[John Valentine]

1. Two ignoramuses agreeing with each other is commonplace. Bars all over the country offer countless examples. We try for a higher standard here.

2. Scalia was referring to a Constitutional Convention; only demented libs and ignoramuses are proposing such a thing.

3. What actual history? We’ve never held an Article V Convention in our entire history as a nation.

[icwhatudo]

Mike Lee, Scalia, the headlined article in this thread, multiple media outlets(conservative and liberal), Harvard Law, all refer to this Article 5 effort as an effort to have a "constitutional covention". Yes, I understand an Article 5 convention has a different set of rules basically giving states the control and keeping congress out but as we can already see how the constitution is being perverted and ignored I find myself in good company with those who worry about opening pandoras box with this effort. Yes, I understand we never have held an Article V Convention. I never said we did. What I said was that we have actual history of rules being changed. What I quoted was a reference to changing the rules as was done in 1787.

"The 1787 convention ignored the ratification process under which it was established and created a new process, lowering the number of states needed to approve the new Constitution and removing Congress from the approval process. The states then ignored the pre-existing ratification procedures and adopted the Constitution under the new ratification procedures that the convention proposed. Given these facts, it would be unwise to assume that ratification of the convention’s pro­posals would necessarily require the approval of 38 states, as the Constitution currently specifies.