[conservativegranny]

This is NOT a Constitutional Convention. It’s a Convention of the States. Big difference. It is not a convention to change the Constitution but to propose amendments to it. How many amendments are in our constitution now? It’s the same thing that Congress does except it is done by the states.The states also have been given the power, in the constitution to propose amendments under Article V.

This article V provides two different ways to amend our Constitution. Either through Congress or through state Legislatures. I believe we only need 2/3 of the states to have a Convention to propose amendments.

As to the lefties taking over the convention this is another misnomer that is thrown out there either as a scare tactic or out of lack of knowledge about Article V.

Amendments need 3/4 of the states to ratify. That’s quite a high bar as it should be. The state legislatures themselves choose their delegates.They determine how the delegates are selected and the agenda.

The Congress has very little to say or do with a Convention of the States. If 2/3’s of the states want a Convention must call the convention. If the amendments are ratified by 3/4’s of the states they are the law whether Congress likes it or not.

The founders put this in our Constitution for a good reason. They were giving us a way to recover our country from tyranny without the shedding of blood. They could envision a situation like we are facing today and gave us a way out. It’s the only option left to us it seems aside from the bullet.

People should really read Mark Levin’s book “The Liberty Amendments”. Mark really knows his stuff and it does a wonderful job of explaining the history of article V and what a Convention of the States actually is. He also has a list of 10 suggested amendments and an explanation of each. These are a sample of what type of amendments may be proposed. He also has talked about this quite often on his radio show and answered all the questions, objections and misinformation.

You can also search FR for threads on this topic. They are out there and all of this has already been addressed.

When I first heard about this Convention of the States I had the same reaction that many did. I did not understand what it was and was not well informed about Article V. So I did some research and purchased Levin’s book. I’ve also listened to him speak about it several times.

[Crazieman]

Neal Boortz was convinced by Levin over the convention, and he used to be an ardent opponent of the idea.

[Publius]

Nice, comprehensive reply. Here is my usual boring, pedantic boilerplate that I post to these threads.

***

The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps: Proposal, Disposal, and Ratification.

Proposal:

There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.

• The Congressional Method requires the House and Senate to pass an amendment by a two-thirds majority.
• The Amendments Convention Method requires the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to apply to Congress to call a Convention for Proposing Amendments. The states may request a single-subject convention or a general convention open to all subjects. Once the two-thirds threshold is reached, Congress is required to set a time and place for the convention.

Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.

Disposal:

Once Congress, or an Amendments Convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:

• State Legislature Method, or the
• State Ratifying Convention Method.

The State Ratifying Convention Method has only been used twice: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.

Ratification:

Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three-quarters of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.

Forbidden Subjects:

Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and one implicitly forbidden subject.

Explicitly forbidden:

• No amendment may be added to the Constitution concerning slavery or capitation taxes until 1808. We’re past that deadline.
• No amendment may be added to the Constitution to change the principle of equal representation in the Senate unless every state deprived of that right approves. If California wants five senators, every state must have five senators. To permit violation of this principle, every state would have to ratify the amendment, not just three-fourths.

Implicitly forbidden:

• The Constitution of 1787 may not be abrogated and replaced with a new document. Article V only authorizes “a convention for proposing amendments to this Constitution”; therefore, the Constitution of 1787 is locked in place forever. Congress and an Amendments Convention have exactly the same Proposal power; therefore, neither Congress nor an Amendments Convention can start over. Both bodies can only propose amendments. To permit the drafting of a new constitution, this provision in Article V would first have to be repealed; it would be a two-step process.

I have two reference works for those interested.

The first is from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative pro-business group. This document has been sent to every state legislator in the country.

Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers

The second is a 1973 report from the American Bar Association attempting to identify gray areas in the amendatory process to include an Amendments Convention. It represents the view of the ruling class of 40 years ago. While I dislike some of their conclusions, they have laid out the precedents that may justify those conclusions. What I respect is the comprehensive job they did in locating all the gray areas. They went so far as to identify a gray area that didn't pop up until the Equal Rights Amendment crashed and burned a decade later. Even if you find yourself in disagreement with their vision, it's worth reading to see the view of the ruling class toward the process.

Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee