer puttin’ up with my yellin’.)

Bayonet in eye, yet?

[SgtBob]

Thank you, much. I tried to put it in “easy read”....you make me a piker. I shall endeavor to follow suit.

[SgtBob]

You posted this yesterday, and folks didn’t get it. That was part of my frustration...I was trying to get FReepers to look at it in a simple fashion...some posts say I failed.

Thanks!

[SgtBob]

Not quite sure what brew you have, but I’d like a heads up, as a purveyor of fine brews.

[mabarker1]

Na maybe a splinter.

I see no reason for anything to be done to the Constitution except FOLLOW IT TO THE LETTER.

[Amendment10]

There's basically two stages with all new constitutional amendments; corrections welcome. The first stage produces a proposed amendment. Either Congress can propose an amendment, or a convention of the states can propose an amendment.

Once a proposed amendment is drafted then it is up to the 3/4 Article V state majority to either ratify it or ignore the proposed amendment. And if the states choose to ignore the proposed amendment then the drafting stage, either with Congress or the convention of states, was a waste of time imo.

Note that regardless of the signatures of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention on the final draft of the Constituiton, the delegates still had to go back to their states to sell the new Constitution. So even with the original Constitution, the states could have chosen to ignore it instead of ratifying it.

United States Constitution

[Repeal 16-17]

You’ve done a fine job. People need to be educated as to what an Article V Convention can and can not do.

[ronnyquest]

So expressing an opinion—which stands, by the way—is stupid? OK.

I have read the constitution many times. I carry a copy with me at all times. I would not go so far as to say I am an expert.

So, tell me, genius, how the Article V route makes us somehow immune to the same mummery and shenanigans that would occur during a regular constitutional convention, or any other political situation.

If “our side” sends representatives, do you think that the other side will not? Do you think that the other side will not try the same tactics they use in any other political situation? What makes you think that the other side won’t just ignore any results like they currently do? Please, explain all that to this poor, dumb ol’ boy from Missouri.

We have something that works. Use it. Hold your government accountable by whatever means are at your disposal. Like it or not, we’re eventually going to have to make an omelet.

[SgtBob]

How many Congresses would it take to get the Centralized Government within the confines of the Constitution?

I don’t think it could happen without an amendment to impose term limits. Mind you, I, once upon a time, opposed them. You get good representation, you want to keep it....then they get wealthy and become a K Street lobbyist.

Just askin’...like I said in my post, I ain’t the sharpest spoon in the drawer.