“Cruz saying he supports Article V convention.
Glad to hear that. I think Cruz should make this a hallmark of his campaign and bring it up Thursday at the debates.”
___________________
Then pray no one brings up the very questionable people who support a COS.
Grover Norquist, Americans for Prosperity (MORE lobbyists), Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Trilateral Commission (TC), American Constitution Society (ACS). ACS is the main organization behind the Con-Con movement to ensure a more “progressive” constitution, having received more than $2,201,500 from Soros’ Open Society since 2002. The funders for ACS are the Barbra Steisand Foundation, the Sandler Foundation, and George Soros’ Open Society Foundations.[snip]
This Part of this article is a BLATANT LIE
Method 2: Two-thirds (34) of the states call for a federal constitutional convention, and then three-fourths of the states ratify whatever amendments are proposed by the convention. (This method must be avoided at all costs. This method could lead to a runaway convention in which our original Constitution would be scrapped and a new Constitution would be substituted consequently stripping us from our bill of rights.) There is a proposed Constitution already waiting for the New States of America.
” Two-thirds (34) of the states call for a federal constitutional convention, and then three-fourths of the states ratify whatever amendments are proposed by the convention.”
2/3 call for convention to PROPOSE NEW AMENDMENTS not a “CON-CON” That is like saying whenever the FEDERAL SENATE AND HOUSE vote on an amendment and calling THAT a CON-CON.
The Ratification process (3/4 of the states) is the EXACT SAME if the Amendment comes from the FEDERAL Senate and House or from the (34 or 2/3rds of the 50) STATE House(s) and Senate(s), Except Nebraska which is a Unicameral House/Senate.
RIGHT NOW THE FEDERAL HOUSE AND SENATE have sent the following AMENDMENTS to the STATES for RATIFICATION (the Washington D.C. CON-CON as you would call it).
Unratified Amendments
Six amendments adopted by Congress and sent to the states have not been ratified by the required number of states. Four of these, including one of the twelve Bill of Rights amendments, are still technically open and pending. The other two amendments are closed and no longer pending, one by terms set within the Congressional Resolution proposing it (†) and the other by terms set within the body of the amendment (‡).
Congressional Apportionment Amendment
(pending since September 25, 1789; ratified by 11 states)
Would strictly regulate the size of congressional districts for representation in the House of Representatives.
Titles of Nobility Amendment
(pending since May 1, 1810; ratified by 12 states)
Would strip citizenship from any United States citizen who accepts a title of nobility from a foreign country.
Corwin Amendment
(pending since March 2, 1861; ratified by 3 states)
Would make “domestic institutions” (which in 1861 implicitly meant slavery) of the states impervious to the constitutional amendment procedures enshrined within Article Five of the United States Constitution and immune to abolition or interference even by the most compelling Congressional and popular majorities.
Child Labor Amendment
(pending since June 2, 1924; ratified by 28 states)
Would empower the federal government to regulate child labor.
Equal Rights Amendment
(Ratification period, March 22, 1972 to March 22, 1979/June 30, 1982, amendment failed (†); ratified by 35 states)
Would have prohibited deprivation of equality of rights (discrimination) by the federal or state governments on account of sex.
District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment
(Ratification period, August 22, 1978 to August 22, 1985, Amendment failed(‡); ratified by 16 states)
Would have granted the District of Columbia full representation in the United States Congress as if it were a state, repealed the 23rd Amendment and granted the District full representation in the Electoral College system in addition to full participation in the process by which the Constitution is amended.
Worst Case Scenario of the Convention of States is that we end up with a bigger list on Wikipedia of “un-Ratified” amendments.
“... the main organization behind the Con-Con movement ...”
-
I know that you know the difference between
an Article V convention of the States and a “con-con”.
But I don’t know why you post comments like you don’t know the difference.