If the meeting is a success and at least 34 states send identically worded petitions to Congress for subject matter for an Amendments Convention, the liberal states will attend that convention or else they will have no voice in the proceedings.
bttt
That makes sense. On the other hand, if it appears they will get 34 to commit to attending the convention of states, they may be forced to attend to gather intel and disrupt.
This is a comment worth disputing and debating. I'm not sure where it will end up, but let me tee it up.
Are we sure that a "liberal state," by virtue of its electing Congressmen and Presidents who align with the Democrat Party, are also saying that they agree with the direction that Nancy Reid and Barack Clinton are taking the country?
Could it be that "liberal states" just want to be left alone to allow abortions, marry anything, and restrict guns in much the same way that "conservative states" want to be left alone to hunt, raise their families, and participate in faith-based organizations?
I think that, aside from the New Deal as a national solution with socialist (nee liberal) tendencies to get the country out of the Great Depression, today's "liberal" agenda stems from the lessons learned from Roe v. Wade.
In Roe, the question in its simplist form was whether it was an undue hardship for a woman who resided in Texas to have to travel to Louisiana to get an abortion. She wanted to have the abortion in Texas. SCOTUS ruled, in essence, that it WAS an undue hardship for someone in a "conservative" state to have to travel to a "liberal" state for a "liberal" activity, and that the "liberal" activity must be available everywhere.
The reverberations of that line of thought have brought us gay marriage, gun bans, and environmental regulations from liberal states to conservative states, as well as restrictions on faith-based organizations and school prayer from liberal states to conservative states. It is hard to think of cultural flows the other way -- what conservative values have been forced onto liberal states? Voting reform? Immigration enforcement? Right-to-work reform?
So, is it axiomatic that "liberal states" would attempt to disrupt an Article V Convention because they want to be a part of a larger national agenda of centralization of liberal principles from Washington DC? Or would they also want to go back to a time of localization of politics?
-PJ