I am afraid that I do not share your eagerness for a ConCon.
Though I can tell your intentions for such a convention are pure and noble, at this juncture, I think it would be opening the door for the progressives and libertarians to cause much damage.
“would be opening the door for progressives...”
That is my fear as well. It seems that something that starts out as a good thing is perverted to bad ultimately.
I fear that the libs will be in the majority in the not too distant future.
That is because you think it is a Constitutional Convention and when I read the Constitution Article V it says that "on the application of 2/3rd of the States shall call for a convention for proposing amendments... then have to be ratified by 3/4th of the States"
With most of the States republican I think most delegates would be republican (or conservative even better) but then the wording has to be the same back to every state and ratified by 3/4ths.
I truly think that the founding fathers KNEW that we would have elected officials ruining the USA like they are and they put this fix in JUST FOR THIS TIME.
I just wish they would have put the term limits and balanced budget in it at the beginning. But that doesn't mean that we can't at this point.
No one is calling for a constitutional convention. Read Article V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress
The convention is for “proposing Amendments.”
The majority of state legislatures are republican controlled. Chances are that progessives wouldn’t get much traction and I am not as afraid of libertarians as you seem to be. But perhaps we should just stay with the status quo and let the current government destroy the country without trying anything new. Remember the definition of insanity!
Actually, they aren't calling for a Con-Con, and by that I assume you mean a Constitutional Convention. What's being discussed here (and across the nation) is a Convention of States to Propose Amendments to the Constitution (CoS) as spelled out in Article V.
On the other hand, a Constitutional Convention is a convention called to write or create a constitution. There is no such authorization to be found anywhere in the Constitution for a Con-Con... I mean, why would there be? We already have a constitution.
I think it would be opening the door for the progressives and libertarians to cause much damage.
I understand your concern, and it's a good one! Just about everyone I know who either is or was against an Article V CoS opposed it for that same reason... they were afraid that leftists extremists were going to come in and take over the convention and re-write the Constitution. Once they understood what a CoS actually is, however, most have radically changed their position.
What most didn't understand is that the CoS is called to propose amendments, not to ratify them. It's an assembly of delegates sent there from all the states to propose, debate and compile a list, or a bill of particulars, that must be sent out to all the states for ratification. This is exactly the same process the states used to achieve ratification of the first ten amendments, our Bill of Rights.
The convention itself would probably take months, but ratification in all 50 states could take years. Remember, these are merely proposals. Once the convention has done its job and adjourned and everyone has gone back to their home states, nothing will have been changed.
Since it takes 38 states to ratify any proposed amendment, once folks realize that that's a pretty high bar, it usually puts their fears to rest. If they're still a little uneasy, even though the odds look pretty good, I ask them to do the math. Instantly they realize that the flip side of that coin is that it only takes 13 states to stop any craziness in its tracks. Pretty much everybody can come up with 13 states off the top of their head that wouldn't just stand by and let anyone wreak havoc on the Constitution.
The best part of all of this is the Red State / Blue State breakdown. The CoS is called for and run by delegates of the states. Congress-critters are not involved, nor can they be by law. So right now, there are 26 state legislatures that are controlled by conservatives, and 18 that are not. The convention itself might be comprised of hundreds of delegates, but it's a one-state, one-vote system. That's how almost all conventions work. I'd say that's a pretty comfortable cushion that's very likely to increase after the midterm.
One last "security measure" that's built into the CoS process is the subject of the convention. There are only two requirements or restrictions that Congress can place on a CoS - one of those is the time and place, and the other is the subject matter. A CoS must state what its purpose shall be. In this case, the CoS that's currently being considered in virtually every state legislature in the country is limiting its proposals to the following subjects:
- Proposed amendments that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government,
- Proposed amendments that limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and
- Proposed amendments that limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.
So, any proposal by any delegate that would fall outside of these parameters would be declared by the chairman of the convention to be “void ab initio,” or dead on arrival, and there would be no further discussion of the matter. And since the majority of delegates attending the CoS are going to be from Red states, you can bet that the Chairman is going to be one of them, and will be well-versed in parliamentary procedure.
Anyway, I didn't mean to run on like this. It's just a subject that I'm very passionate about, and I become enthused when I see someone who shows genuine curiosity and concern. Bottom line here, this is our country... all of ours.
I respectfully disagree. The state legislatures can bind to limit what they can propose, discus, and vote for. Anything that passes the COS must still be ratified by the states. So I think there are enough safeguards to prevent craziness. If you make the argument that marxist progressives will not follow the law I would have to say you have a point there. I would argue that anything not lawfully presented to the states for ratification is null and void. Essentially dead on arrival. I look forward to the COS and the dismantling of the evil power base in DC.