Posted on 08/08/2022 8:05:26 AM PDT by tanstaafl.72555
The fears of the Birchers, New American etc. seem to be that the Convention cannot be “managed” once it starts. Levin points out this is indeed specious.
What if— tectonically speaking, the 17th Amendment is removed!! Yikes— the globalists who put it in to stop the State Legislatures from representing their States with appointed (thus elected) Senators— would freak out!!
Just checking the last Senate vote would reveal who owns whom, and would have made Kamala Harris an impossibility as even a Senator.
There is no rewrite! It’s a method of proposing amendments that bypasses Congress. This method is in the Constitution! (Does anyone actually read the Constitution?), From the Constitution - its article five that’s the article between four and six!
“....
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
.......”
Notice this part ...
“”...
on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution,
....”
It’s perfectly valid means of proposing amendments, no more dangerous than letting Congress do it. Which was what was done in the past!
The procedure for ratification is the same as if Congress proposed the amendments.
“...
ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States....”
3/4’s of the states means 3/4 * 50 = 37.5 rounding up 38 states needed to ratify each amendment. Again, no different than what was done in the past.
bttt!
I’ve met and talked with Michael Farris and he is absolutely one of the most brilliant attorneys alive and thoroughly conservative’s there is. Incredible Christian as well - but then they all go together.
A short, crystal-clear message I highly recommend.
There is NO way I would trust our parasitic worthless pieces of $hit republicans to even follow the Constitution NOW as it is written. Bad Idea. there is only one way out of this mess......
Not true at all. Please listen to Farris. Then get back to me. A constitutional convention (article V) is NOT the “blank slate” you imagine it to be. It is for specifically enumerated, concretely designated AMENDMENTS to the consittution, nothing else.
Pick the same # of people and put them in the same building as before. No AC, wear wigs, same clothes. It was a bitch back then in the hot summer. This time put in cameras and ALL networks cover it like the O.J. trial. Appreciate what our founding fathers went through.
Agree with your assessment
Absolutely. Exactly. Dangerous ground. Not a good idea.
An amendment IS A REWRITE of the Constitution.
All it takes is:
34th Amendment: The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
And there is no set time limit on how long states have to ratify an amendment. The 27th amendment is an example, where it was proposed in 1789 and finally ratified in 1992.
So the repeal of the Second Amendment could be proposed, and be ratified perhaps decades later.
Yahoo news is so liberal.
Exactly. We don't follow the one we have. Trusting modernists and frauds to rewrite it would be as dumb as it is dangerous.
A constitutional amendment that, say, obliterates 2/3 of governmental power would be easier and accomplish more.
This is not about “rewriting” the Constitution. Article V is WRITTEN INTO the constitution as a method of amending it.
I don’t understand why this is so difficult to grasp.
There is nothing about an article V concon that is about “rewriting” the Constitution. Nothing.
Quit running your hole - silly, prattling n00b dumbass.
“Be careful what you ask for. I think a convention will not work out like you think.”
Nonsense. An Article V convention is for proposing new Constitutional amendments that then would go directly to the states for ratification by 2/3 of the state’s legislatures.
It is NOT a “Constitutional Convention” that would draft an entirely new constitution. That’s just propaganda from the statists who are afraid of the people taking back control of the Republic.
I hope you realize that An article 5 convention of states is DIFFERENT than a federal constitutional convention.
This is controlled by STATES. Each state gets equal say. There are far more GOP controlled states than demo-controlled states.
This is why liberals keep warning us that they would get everything they wanted- if that was true they would be screaming for it.
They WOULD get everything they wanted in a Constitutional Convention, which is the type Rush always warned about. But not in a Conventions of states.
The convention of states is a big F U to the federal government and is the best way to rid ourselves of federal overstepping.
Artical V Yes!!! Repeal the 16th and 17th amendments!!!
Fifteen states away is a LOT of states away. There’s no way to limit or control an article five convention so the Left could push any manner of “reforms” including directly elected presidents.
Worth repeating.
Did you bother to read his post?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.