Although this Phyllis Schlafly article proposes that Congress block any further judicial appointments proffered by the Obama administration, in an aside she condemns a "constitutional convention." Some comments on this thread are about that condemnation.
However, 103 years into a constitution with the 17A, there is no remaining institutional pride in the senate. The vast majority of senators can't see beyond their reelections and will do nothing to risk them. It is an institution whose once noble purpose has been corrupted into rubber-stamping whatever the half-black guy wants.
Still, I'm amazed she is so opposed to Article V. It certainly isn't a gimmick any more than the other recognized individual and societal rights peppered throughout our Constitution.
Phyllis is a little slow, actually a lot.
We know, and you’ve seen my posts, that it doesn’t matter whether we have Batman or the Joker in the White House, selecting Supremes determines the course of the country longterm. We know RR gave us Anthony Kennedy who gave us marriage perversion and persecution of Christians.
The key amendment is (as first formed by Mark Levin and others) in effect, a ‘30-State Quash Authority’.
I repeat here the illustrations of two amendments that should be lasting (and that contain valuable Freeper input):
************************************************
AMENDMENT XXVIII
To redress the balance of powers between the federal government and the States and to restore effective suffrage of State Legislatures to Congress, the following amendment is proposed:
************************************************
Section 1.
A Senator in Congress shall be subject to recall by their respective state legislature or by voter referendum in their respective state.
Section 2.
The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
************************************************
and,
************************************************
AMENDMENT XXIX
To enhance federalism between the States and their Federal Government, the following amendment is proposed:
************************************************
Section 1.
Term limits for Senators in Congress shall be set by vote in their respective state legislatures but in no case shall be set less than twelve years nor more than eighteen years.
Section 2.
Upon a majority vote in three-fifths of state legislatures, specific federal statutes, federal court decisions and executive directives of any form shall be repealed and made void.
************************************************
The above provisions could be combined into one amendment or various provisions can be stricken or moved as seen fit by convention delegates and their state legislatures in order to move to consensus and cross the 34-state threshold.
However the provisions might be arranged, it is important that the provisions be written adroitly to bar any federal entity from misinterpreting or interfering with the provisions. Phrases such as “subject to ... state legislature”, “subject to ... voter referendum”, “shall be set by ... state legislatures”, “upon a vote ... in state legislature” are tantamount to keeping control of the amendments under the jurisdiction of states and state voters and impeding the federal government from having an opportunity to encroach and meddle.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3306719/posts?page=238#238
Those touting mere application of the 10th Amendment should be mindful that the 10th was never worded to explicitly give a state quorum power to administer its application. Thus, federal agencies and federal courts have conspired to make what they will of the 10th Amendment, and in effect, it becomes a nice thought of a bygone era.
For the edification of those reading and desiring more insight, I leave the following exercise to ponder over:
Abolition of the Electoral College by amending the Constitution would result in California and New York electing the President of the United States. How was the 17th Amendment similar to such a proposed abolition of the Electoral College and what were the longterm effects of the 17th Amendment?
Schlafly has been supremely intellectually lazy when it comes to an Article V Convention. She has merely dusted off some columns from 45 years ago, when the Left WERE advocating a Constitutional Convention.
The mere fact that she uses the phrase “Constitutional Convention” when nobody is proposing a Constitutional Convention, is telling.