I don’t trust the article 5 CONCon- and that is not the only way to amend the constitution. I PREFER the 2/3 of both houses. You have your opinion, and I have mine.
Your response to me is very condescending and assumes that I have no background knowledge or understanding of history. That’s insulting. I have more than enough knowledge of this gaggle that’s been forming for quite some time. I am sick of reading about it.
As for you, you really ought to work on making a concise presentation of your points rather than denigrate the person you are trying to convince.
I would have supported an amendment to prevent abortions back in the 60s, using the 2/3 of both houses provided for in the constitution. I simply don’t support the ConCon of states that I know people are working toward.
I have studied the constitutional convention that gave us our current constitution. I have read the minutes of that convention. So far, the amendments that were made in the modern era were NOT a plus.
So for now, I support our constitution as is. YMMV
And, I’m not going to read a whole lot more on this topic. For example no more than 3 short paragraphs on this subject. So if you respond further- be concise, or I’ll simply ignore your post.
> “ I PREFER the 2/3 of both houses. You have your opinion, and I have mine.”
I am sorry to inform you that your opinion does not matter, it carries no weight. The states have almost reached the number necessary to formally propose amendments, they are almost there and are waiting for a few more legislative chambers to wrap up their inclusion.
The first of the amendments has already been drafted and will deal with a balanced budget.
You are too late to stop it.
Enjoy your fixation with DC legislators while they think they have the power.