Posted on 09/02/2013 7:03:49 AM PDT by dontreadthis
Any amendment adopted by such a convention would still have to be approved by 3/4 of the states, right? I don’t see the harm in having a convention. At least the conversation would be on our footing - how to limit the government. But with the country split the way it is, no amendments would likely ever be adopted anyway.
Because people like you are still trying to reason with these destroyers.
They don’t and won’t follow the law as it is now. What makes you think they will even give an Artcle V “get together” (if you don’t like ‘convention) any more than the immigration laws, the hate crime laws, the Bill of Rights or any of it. It has all been subverted.
Our laws about eligibility for President, etc were written down, too weren’t they? Immigration laws also. You can’t count the laws Obama and the Democrats have broken in 4.5 years.
If you have a convention, it only opens us up to more potential appeasement in the name of propriety and fair play(by our RINOs and moderate ‘adults’). It opens up a whole new venue for the media do demagogue and keep the real points from being aired. In short, it will be another “equal rights amendment” debacle whose leftover remnants have been slowly introduced into law by fiat and into practice by rote repetition and intentional re-education of our young.
I am in no way willing to open our Constitution up for that. I’d rather take a hard line to defend it as it is, even if by arms.
Hi John,
I’m open to considering the option. I’m not convinced it is a good idea as it looks like a double-edged sword to me.
My quibble is over the writer trying to insult people into agreement. If that’s all he’s got, his argument is weak.
By starting with an exclusionary argument, he used a favorite method of Obama, so I quit reading pretty quickly.
I have read your concerns which I too share. What persuades me in favor of a convention is the relative proximity of State Legislators to the people. The power and money behind the Federal legislators has so overshadowed that of the States, that we have neglected the State Representatives. Corruption and lack of accountability at the Federal level is better controlled at the state level obviously. Putting efforts toward electing the right representatives across multiple states would serve as a firewall against a hijacked A5 convention given the high bar required for ratification. That said, one would argue the likelihood of the coherence or competence of the initial amendment propoposals, but ultimate ratification is a high bar.
What the hell does that mean? I read it 5 times...no sense whatever.
FMCDH(BITS)
Pollster1,
I totally agree with your summary of what a “called convention” would be.
A question that also comes to my mind is, “Who decides who gets to attend such a thing?” I assume it would be state legislatures, which would tend to be somewhat less entrenched to the DC culture - but, when I think how it is nearly every state’s major cities that control how that state’s politics go, I’m not too certain that a Article V Convention would be much less liberal/marxist that what we have already.
I DO believe that state governors and certain state legislators could refuse to follow federal mandates in a lot of areas - like EPA mandates, Dept of Education money and mandates, and a host of others.
This is happening now with the so-called Obamacare insurance “exchanges” - some states are refusing to create them, thus causing a major wrench to be thrown into the mix - hurrah!
But, something like a Constitutional Convention would bring out the leftwing like you’ve never seen. You don’t think they would realize all the potential crap they could pull with something like this? Yes, it would take 3/4’s of the states to ratify - but, that’s just not enough protection in my opinion.
Does Article V state who attends such a convention? If not, then each state would determine its own qualifications, right? If I’m wrong, fine, but I just think a convention is opening a can of worms.
Stop federal intrusion by governors and state legislators just refusing the money, refusing to obey - force the feds to invade. Make them show their totalitarian face to the world.
“We are at the point now where the only means to correct this is outright armed revolt - because there is nowhere left on this planet left to go and start over. These people are our enemies, not peoples of differing opinion and you cannot reason with them.”
I couldn’t agree more. Lately I’ve found myself having to be real careful what I post online for fear of a Secret Service or FBI visit. It’s not that I’m scared of them, but if I step over a legal threshold I want it to mean something.
I’m not sure how a revolt would happen. It’s almost impossible to call for one online, with the NSA monitoring everything we do, not to mention all the morons who would report something like that.
I figure a revolt will almost have to be spontaneous. Maybe if Obama signs one too many executive orders, or if Congress passes one too many laws. Even if our govt. goes way over the line, and a spark is lit, I don’t see what the actual targets would be?
I wish a few states would have the balls to just start blatantly ignoring federal decrees. Call their bluff. I could actually see that happening in a state with one strong leader, and enough Constitutional Conservatives supporting him.
poor grammar. I think that he is trying to say that if you are a firm adherent to the Constitution, and because Article V is incorporated therein, opposition to a Convention of States to Propose Amendments to the Constitution calls into question one’s adherence to the Constitution.
We are far passed the time where people can solve our problems at the ballot box. It’s just not doable anymore. Our “representatives” won’t even hold town hall meetings anymore. They keep getting reelected because of low information voters and name recognition. I bet, on average, that no more than 10% of voters have a clue what our Constitution says or what is going on globally as far as current events. There really is no cure for stupidity when it comes to voters. As long as govt. keeps offering “freebies” our politicians will be safe in their offices.
If a substantial minority of voters were informed, your suggestions would work. Sadly, that is not the case.
We are at a time in our history where the only cure for “what ails us” is not a ballot, it’s an ammo box.
“I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time, so that my children can live in peace.” - Thomas Paine
I would like to see some documentation of this.
to mitigate the consensus of fears expressed, it should be noted that the States are fully within their right to apply to Congress with the expressed purpose of calling a Convention of States for well-defined purposes. It would not be prudent to call a convention for the broad purpose of amending the Constitution. States are able to, and many should be willing to, apply for a Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution TO LIMIT THE SIZE AND SCOPE of the federal government, for example. Those States on board with this intent would thus attend.
I’d rather take a hard line to defend it as it is…
That certainly would be the preferred method. But when one looks how the quality of the work by those choosen at the state and federal level to defend, let alone adhere to, has increasingly dwindled in the past 40, 30, 20, 10, 5 years there is room for considerable concern.
…even if by arms.
That, in the spirit of responsible men who willing to defend the Constitution at all costs while they dream of freedom for all.
Of course, there is a timing issue; e.g., it would certainly seem prudent to take action prior to the day the entire country looks like Detroit or has the murder rate of Chicago.
A convention may have a flip of a coin results, but if it goes wrong it might serve as an important rally call to those that are left.
http://foavc.org/file.php/1/Amendments
the info is out there but not widely known.
However, note that while many individual States have submitted applications for A-V conventions, these applications are rarely on the same issue. An even when they are, it is usually only a handful of States that get together on calling for a Convention to propose an amendment or amendments with the same underlying theme.
re: “. . . it should be noted that the States are fully within their right to apply to Congress with the expressed purpose of calling a Convention of States for well-defined purposes. It would not be prudent to call a convention for the broad purpose of amending the Constitution. States are able to, and many should be willing to, apply for a Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution TO LIMIT THE SIZE AND SCOPE of the federal government, for example. Those States on board with this intent would thus attend.”
That all sounds good, but does Congress have the right to deny the states to hold a convention with well-defined purposes? Or, can the states do it themselves? I guess I’m just too cynical anymore to think that such a thing would accomplish what we want.
I know your heart is totally in the right place, dontreadthis, and if it were to happen, I would pray for its success. I just think our nation is so divided that such a convention would be ignored by this President and current Congress. They’ve ignored the rule of law of the Constitution already - why would this be any different?
2. I consider a 2nd Amendment Reset more desirable than an Article V reset, as the latter could end up abolishing the former.
3. If this be treason hypocrisy, make the most of it.
“on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States” the Congress “shall” call for the Convention is the wording. If that were to be somehow denied or tabled, I believe that those here now calling for an armed revolt would see it happen.
After Congress sets the place and time for the Convention, it is no longer involved.
Sorry getting active isn’t going to do it. We have to close ALL the loopholes in the USC.
The beauty of state(s) secession, it only leads to war if the Feds want one.
we understand that the 2nd Amendment was written so that Article V would remain intact. An Article V correction is what would be desired, not a Constitutional reset. The 2nd Amendment Reset is not in jeopardy during such a process, only towards the conclusion of the process should it turn sour, which again requires 34 states to ratify.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.