[oldenuff2no]

The main target of the liberals in this is to do away with the second amendment. Carry on at your own risk. This will go no where because in the end the red states will tell them to put it where the sun does not shine.

[buckalfa]

In my opinion, an Article V convention risks destroying our original constitution, which I consider to be a </>divinely inspired</I> document.

[hinckley buzzard]

The analogy is irresistible: The Roman Church's Vatican II was a good idea which was hijacked by cynical revisionists. One outcome was the epidemic of homosexuals flooding seminaries and the generation of predator priests which followed. A Constitutional Convention would be hijacked by the Left wing and would mean the total dissolution of the American idea. The Bull of Rights would be gone. Done. Not just the Second Amendment but the whole shebang.

[katwoman5779]

Fear mongers!!!! So I guess we should just sit back and let the runaway federal government do what they wish with no repercussions whatsoever. It doesn't matter who gets involved in the state convention process as long as the ball gets rolling. THERE CAN BE NO RUNAWAY STATE CONVENTION! Before you pass judgment on this process please ready everything you can get your hands on about it. You are doing a disservice to all the people that are working so hard to get this process started. It is about reducing the size of the big, bloated federal government. Congress will not fix itself. This Article five convention was written into the constitution by our founding fathers to stop exactly what is going on in Washington today. Please educate yourselves.

[Tzimisce]

I’ve been leery of this Constitutional Convention from the beginning.

The government ignores the Constitution as it’s written now!

What good are new rules going to do?

And now we learn that the left is taking over the movement - like it did with our government, our education system, our media, etc.

[Publius]

Article V ping.

[Publius]

Here is my usual pedantic boilerplate to these threads.

***

The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps: Proposal, Disposal, and Ratification.

Proposal:

There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.

• The Congressional Method requires the House and Senate to pass an amendment by a two-thirds majority.
• The Amendments Convention Method requires the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to petition Congress to call a Convention for Proposing Amendments. The states may request a single-subject convention or a general convention open to all subjects. Once the two-thirds threshold is reached, Congress is required to set a time and place for the convention.

Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.

Disposal:

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.

The State Ratifying Convention Method has only been used twice: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.

Ratification:

Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three-quarters of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.

Forbidden Subjects:

Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and one implicitly forbidden subject.

Explicitly forbidden:

• No amendment may be added to the Constitution concerning slavery or capitation taxes until 1808. We’re past that deadline.
• No amendment may be added to the Constitution to change the principle of equal representation in the Senate. So if California wants five senators, every state must have five senators. To permit this principle to be violated, this provision in Article V would first have to be amended; it would be a two-step process.

Implicitly forbidden:

• 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. Congress and an Amendments Convention have exactly the same Proposal power; therefore, neither Congress nor an Amendments Convention can start over. Both bodies can only propose amendments. 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.

I have two reference works for those interested.

The first is from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative pro-business group. This document has been sent to every state legislator in the country.

Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers

The second is a 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. They went so far as to identify a gray area that didn't pop up until the Equal Rights Amendment crashed and burned a decade later. Even if you find yourself in disagreement with their vision, it's worth reading to see the view of the ruling class toward the process.

Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Lovely. Democrats participating in a convention to cement their socialist utopia.

“An America more like Venezuela! Article V now!”