[Jacquerie]

To Article V proponents and opponents alike.

[BigEdLB]

Ya mean we can’t have an amendment to send leftists Northwest Alaska to commune with the polar bears they are so concerned about? DRAT!

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Imagine the delegates that California, New York, Illinois and Colorado for example would send to such a convention. Ordinary political means will no longer work for America. The Negro Community Organizer from Chicago has forever tipped the balance in favor of his coalition of invaders, blacks, Asians, Sodomites, criminals etc.. We are no longer the America we were even twenty years ago

[spintreebob]

The fear of a runaway convention is due to the runaway nature of its advocates who try to convince us to support it by loading it like a Christmas tree. Its agenda should have no more than 3 articles that fit on 1 sheet of paper.

1) Limit the role of the Judicial branch.
2) Limit the role of the Executive branch.
3) Limit the role of the Legislative branch.

Any attempt to address birthright citizenship or abortion or audit-the-FED will open it a hundred other issues, both issues where we agree and issues where we disagree.

[Political Junkie Too]

The EC is also loathed by liberals. Witness the National Popular Vote movement. 

You can immediately tell the lie of the National Popular Vote scheme by the fact that any state today can award their Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote, but they won't unless they can guarantee 270 votes first.

No state is willing to stand on principle and give their vote to the winner independently.

That should tell you something about motive.

-PJ

[Nateman]

Congress can, at any moment do just what Article V does. If they have 2/3's of both Houses they can propose any amendment they want. Why are we not worried about a run-away Congress? Of course Congress only cares about getting reelected and the best way to do that is to stay invisible. Make somebody else responsible for all the bad stuff out there. That is why they let nameless faceless bureaucrats write law, why they let self anointed judges of cosmic law rewrite the Constitution on pure whim and let lawless Presidents stay lawless. As far as Congress is concerned, why bother to rewrite the Constitution when they can get all those other fellows to do it for them without their own hands getting dirty?

[don-o]

mark

[EternalVigilance]

Delegates will serve their states. They will have no attachment to any statutory authority under the US.

Two questions:

Who will choose said delegates?

And...

What is the track record of those choosing the delegates at keeping their own oaths to support and defend the Constitution we've already got? In other words, what kind of confidence can We the People have that these delegates will be in any way qualified to tinker with history's greatest document of human self-government?

[EternalVigilance]

I don’t even trust Mark Levin. One of the amendments he proposed would enshrine judicial supremacy in the Constitution, which is a signally destructive notion.

[be-baw]

It’ll never happen. I don’t support it. At this time I have no assurance that such a process would be controlled by trustworthy people. It has never been done before and how it might pan out is murky.

[Nifster]

Indeed it is long passed time

[Texas Eagle]

Both the EC and Article V convention are temporary, and neither can be made subservient to any branch of the government.

Ohhhhhhhhh. Just like Congress cannot be made subservient to a President with a pen and a phone. Whew. I feel much better now.

[c-b 1]

You are correct it is essential to keep the Electoral Colleg in place.

I have many concerns about the COS. The proposed ammendments I have seen address symptoms, not the root cause of our problems.

There is no mention of repealing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which is the main cause of the out of control spending.

No one has suggested repeal of the War Powers Act of 1933, that gives the president the authority to act as a dictator during an emergency declared by the president. The emergenccy declaredc by Roosevelt in 1933 has never been recended, add to that the emergencys declared for the "War on Poverty, "the War on Drugs," The war on Terrorism," etc. .

It seems as if everyone sees it as my State Representative does, "We've got to do something," to which i reply to him "even if it is wrong," he wont disagree with that.

[upchuck]

How ‘bout this: Any person who has previously held elected office of any kind cannot be a state delegate to the COS.

IMHO, the COS should be populated with ‘normal’ people. No politicians allowed.

[RIghtwardHo]

If you oppose a state amendments convention, do you also fear the Electoral College?

---

“Fear” is a strong word but I absolutely think it should be abolished via Amendment.

And no one can say ANYTHING for sure about an Art V convention as there has never been one. There is even some question if one is actually called if they are called for different reasons.

But one thing that is NOT an issue ... it will be special interest central. We are here in our group and it’s easy to surmise that it will become what we want. Quite frankly, there is so little consensus on anything in the U.S. anymore and everything is so balkanized that I expect nothing would get passed. However, it has the potential to devastate the delicate balance in our Constitution and I see it as a method to destroy, not improve, what we have.

It would be a disaster.

[Art in Idaho]

Bingo! Good points Jacqerie!

"No state EC delegation ever ‘ran away’ because the simple fact is that the duties of electors are defined by state statute. Replace the term ‘elector’ with ‘delegate,’ and you have a situation identical to that of an Article V amendments convention."

"Delegates will serve their states. They will have no attachment to any statutory authority under the US."

Article V Now!

[lewislynn]

Vanity (A good one)

A little full of ourselves, aren't we.

Congress must call a convention upon applications from two thirds of the states, and determine the mode of ratification. That is all.

So what?

Really? You want a convention because you don't like the "EC"...That's the best you can come up with? What does the "EC" have to do with the importance of constitutional amendments? ...

If you oppose a state amendments convention, do you also fear the Electoral College?

The EC is extra-congressional and completely controlled by the states. If the states are so wild and politically insane, why haven’t we had ‘runaway’ sessions of the EC?

Are you sure we haven't? It's hard to believe anyone would try to make that connection/comparison to sell this...You "vanity" isn't helping your cause.

This is really getting to be a ridiculous cluster^&*k now.

[LibertyBorn]

The minute the Electoral College can propose entirely new candidates on their own, and even create new offices, and new rules for these new offices, and ignore the existing rules for Candidates and office, THEN, and ONLY THEN might there be any sort of valid comparison between the Electoral College and and Delegates at an Article V convention!

Those Delegates are NOT bound by any laws whatsoever, nor is there any sort of lawful punishment for electorates that don't adhere to any preconceived limits, when those limits don't exist anyway because they would prohibit the very latitude needed by the Delegates to openly engage discussion and negotiation!

Furthermore, the Convention has already been shanghaied, taken over and subverted by the deliberate intent of Congress, the federal government, and interests actually controlling the government! Any Convention is already hijacked and guaranteed to be a "runaway"! It's a done deal.

In a report from the Congressional Research Service on March 7, 2014, then revised on April 11, 2014, CRS itself indicates things that entirely contradict the unsupported claims being made about the safety of the Convention.

The CRS report, "Article V Convention" indicates the following:

1) Recognizes the sole and exclusive authority for the "amendment process" (not just "calling" the convention), residing with Congress:

“First,Article V delegates important and exclusive authority over the amendment process to Congress…” (page 4)

2) Congress alone, (not the States) can determine not only the NUMBER of delegates, but their selection process, and even how many votes each state is counted as having!

"Second, while the Constitution is silent on the mechanics of an Article V convention, Congress has traditionally laid claim to broad responsibilities in connection with a convention, including (1) receiving, judging, and recording state applications; (2) establishing procedures to summon a convention; (3) setting the amount of time allotted to its deliberations; (4) determining the number and selection process for its delegates; (5) setting internal convention procedures, including formulae for allocation of votes among the states; and (6) arranging for the formal transmission of any proposed amendments to the states." (Page 4)

NOTABLY , this "formulae for allocating votes" can and will massively sway the outcome of any amendment process, and is a GROSS corruption of the principle of the States themselves being Sovereign, thereby the sole Source of ANY authority for the Convention itself, and therefrom "one state, one vote", that vote not based at all on population, but rather State Sovereignty! By this, Congress can, and WILL, turn the outcome of the Convention into populist Marxist outcome, and not based on State sovereignty!

Thus, the Convention is unquestionably corrupted even before it is begun! Be alarmed, be very alarmed!

And the CRS report repeatedly returns to this idea that State votes at a Convention are to be based on population, rather than one vote per state, with CRS engaging presumptive arguments as if this were already established by election policy!

The FACT of the matter is there's at least one new Constitution already made up, one named the "Constitution for the New States of America". But don't worry, those "New States" will not even resemble the current States,as they will be entirely eradicated to avoid any confusion where the sovereignty now actually resides -- with the Washington ruling elites.

However please do not pretend as if a "Runaway Convention" has not happened before; in fact were batting 1000 on runaway conventions!

Rabid Convention proponents like to overlook the fact that a Convention of the States has already occurred before, in 1787, and that 1787 convention in Philadelphia was ENTIRELY RUNAWAY!. The Delegates were charged with writing ONLY amendments to the Articles of Confederation, and the the terms of ratification set to 100% State agreement. However those Delegates at the Convention in Philadelphia wrote an entirely new Constitution and even came up with their own terms of ratification, that being 3/4ths of the States, all in defiance of the existing law of the land.

Please DO go on about how a "runaway" corrupt convention is so unlikely!

And folks, please, it's not as if an Article V Convention is any sort of RATIONAL RESPONSE! People have to be off their damn rockers if they believe that "Writing more Constitution" is even a valid answer to government deliberately ignoring the existing Constitution! In fact, every single one of the proposed amendments entirely avoid recognizing the limited Enumerated Powers detailed in Article 1, Section 8, thereby not possibly doing anything at all to restore any sort of legitimacy!

In fact amending the Constitution at this time only serves to implicitly give valid government outside Constitution's limited terms. Even every one of the esteemed Mark Levin's amendments do nothing but validate the status quo, while offering only ineffective "treatments" to for only the symptoms, while leaving the real cause entirely unaffected.

It's time these Article V proponents wake up: We are not governed by the Constitution any longer, and those actually dictating the terms of the country are not the public facades in elected into office. Voting harder and writing more Constitution are not anywhere close to valid responses to what is going on all around us each and every day.

And in case some still imagine this issue is up for debate, even now there are those who recognize that some will refuse to have their actions tempered with reason and fact, and therefore they are arming themselves to stop a Convention at any cost. What these proponents have actually done is establish themselves as a threat to whatever Liberty we have left, and might regain in the future. These Convention proponents are actually the same mentality that got us to this condition in the first place -- each one nothing but a budding Machiavellian Social Engineer. If the were to have their Convention, what will be accomplished is the removal all legitimacy to any further demands that our Liberty be restored. It should be no surprise whatsoever that there are those willing to give their lives to prohibit that from happening.

"When faced with no possibility whatsoever of winning anything of value, and great likelihood of losing everything of precious value, the only rational decision is to walk away."

[Shery]

The left got to a couple “staunch conservatives” and pretending to play to their cautious side, made it seem quite likely that it could go off the wheels easily, so these couple who were turned against it are hurting the process by their vocalization of outright lies, planted by the LEFT! This is the most sickening thing. But worse is that these “staunch conservatives” could be wooed by the left into turning against the ONLY thing we, the people, have left to use. It makes me mad!

[OldMissileer]

Bump for later.