Sure, I agree that one has to look at issues open-mindedly.
And I said I didn’t consider the ABA report authoritative; I didn’t say it was entirely erroneous or that it was not instructive.
But theABA report errs egregiously on the matter of apportionment. There they have the horse’s ass placed most awkwardly in front of its head.
The ABA comes close to admitting their error when they state “...the Committee believes that a system of voting by states at a convention, while patterned after the original Constitutional Convention, would be unconstitutional as well as undemocratic and archaic.”
Archaic? Sure, just like the Constitution itself. The ABA seeks to make permanent every usurpation of State sovereignty the past century. I for one do not accept this reasoning.
Worse yet, they go on to state: “While it was appropriate before the adoption of the Constitution, at a time when the states were essentially independent, there can be no justification for such a system today.”
Here the ABA makes explicit their position that the States are mere vassals of the Leviathan. No justification? may I again mention the horse mentioned above.
The entire purpose of the Convention is to correct the very imbalance embraced by the ABA. To hell with them and the horse they rode in on.
I said this before and i will say it again: there is no individual or body with the power or the authority to compel a Convention of the States to aggregate the delegate votes on any wider basis than State by State except for the States themselves, and that vote if it is ever held, will be on a State by State basis.
My point of view, but I consider it well based in history logic and practicality.
They include judicial term limits, congressional and state power to overturn court decisions, and rejection of Wickard v. Filburn commerce clause nonsense.
Uh, wouldn't it appear unseemly at best for scotus to interfere with a process that never included them in the first place and also restricts their powers? Shouldn't scotus recuse itself?
If we reach the point where the first Article V amendment convention in our history is stymied by the very same congressional and judicial asshats who have promoted the tyranny such a convention was designed to correct . . .