“Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.”
Is this a typo? Appears to say Article 5 gives Congress power to propose amendments. Others have stated only states can do so in an article 5.
“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.”
So unlike what OneWingedShark posted:
“all the Congress does is set a place and time for the convention”
You are saying congress also has the power to choose the ratifying method.
You also say “the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down.”
So the voters, defined by congress (illegals with legal status?) get to pick who ratifies the amendments.
You also adress that “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.”
Yes, it is locked in place forever, but it can be amended which is what article 5 is all about.
“To permit the drafting of a new constitution, this provision in Article V would first have to be repealed; it would be a two-step process.”
So there are ways to repeal provisions in Article 5. Isn’t that what some are worried about? Once the process is in motion provisions of article 5 are “repealed” ?
You mention some referenced works about this:
“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.”
I appreciate the time you and others have taken in pointing out info that is helpful in understanding this process, but from what I have seen so far from Article 5 defenders is:
*Congress does have power in this process
*Provisions of Article 5 can be repealed
*The ABA has identified gray areas in the process=I.E. some things are open to interpretation.
I do not think it is ignorant to at least “worry” about possible abuse.
I do not think is is unreasonable to use the term constitutional convention, as does Scalia, Mike Lee, Fox News, Newsmax, Heritage Foundation, and scores of others to describe what Article 5 supporters are pushing.
Referring to an Article V Convention (or a Convention of the States) a “Constitutional Convention” might be forgiven as an exercise in ignorance. This might be true of the New York Times, for example. It might also derive from indolence or sloth. When it happens on Free Republic, it is almost certainly an intentional effort to taint the conversation, and is essentially dishonest and inexcusable.
Whatever the reason for such imprecise speech, and whoever the speaker, such sloppiness diminishes the dialog. It inhibits understanding and frustrates communication. It diverts time and energy.
I wish its practitioners would knock it off and instead of trying to derail honest dialog would instead opt to actually join it.
I note in your referenced post the following:
“’Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.’
Is this a typo? Appears to say Article 5 gives Congress power to propose amendments. Others have stated only states can do so in an article 5.”
I find it astounding that you are posting on this thread, yet you have apparently never even read Article V, but instead ask another poster to do your reading for you.
Are you serious? I doubt it. In fact I think you are most non-serious, and are probably a paid disruptor from some progressive boiler room.
