1. The current problem is not the Constitution, it is the willingness to defy the Constitution. How will changing the Constitution help?
2. A Article V convention is a pandora’s box. The Left would love to rewrite the Constitution, so that they could start being Constitutionally correct. Their rewrites will be a long list of group rights and a short list of individual right repeals.
Suggest you read Mark Levine’s Liberty Amendments. It addresses those issues and more. Conservatives need to pick up on this and run with it as fast and as hard as we can.
“How will changing the Constitution help?”
Good point. It won’t help.
The Constitution does not need to be changed it needs to be followed.
It takes 2/3 of the states to ratify an ammendment to the Constitution. It would take way less than that number of states to use the 10th ammendment to simply nullify the laws and regulations put into effect by this progressive administration.
State sovereigntly is the way to go not Article V. If Obama keeps up his demented tactics the Congress could invoke Article 25 and remove him for being unfit. Frankly I think they have grounds to do it now.
So the left would be able to accomplish this chicanery, not with the support of a willing Legislative, Judicial, or Executive Branches, but of 38 states seeking to give away more authority after calling for a meeting?
Think not.
Correct on both counts. George Soros has already said he’d love to see an Article V. I just don’t trust this bunch to do the job.
You start by proposing non-discretionary amendments. What if an amendment to repeal the 17th amendment passes, or a term-limits amendment passes? Do you really think that a sitting Senator can "defy the Constitution" and refuse to vacate his seat?
2. A Article V convention is a pandora’s box. The Left would love to rewrite the Constitution, so that they could start being Constitutionally correct. Their rewrites will be a long list of group rights and a short list of individual right repeals.
Are you one of the people that the author of this article was writing about?
But today the idea of restricting the scope of an amendments convention is in play for a very different reason: to placate fear-mongers who gratuitously assert that the assembly would be the constitutional equivalent of a nuclear bomb. Though completely discredited, this remnant of opponents from the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) dustup of the 1980s sees only sinister plots. To this day, the opponents continue to feign ignorance of the distinction between an Article V Convention for Proposing Amendments -- which, needless to say, proposes amendments -- and a full authority Constitutional Convention.
-PJ
I agree on both points.
Imagine the liberals jumping at the opportunity to write a new constitution.