I suspected you wouldn't answer a straightforward question.
Why do you Article V opponents feel the need to hijack Article V threads into the trashing of events and decisions that lead to our constitution?
I'm not aware of a vanity post from any of the most vociferous Article V opponents. If one of you has been brave enough to cite how Soros backs Article V, why the framing of the constitution was illegitimate, and why Article V is such a bad idea, please ping me to it.
Why do you Article V opponents feel the need to hijack Article V threads into the trashing of events and decisions that lead to our constitution? You might want to reread the title of your own thread:
To Those Who Fear A Runaway Article V State Amendments Convention
Perhaps you want to ask the Moderator to change it, perhaps to something like:
"To Those Who Already Completely Agree With Me About An Article V State Amendments Convention."?
Maybe the Moderator would make it into a "caucus" thread like in the religion forum.
You addressed the thread explicitly to people like me. I fear this plan.
Let me succinctly reiterate the reasons for those fears:
1. It diverts time, energy, and money from the real task at hand, which is to train up and elevate men and women to office who will keep their oaths.
2. It relies on delegations that will be chosen by those who have already demonstrated that they either don’t understand, or don’t care about, the most important obligations of their oaths.
3. It is being promoted by some who have demonstrated crucial misunderstandings of our constitutional form of government, causing them to offer destructive amendments, or amendments that are not on point in terms of the actual core problems we’re faced with.
Jacquerie, You yourself have not even answered what you believe a "Republican" form of government actually indicates. Your "question' to me, is only one loaded with your own presumption and ignorance. Nothing about a "Republican" form of government encourages the mindless populist amending of the Constitution, and particularly not under the current terms.
As to "why Article V opponents" engage in legitimate and necessary dialogue with the vapid cheerleaders for an Article V convention, the reasons are two:
1) First, the numerous, and at times deliberate falsehoods indicated by Article V proponents need to be corrected, and
2) Stopping an Article V Convention in advance is infinitely preferable to having to engage hostilities to stop such an ill-conceived convention, or the bloodshed that will undeniably result in the aftermath of those delegates having sacrificed our Liberties in altering the terms of the Constitution, without any real grasp of what they do, or any legitimate authority to do so.
I would rather talk now, than shoot later. How about you?
A "vanity post"? Jacquerie, if you are unaware of the fact that Soros extensively backs, not only an Article V Convention, but also has openly indicated the intent to replace the Constitution by 2020, I suggest you do the research on your own. A good site to help recognize the Soros connections to various organizations is
DiscoverTheNetworks.Org. The very fact that you do not already know and recognize Soros' intent to use an Article V convention highlights why you should not be so vociferously calling for a Convention. Most certainly Soros is not at all "afraid" of a Convention, which is utter BS; Soros is entirely promoting a Convention!
Only last year there were Amendments heavily funded by Soros, such as the
"Democracy For All" amendment, a response to misrepresentations about the Citizens United decision, intending to modify the Bill of Rights for the first time in more than 200 years, giving Congress a blank check to define legitimate "speech". Also last year there was Justice Stevens book "Six Amendments", which indicated the intent to amend the Bill of Rights, particularly the right to keep and bear arms, despite the fact that the Bill of Rights does not itself provide us those rights. Even now, if you Google Stevens' book, nowhere among the top critiques is there any mention whatsoever, not even from staunch "Conservative" writers, that our rights CAN NOT be amended by Amending the Bill of Rights, and indicating that those rights are "out of bounds" to any amendment intentions.
This fact alone is why an Article V Convention not only should be rejected, but
must be stopped, no matter the cost.
Nothing in the framing of the Constitution was illegitimate, but rather the process by which the Articles of Confederation was replaced, was not only entirely illegitimate, but refutes every claim by proponents that a Convention of the States might somehow be safe.
However if you do believe, as I do, that the Constitution is legitimate as framed, then beyond doubt you should not be calling for that Constitution to be so mindlessly amended.