What could possibly go wrong? I mean, anything’s better than what we have now, right?
I see a mistake. The founding fathers should have left Congress out of the equation entirely. As it is, Congress has to call for the convention and they could literally sit on their laurels forever and not do it.
This is a Convention of the States. It will have no effect on the Articles or the Bill of Rights which were ratified as a package.
The purpose will be to propose new Amendments and not to rewrite the entire Constitution.
This sword has two edges. Be careful what you wish for.
I’d be happy if we had an amendment that requires that anyone running for the office of president must be a natural born United States citizen. /sarc
No sense in writing new ones until the old ones are enforced.
An article 5 convention is a way for the states to get back some of that power, and the feral government has no say.
Only the state legislatures have a say in an article 5 convention.
Harry Reid and Nasty Pelosi need not apply.
Article V ping.
Imagine the tsunami of pork (federal spending) that would flow to the states afterwards (not to mention the vacuuming of “impact fees” and property taxes from the population). Regulations would be enormously expanded. Members of Congress suck pork out to the states. State legislators hike fees and pass more regulations.
There’s no good side in contemporary politics. They’re all radical socialists. The economic collapse will proceed without a huge expansion of the manufacturing base, which won’t happen without repeals of thousands of regulations at every level of government (especially local).
Why such IGNORANT headlines at Fox ?
The article is right. Although it takes less than a minute to read Article V, the relatively few provisions in Article V are little-known -- but they shouldn't be. Every high school student should be required to know the simple options for amending the Constitution in Article V before being allowed to graduate.
This is really a “raise-the-bridge/lower-the-river” issue, IMHO. The lower-the-river endeavor is this constitutional convention. It could change the whole landscape. The raise-the-bridge angle would be to 1) clarify the 14th Amendment to make it say exactly what it was intended to say 140 years ago, and specify what it WASN’T intended to say; and 2) eliminate the commerce clause entirely as being an obsolete vestige whose necessity and times no longer exist (and, at the same time, poof! goes the Commerce Department).
I believe that with those two refinements, the Constitution could still be our Lex Rex, and the libs would be hard pressed to govern, either legislatively or administratively; because there is not a single substantive action taken by liberals within the past 60 years that wasn’t entirely predicated upon the 14th Amendment and Commerce Clause, applied wrongfully, by the Supreme Court.
So I say let’s raise the bridge.
The result will create a country that reflects every socialist's wet dream.
Right now, we are seeing a foretaste, under the current administration, of what will be created by such a Constitutional Convention. Electing a strictly conservative future government will not change the outcome.
As it stands, socialists have a plan, a goal, and lots of money, as well as the MSN ready to report most favorably on them - while failing to mention those things which could be seen as negative. Low information voters will lap up every sound bite.
As it stands, the Conservatives have some money, moral rectitude, FOX news, and a moldy piece of paper. Low information voters will not have a clue what conservatives are talking about, if they even hear anything at all.
No Amendments will be strengthened, only weakened or eliminated. New Amendments will enshrine socialist values.
Holding a Constitutional Convention in such an environment is the worst idea possible and will end very badly for this country.
We live in interesting times ... be careful what you wish for ...