As per my rants that Sarah Palin should also consider pushing for patriots and former Obama supporters to try to win 2/3 “conservative” control of both Houses of Congress in 2014 elections to override presidential vetoes, please note the following. 2/3 control of both Houses is also what it takes for Congress to propose an amendment to the states.
So regardless of her approach to having the states initiate a Con-Con, I’m curious as to why Sarah isn’t trying to work both options of the Constitution’s Article V for proposing an amendment to the Constitution to the states.
Article V ping.
She may be. You almost have to given the requirements for ratification of proposed amendments.
Even though two thirds of both houses can vote an amendment out and two thirds of the several states are required before a Convention Of States can convene, it takes a three quarter's majority for ratification in either process; of the state houses for something voted out of Congress and of the delegates at a Convention.
Recognition that the Congressional path would never in a Trillion years lead to amendments that lead to less power of the body responsible for that path. Amendments like term limits and %-revenue to government of GDP would only be proposed by the states themselves.
........I don’t know the answer to your question conclusively but I “think” that so called “experts” think it is impossible in the Senate.
As best I can relate from my SCF Battleground Map, 21 Dim seats are up in play and 14 pubs are for a total of 35. 5 dims are retiring. 2 pubs are retiring. The 5 dims retiring are in Iowa, Montana, Michigan, South Dakota and West Virginia. This is highly relevant because incumbency advantages go away in those 5 seats. Can the pubs flip those 5 to the GOP? I don’t know. Of the remaining dim incumbency seats of 16, it’s gonna be tough.
So, the question simply is can the pubs win 22 of the 35 seats in play in 2014 and show up with a 67 vote majority?
If they did, and all 22 rookies had some spine (unlikely), the dynamics of impeachment change dramatically overnight IF the house can get it’s pub count up to 289 votes for a 2/3 vote in that chamber assuming every single new pubbie WOULD vote for impeachment (again, unlikely).
Plus, I think Boehner has to go anywhere before ANYTHING conservatives like starts happening. Even if Boehner had a 2/3 vote in the house I question if he has the cahonies to use it. More pointedly, I think he has just sold his soul to big business, period. We have yet another saying in Texas and it is “he (Boehner) could F up an anvil with a rubber hammer”.
In the first place, no one is proposing a call for a "con-con"... see Post 2... and also see the Constitution. Nowhere does it provide for another Constitutional Convention. As a matter of fact, language that would have allowed for another constitutional convention was refused four times by the Founders before they settled on the 143 words that now comprise Article V.
And in the second place, how do you know that she isn't?