[nathanbedford]

So far it seems to me that opposition to Article V boils down to about four objections:

1. It won't work -so don't bother trying.

2. It won't work, even if it does work, because "they" will undo it, ignore it, or somehow overrule it, so don't bother trying.

3. It will work, but don't try it because it will work only for the other side.

4. No opinion on whether it will work or will not work, but the Constitution we have is just fine so the solution offered by the Constitution itself in Article V should be ignored in favor of redoubling our efforts and doing more of the same every election cycle because this time we will get different results.

Which category are you in?

[central_va]

u r good.

[Wilum]

Me?

5. Go For It Anyway!

[Tzimisce]

How are you going to make them follow new amendments when they’re not following the old amendments?

How are you going to do it?

Especially when the Supreme Court just said today that the government doesn’t have to follow its own laws.

You need to have an answer for that question - or yes, it is a waste a time.

[Hostage]

Good exposition of what the opposition consistently uses.

[semimojo]

Which category are you in?

I'm not against it, but I think people are a little hung up on the process. The big hurdle will be getting consensus on the content of proposed amendments. Levin has his proposals but the only one that seems to be nearly universal in the states that are considering it is the BBA. Even then, there are dozens of variations.

I don't fear the "runaway" scenario but think it's more likely that the convention won't produce agreement. I'd rather have the focus more on building consensus on the amendments than on the process.

[Yosemitest]

If the ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF and his IRANIAN SPY, and their minions, are going to strip the Government of everything "Civil War", then will they stop studying the strategies and tactics of their most studied Officer, Nathan Bedford Forrest ?

[dware]

1. It won't work -so don't bother trying.

It most certainly WILL work, but it WILL WORK for both sides, not just Conservatives, so be prepared to accept the losses from liberal amendments getting through.

2. It won't work, even if it does work, because "they" will undo it, ignore it, or somehow overrule it, so don't bother trying.

Well, the fact is the Feds are currently doing what they want, when they want, and are completely ignoring the current laws, Constitution and BoR's, so really, what's going to make them suddenly adhere to new amendments????

3. It will work, but don't try it because it will work only for the other side.

As mentioned previously, it WILL work, and it WILL WORK for both sides. To think that this is going to be all good for Conservatives and all bad for the leftists is just plain ignorant. Both sides would end up getting some of the things they want passed. Will they get everything? No, but both sides will come out of this with something.

4. No opinion on whether it will work or will not work, but the Constitution we have is just fine so the solution offered by the Constitution itself in Article V should be ignored in favor of redoubling our efforts and doing more of the same every election cycle because this time we will get different results.

It will work. But the fact is, yes, the Constitution and BoR's we have now work fine. The issue at hand is the fact that the Feds are IGNORING ALL OF IT. Adding to it won't make a difference.

[Joe 6-pack]

Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I believe an Article V convention is the last, best hope for the remaining moral and religious people to reaffirm and reassert the founding principles of this nation, but indeed, the problem is not just a legal one that will be solved with new amendments. There are cultural issues at play that must be addressed and dealt with if we're ever going to survive.

[Lazamataz]

So far it seems to me that opposition to Article V boils down to about four objections:

1. It won't work -so don't bother trying.

2. It won't work, even if it does work, because "they" will undo it, ignore it, or somehow overrule it, so don't bother trying.

3. It will work, but don't try it because it will work only for the other side.

4. No opinion on whether it will work or will not work, but the Constitution we have is just fine so the solution offered by the Constitution itself in Article V should be ignored in favor of redoubling our efforts and doing more of the same every election cycle because this time we will get different results.

Which category are you in?

5. I no longer give a s*** if it works, because I believe mankind is a disease that must be eliminated from the galaxy.

[GraceG]

Which category are you in?

5. We need to do it because it is one of the last peaceful solutions left to us, and even if we pass some “liberty amendments” and fed gov ignores them, it was still worth it as we then have Complete justification to try to leave the union peacefully if they let us or violently if they continue to abuse us. And if war does come of it, then we will have the “High Moral ground” vs FedGov who would have ignored the amendments passed by the states.

[DiogenesLamp]

Which category are you in?

I have another category. Most amendments after the first 10 are disasters, and are illustrations from the law of unintended consequences.

Whatever they produce, will be a botch, and will make things worse, not better.

[JewishRighter]

As to the objection about what will make “them” comply with new laws when they scorn the old: That, in itself, is one of the reasons for the amendments to be proposed: to fashion structural modifications to the Constitution that put the political mafia in Washington in a much tighter box. Levins book has a few that do just that.

[boxlunch]

I was 100% on the Article V bandwagon, but I’m starting to feel as many on here do, and don’t mind admitting, I’m beginning to lean toward the #2 group. Even if we pass some of the great amendments suggested, why would SCOTUS not just “interpret” them to mean something that they don’t? It only takes a few “oppressed” people to bring a challenge up before the SCOTUS and they can “make the constitution mean whatever they say it means”.

Until we have state legislators and governors who have the spine to challenge these ungodly, unholy and unconstitutioional SCOTUS prounouncements and interpretations, and who will REFUSE TO COMPLY AT THE STATE LEVEL, and threaten to arrest any federal agent who tries to enforce otherwise, it is all meaningless!!!

Do we have state legislators and governors who are godly, fearless men and who are ready to actually go to war if necessary? I don’t know! I know we have a few in Texas but I certainly don’t claim that the state as a whole is there. I have no idea about other states. And if we have state governments who are willing to do that, then why aren’t they already challenging some of the other garbage that has been laid on us?

As you may know, I was one of the original supporters of Article V on Jacquerie’s threads, and think the idea has merit if there is still enough support at the local/individual and state level (I mean a moral, godly contingent in this nation and fearless state level leaders.)

I’m just no longer confident that we do.