[Repeal The 17th]

For those who say:
"... this is dangerous ..."
"... this is a terrible idea ..."
"... liberal States might send extremists as delegates ..."
"... other important things might be changed ..."
"... they will attack the Bill of Rights ..."
"... the right to free speech or right to bear arms could be taken away ..."
"... they might try to re-write the entire Constitution ..."
-
An Article V Convention of States has no authority to re-write or even to amend the Constitution.
-
An Article V Convention of States is simply a formal gathering of delegates from
at least 34 states (two-thirds), to discuss, debate, and "propose amendments" to the Constitution.
-
The State resolutions currently circulating call for an Article V Convention of States using the same language.
"...for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution which:
- Impose fiscal restraints on the Federal Government;
- Limit the power and jurisdiction of the Federal Government; and
- Limit the terms of office for federal officials and members of Congress."
-
When/if the two-thirds threshold is met, each State would send delegates to gather in the convention.
The delegates would be selected by the various State legislatures.
The delegates would discuss, debate, and "propose amendments" to the Constitution.
The convention would operate on a one State = one vote system; with each State carrying the same weight.
-
Any proposal not within the stated purpose of the Convention of States
(fiscal restraints; limits on power and jurisdiction; limits on terms of office)
would be unauthorized, rejected, and not approved by the Convention of States.
-
Any proposal that emerged as a "proposed amendment" by the Convention of States
would require ratification by 38 states (three-fourths), the same as with any other proposed amendment.
-
An Article V Convention of States has no authority to re-write or even to amend the Constitution.
-
Read more at: http://www.conventionofstates.com
-

[Carry_Okie]

An Article V Convention of States has no authority to re-write or even to amend the Constitution.

Neither did the Federal Convention.

An Article V Convention of States is simply a formal gathering of delegates from at least 34 states (two-thirds), to discuss, debate, and "propose amendments" to the Constitution.

And you think our august Congress wouldn't run with it? You think the courts wouldn't back them up?

Anybody can propose Amendments. What's wrong with starting that discussion here as you and I have done before in a reasonably productive exchange (without rancor or nastiness I might add)? It might take a few months, but there are some very smart people here who just might run with it.

The convention would operate on a one State = one vote system; with each State carrying the same weight.

One look at the map shows why that is a problem. Such a convention is heavily weighted toward the demands of liberals.

Any proposal not within the stated purpose of the Convention of States (fiscal restraints; limits on power and jurisdiction; limits on terms of office) would be unauthorized, rejected, and not approved by the Convention of States.

I just don't buy this.

Any proposal that emerged as a "proposed amendment" by the Convention of States would require ratification by 38 states (three-fourths), the same as with any other proposed amendment.

Ask yourself: What Amendments do you see that would get 3/4 of the States to agree? I can think of a couple, as I have mentioned, with regard to clarifying the Supremacy Clause and the manner of treaty ratification. Those are no-brainers. IMO, such is where we need to start.

[wastedyears]

The liberals would still hijack it, and call for an amendment to remove the Second Amendment.

[A Navy Vet]

Thanks for spelling it out. So many don't get the difference between a "Constitutional Convention" and a "Convention of States".

As you said if 34 States propose such a State Convention with specific Amendments that can't be added to or amended, then I'm for it. Unfortunately, it will never get that far, much less 38 States ratifying such.

However, I like the idea of scaring/pressuring career politicians. Get enough States involved, who knows what kind of discussion could come of it. I believe it would be a positive and even the most low info voter would pay attention to the debates.