[INVAR]

but what’s the harm of trying to amend the constitution or even impeach judges?

Are this many Americans infected with Normalcy Bias or am I the only odd ball left in the country who sees reality for what it is?

Do this many people not understand we live in a POST-CONSTITUTIONAL COUNTRY???? That we suffered a Marxist/Fascist Velvet Coup????

Look, it's Red Dawn WITHOUT the planes, tanks and troops. Do you folks really think that passing new Amendments to a document that has been replaced by fiat is going to stop the tyrants that committed the coup??

If you do - you do not understand who now rules us and what their intentions are.

How can anyone think that because the current Beast on The Potomac disregards the Constitution, that somehow passing new Amendments to the Constitution are going to have any effect??????????

I'm all for a COS if for anything else - to show that efforts were made to stop and reverse what has already happened to us.

But if you put your faith in a COS - I am telling you right now - your faith is misplaced and nothing that you hope for is going to come from it. Think PAST the Normalcy Bias- because our overlords most certainly already have.

I warn against anyone who says that Article V is our only hope, and that doing so WILL return us back to a Constitutional Republic. Same as I will warn ANYONE who says that Ted Cruz or ANY single politician running for President is going to be our messiah and save us.

[CitizenUSA]

I’m fully aware that a convention of states is very unlikely to fix the problem. It is a big hurdle to overcome. However, every peaceful method must be tried.

[nathanbedford]

There are many who comment againstArticle V who do so for questionable motives. I have cited the NRA for its opposition and I have asserted that their motive is to protect the Second Amendment even at the cost of the whole Constitution. With respect to this poster, INVAR, I have flatly asserted that he is opposed to Article V because he actually desires civil war and bloodshed. I have stated that my allegation would be in effect withdrawn if he simply denied it. He has failed to do do so here :

The question is whether you would rather have war even if you could have the government you want by peaceful means? You simply will not answer the question. I believe you're concealing a mad desire to make war. More, you will not tolerate others seeking to obtain good government by peaceful means because that frustrates your desire for bloodshed.

If I am wrong all you have to do is say so.

But then you must explain, if you're intellectually honest, why you're opposed to trying to find a reasonable and peaceful way to good government.

INVAR not once but repeatedly has declined to deny that he actually seeks violent overthrow of the government. I invite the interested reader to review the entire thread to realize that the concerns raised on these threads by the same critics have been refuted over and over again. I invite the interested reader to review the entire thread to consider whether the critics are animated by good and decent motive.

Mindless repetition of the idea that lawless politicians will not be made law-abiding by a mere constitutional amendment is preposterous and has been shown to be preposterous on its face. One need only consider the amendment proposed by Senator Cruz to require federal judges to periodically stand for election or recall. The amendment is self enforcing, either the judge or Justice is confirmed in his office or he goes. There is nothing Washington politicians can do to work around this amendment to the Constitution.

These "process" amendments are structural and therefore are self effectuating and very difficult to evade. Other such amendments include term limits as well as a requirement that bureaucratic regulations be confirmed by the Congress or they lapse if not confirmed. These structural changes are self enforcing, Congress either votes the regulation up or Congress votes the regulation down. There is no guarantee of political success but certainly the amendment will be effectuated.

Structural amendments clearly have the power to restore our Constitution. To deny this reality by mindlessly repeating a mantra as does INVAR that tyrannical politicians will remain tyrannical is a tautology without application to structural changes. Those posters like INVAR who engage in this practice out of questionable perhaps even the darkest motives do so having been fully informed of the power of structural "process" amendments.

The upside of Article V is demonstrably real, the downside is fully contained, there is no better way short of the violence some actually seek. Do not be deceived, do not let the debate be sidetracked, do not lose whatever chance Article V holds for the future of your children and grandchildren.