Let's stick with the political calm, concord and cooperation we've got now.
Oh gee, as if we didn't already have that in spades, Phyllis.
wow. this isn’t rocket science. a simple analysis convinces me she and other’s like-minded are flat wrong.
the logic boils down to this for me: 13 states have a veto over any amendment proposed in the convention no matter how it’s set up. therefore, if the d.c. party is serious about getting anything passed, it would have to try to set up a way for each state to have an equal say. (win)
if the d.c. party was just trying to destroy the convention of states or circumvent it, well then perhaps 3/4 of states would finally get that we need a defacto “second” party to oppose the d.c. one, which is what we need anyway. (win)
or if the convention fails somehow. (no worse off than now)
or >3/4 of the states gut the constitution. (the worst case but very unlikely and still no worse since the republic is dead anyway)
no other logical cases come to my mind.
thus, imo, this is a no brainer. it’s a win no matter what happens. So for God’s sake, all conservatives should support an attempt to get 2/3’s of the states to petition for the article V convention, asap.
BS.
We will wind up fulfilling the "fundamental transformation" crowd's wet dream of rewriting the US Constitution.
I’ve been waiting to hear from Phyllis. She wrote powerfully against a “Con-Con” back in the 70s. She seems to have practically recycled one of those old columns. I don’t get the impression she’s digested Levin’s book at all.
Thank Mark Levin and his new book.
This is the best way I know for liberals to repeal the 2nd amendment.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
No we will not.
Any proposed Amendments MUST be approved by 3/4 of the States. That is not negotiable. While butthead states like New York and my own Massachusetts would gladly try to erase the Second, there is no chance they could obtain the needed three-fourths to ratify it.
The same goes for the fears of a Convention eliminating the Constitution. This is an Amendment Convention, not a Constitutional Convention.
My reading of Article V states that Congress "shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments" upon application of two-thirds of the states. I think Phyllis is taking a huge leap by suggesting that Congress would set all the rules, determine delegate eligibility, choose a chairman and decide how the Convention is funded. I'm not even sure if Congress is empowered to choose the time and place, since this Convention will belong to the States. (Remember, Congress is too cowardly to deal with any serious issues now, so you think they'll suddenly grow a spine?)
As I've suggested elsewhere ... name Mark Levin as Chairman from the start and most of our problems disappear.
Let's do this thing. Now. Start with just one Amendment (Term Limits would be nice) and get the process underway! We can start frying the rest of our fish later.
Article V ping.
Dr. Robert Natelson, law professor and Constitutional scholar, responded to Mrs. Schlafly’s article today on American Thinker. Check it out: http://ow.ly/onTZF
Dr. Robert Natelson, law professor and Constitutional scholar, responded to Mrs. Schlafly’s article today on American Thinker. Check it out.