Michigan became the 34th state to demand a “Constitutional Convention

[OKTexas]

As far as I can tell, not all the states listed are calling for convention on the same merits, some are proposing adding one certain amendment and others are proposing adding a different one. The Indiana call is for a balanced budget amendment, the Maryland one (from what I can tell...?) is calling for limits on campaign donations.

If a convention is called upon, it's unlikely to result in all three fourths of the states agreeing on whatever proposals are out there.

I think most of this is just for political show, and not actually trying to amend the constitution. From what I can tell, the Constitution has never had an amendment added via three fourths of the state legislatures voting on it.

Just 27.

 

[OKTexas]

I’m not sure if a “Constitutional Convention” is a good idea. What if it’s hijacked by the left?

Then everything it passes, will be thrown in the trash can when it comes time for states to ratify it.

Had you forgotten that a Constitutional Convention (ConCon) cannot change the Constitution?

All it can do, is offer proposals. No different from Congress when it passes amendments with the required 2/3 vote of heach house.

Once it passes something, it must be ratified by 3/4 of the states... or it goes in the trash can.

So don't get paranoid over a ConCon being "hijacked by the left". A ConCon is just one small piece of the puzzle.

The Framers made sure that the final decision on whether to modify the Constitution or not, rests with the people FURTHEST REMOVED from the central government in WashDC as possible. There was a reason for that.

In fact, the American people don't want the extreme-left agenda that current Democrat leaders are pushing. And the states will refuse to ratify anything produced by a "hijacked" ConCon.

The bad news is, while 34 states can force Congress to call a ConCon, it's Congress who actually calls it... and decides who is in it.

The states determine who their delegates are, not congress.

 

[Politico]

Mike you can balance the budget with an amendment. This would bring every sleaze out of the woodwork, By the time it was over it would be a disaster.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Needs shaped so we can have without a question a nasa, nws, cdc, fbi, etc.

You small government pre-constitution assholes can kiss my fucking ass!

You know, you'd think if you loved science so much, you'd use your own money to fund it.

Wow,

You'd think if you loved being a first world country, you wouldn't be against funding it. Why turn this country into north Korea? You people don't make any sense...A bunch of clowns!

You couldn't name a single first world country that doesn't have a government regulating and doing the general good. Why even vote if everything is going to be done by corporations.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I’m not sure if a “Constitutional Convention” is a good idea. What if it’s hijacked by the left?

Then everything it passes, will be thrown in the trash can when it comes time for states to ratify it.

Had you forgotten that a Constitutional Convention (ConCon) cannot change the Constitution?

All it can do, is offer proposals. No different from Congress when it passes amendments with the required 2/3 vote of heach house.

Once it passes something, it must be ratified by 3/4 of the states... or it goes in the trash can.

So don't get paranoid over a ConCon being "hijacked by the left". A ConCon is just one small piece of the puzzle.

The Framers made sure that the final decision on whether to modify the Constitution or not, rests with the people FURTHEST REMOVED from the central government in WashDC as possible. There was a reason for that.

In fact, the American people don't want the extreme-left agenda that current Democrat leaders are pushing. And the states will refuse to ratify anything produced by a "hijacked" ConCon.

The bad news is, while 34 states can force Congress to call a ConCon, it's Congress who actually calls it... and decides who is in it.

The states determine who their delegates are, not congress.

And there are no limits on what they can do at a Convention. None, zero. They can burn the current Constitution and start over so hey, let's do that. It's what the Founders did.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Then everything it passes, will be thrown in the trash can when it comes time for states to ratify it.

Had you forgotten that a Constitutional Convention (ConCon) cannot change the Constitution?

All it can do, is offer proposals. No different from Congress when it passes amendments with the required 2/3 vote of heach house.

Once it passes something, it must be ratified by 3/4 of the states... or it goes in the trash can.

So don't get paranoid over a ConCon being "hijacked by the left". A ConCon is just one small piece of the puzzle.

The Framers made sure that the final decision on whether to modify the Constitution or not, rests with the people FURTHEST REMOVED from the central government in WashDC as possible. There was a reason for that.

In fact, the American people don't want the extreme-left agenda that current Democrat leaders are pushing. And the states will refuse to ratify anything produced by a "hijacked" ConCon.

The bad news is, while 34 states can force Congress to call a ConCon, it's Congress who actually calls it... and decides who is in it.

The states determine who their delegates are, not congress.

And there are no limits on what they can do at a Convention. None, zero. They can burn the current Constitution and start over so hey, let's do that. It's what the Founders did.

It's time to make our voices heard that the nws, noaa, nasa, fda, cdc, ssi, medicare, etc are good for America. I hope to add a few amendments making that clear!

 

[Mojo2]

Constitutional conventions in other countries have been easily hijacked. The most common result is not improvement; rather dictatorship.

It will be key to not let that happen

Stay on task

-Geaux

Technically there is less, little or no chance of that happening.

Why?

From what I understand the difference is that instead of being a Constitutional Convention I believe this is, a convention to amend the Constitution.

And that is supposed to be a key difference.

Not a Constitutional Convention.

Instead, it is a convention to amend the Constitution.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Constitutional conventions in other countries have been easily hijacked. The most common result is not improvement; rather dictatorship.

It will be key to not let that happen

Stay on task

-Geaux

Technically there is less, little or no chance of that happening.

Why?

From what I understand the difference is that instead of being a Constitutional Convention I believe this is, a convention to amend the Constitution.

And that is supposed to be a key difference.

Not a Constitutional Convention.

Instead, it is a convention to amend the Constitution.

It doesn't matter. Once called there are no limits on what the delegates can do. A runaway convention cannot be stopped. Look it up. The last one we had was also a runaway BTW.

 

[Mojo2]

Stand up, Speak up, Show up » Convention of States

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Stand up, Speak up, Show up » Convention of States

Roll them dice, and let's see what happens.

 

[Mojo2]

It will be key to not let that happen

Stay on task

-Geaux

Technically there is less, little or no chance of that happening.

Why?

From what I understand the difference is that instead of being a Constitutional Convention I believe this is, a convention to amend the Constitution.

And that is supposed to be a key difference.

Not a Constitutional Convention.

Instead, it is a convention to amend the Constitution.

It doesn't matter. Once called there are no limits on what the delegates can do. A runaway convention cannot be stopped. Look it up. The last one we had was also a runaway BTW.

No one should ever take your word to mean anything but bullshit.

Here is your argument turned on its ear.

The Burger/Schlafly argument is on the wrong side of history—both factually and philosophically. Both contend that a Convention of States would be dangerous because it might go "runaway." In other words, such a convention might consider issues and propose amendments beyond the scope of authority granted by the states in their applications for a convention. This argument is actually based on defamation against the Framers of the Constitution. In fact, Schlafly has argued for years that the Constitution itself was the result of a “runaway convention.”

Professor Rob Natelson has proven the “runaway convention” theory is based on the fallacious argument that Congress called that convention. (Read his definitive debunking of Mrs. Schlafly’s position at the American Thinker.) However, the reality is that states called the Convention—seven states not only called it but appointed their delegates before Congress even endorsed it. And the states controlled their delegates, giving them explicit instructions to render the federal Constitution adequate for the exigencies of the Union. (For a more thorough treatment of this subject, see Natelson’s Founding-Era Conventions and the Meaning of the Constitution’s “Convention for Proposing Amendments,“ 65 Fla. L. Rev. 615 (2013).)

And more constitutional experts have weighed in on the matter. Michael Farris, for example, is the founder and chancellor of Patrick Henry College where he teaches Constitutional Law courses. He’s also the founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association and one of the few lawyers ever to argue an Article V case at the Supreme Court.

Farris has shown the ratification process went through a preliminary phase when Congress and all 13 state legislatures approved the new process proposed by the Constitutional Convention—just like the Articles of Confederation required. And Farris has definitively taken apart Schlafly’s opinions in another recently published piece.

Her position is akin to arguing that George Washington was a great hero but, sadly, he was also a British spy. The whole “runaway convention” theory begins with an unacceptable contempt for both the Framers and the Constitution itself. It ends with a complete lack of historical knowledge.

Today, there is a strong movement afoot towards an Article V amending convention for the purpose of restraining the federal government’s scope, power and jurisdiction. The movement for a convention for this limited and specific purpose is led by the Convention of States project, headed by Farris. (I believe in this effort so much, my organization Citizens for Self-Governance hosts and funds the project.) The COS Project has amazing allies in this battle. Radio talk show giant and best-selling author Mark Levin has written a book, The Liberty Amendments, promoting an Article V Convention. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck—as well as many other thought leaders—support Levin’s efforts towards a convention.

Political leaders, like Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), and former Gov. Mike Huckabee, have also pledged their support for this project. Additionally, over 100 state legislators from 30 states met this month at Mt. Vernon to begin drafting the rules for a Convention. At the December meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council in Washington, DC, hundreds of state legislators attended a plenary lunch where they learned about the efforts. Afterwards, they participated in a breakout session where they learned the particulars on calling a convention.

Three states—Florida, Virginia, and South Carolina—have all pre-filed legislation calling for a convention, and similar legislation is expected in 20 to 25 states in the 2014 sessions.

So, why is all this momentum happening? Only the people, acting through the states, can restrain the scope, power, and jurisdiction of a federal government no longer operating within the bounds of the Constitution.

Most people want to restrain the federal government. This is a bipartisan issue. In fact, in recent polling a full 60 percent of Americans say the federal government is too big and powerful. Fifty-four percent say government is generally burdensome and impedes people from improving their lives, while only 41 percent say government is primarily a source of good and helping people improve their lives. Fifty-three percent of Americans say the federal government is a direct threat to our liberty and freedom. Those are astounding numbers! Washington, DC is completely out of touch with the rest of the country and no longer feels bound by constitutional restraints.

For decades, Congress, presidents, and even the Supreme Court have treated the Constitution as merely a “parchment barrier” to their desire to impose their will on citizens. And those were the good ole days. Now they don’t see it as a barrier at all. They brazenly and routinely ignore the Constitution so they can design society as they see fit. This generally involves taking power away from the sovereign citizen and consolidating it in Washington, DC.

The second clause of Article V of the Constitution of the United States was specifically inserted to allow the people, via the states, to restrain a tyrannical federal government. George Mason argued passionately that it was absurd to believe a government run amok would ever pass amendments to restrain its own power. The Framers unanimously agreed. That’s why the great men who gave us the Constitution inserted the second half of Article V. They wanted to give us the right, power, and obligation to call a convention to restrain a federal government run amok.

Look around. It’s amok.

The time has come to use Article V and call a convention. Phyllis Schlafly deserves our immense respect for a lifetime of accomplishment, but she is no constitutional scholar. In her defiance of the Convention of States, she is standing against some of the finest constitutional scholars and thinkers in this country. Most Americans will choose to stand with Michael Farris, Prof. Robert Natelson, Prof. Randy Barnett, Prof. Nick Dranius, Prof. Lawrence Lessig, Levin, Limbaugh, Hannity, Glenn Beck, Sen. Coburn, Sen. Johnson, Gov. Huckabee, and hundreds of state legislators who support an Article V Convention.

Sadly, Phyllis Schlafly stands almost alone on the fringe of conservatism, with no significant support from legitimate scholars or notable commentators, clutching feebly to a letter written in the 1970s by liberal activist Chief Justice Warren Burger.

Should a stellar conservative leader such as Schlafly be reduced to aligning with the liberal Burger against the American people’s right and obligation to restrain a runaway federal government?

Definitely not. She is unwittingly leading her supporters into a desperate, sad place of permanent citizen impotence and government overreach.

Instead, she should change course and align her values with the Founders. We welcome her to join the fight, bring her troops, and help the people, via the states, to restore liberty.

Phyllis Schlafly Stands Firmly With Roe v. Wade Justice and Against the People | The American Spectator

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Technically there is less, little or no chance of that happening.

Why?

From what I understand the difference is that instead of being a Constitutional Convention I believe this is, a convention to amend the Constitution.

And that is supposed to be a key difference.

Not a Constitutional Convention.

Instead, it is a convention to amend the Constitution.

It doesn't matter. Once called there are no limits on what the delegates can do. A runaway convention cannot be stopped. Look it up. The last one we had was also a runaway BTW.

No one should ever take your word to mean anything but bullshit.

Here is your argument turned on its ear.

You don't have to take my word, it's America history and American law. Once a Convention is called, what comes out of it is entirely up to the delegates. No one has control over it.

As for the runaway convention that gave us the current Constitution, the were supposed to be fixing the Articles of Confederation after the war was over.

Here is the other side: Stop the Con-Con

http://vimeo.com/15937565

 

[Mojo2]

It doesn't matter. Once called there are no limits on what the delegates can do. A runaway convention cannot be stopped. Look it up. The last one we had was also a runaway BTW.

No one should ever take your word to mean anything but bullshit.

Here is your argument turned on its ear.

You don't have to take my word, it's America history and American law. Once a Convention is called, what comes out of it is entirely up to the delegates. No one has control over it.

As for the runaway convention that gave us the current Constitution, the were supposed to be fixing the Articles of Confederation after the war was over.

Here is the other side: Stop the Con-Con

A con-con is NOT what this is.

It's a States Convention.

See if you can understand this:

Meckler: “Phyllis Schlafly Stands Firmly Against the People”

Jordan Sillars December 17, 2013

Mark Meckler, founder and president of Citizens for Self-Governance, thinks Phyllis Schlafly is on the wrong track. In his latest article on the American Spectator, Meckler explains why the highly respected conservative leader should reconsider her position on a Convention of States. Here are some highlights:

After a long and brilliant career, Phyllis Schlafly has taken a terribly wrong turn.

Throughout her career she has accomplished so much good. But today, she stands firmly on the side of a huge, unfettered, unconstitutional federal leviathan…

Most people want to restrain the federal government. This is a bipartisan issue. In fact, in recent polling a full 60 percent of Americans say the federal government is too big and powerful. Fifty-three percent of Americans say the federal government is a direct threat to our liberty and freedom. Those are astounding numbers! Washington, DC, is completely out of touch with the rest of the country and no longer feels bound by constitutional restraints.

George Mason argued passionately that it was absurd to believe a government run amok would ever pass amendments to restrain its own power. The Framers unanimously agreed. That’s why the great men who gave us the Constitution inserted the second half of Article V. They wanted to give us the right, power, and obligation to call a convention to restrain a federal government run amok.

Look around. It’s amok.

The time has come to use Article V and call a convention. Phyllis Schlafly deserves our immense respect for a lifetime of accomplishment, but she is no constitutional scholar. In her defiance of the Convention of States, she is standing against some of the finest constitutional scholars and thinkers in this country. Most Americans will choose to stand with Michael Farris, Prof. Robert Natelson, Prof. Randy Barnett, Prof. Nick Dranius, Prof. Lawrence Lessig, Levin, Limbaugh, Hannity, Glenn Beck, Sen. Coburn, Sen. Johnson, Gov. Huckabee, and hundreds of state legislators who support an Article V Convention.

Sadly, Phyllis Schlafly stands almost alone on the fringe of conservatism, with no significant support from legitimate scholars or notable commentators, clutching feebly to a letter written in the 1970s by liberal activist Chief Justice Warren Burger.

She is unwittingly leading her supporters into a desperate, sad place of permanent citizen impotence and government overreach.

Instead, she should change course and align her values with the Founders. We welcome her to join the fight, bring her troops, and help the people, via the states, to restore liberty.

http://conventionofstates.com/1-4/

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No one should ever take your word to mean anything but bullshit.

Here is your argument turned on its ear.

You don't have to take my word, it's America history and American law. Once a Convention is called, what comes out of it is entirely up to the delegates. No one has control over it.

As for the runaway convention that gave us the current Constitution, the were supposed to be fixing the Articles of Confederation after the war was over.

Here is the other side: Stop the Con-Con

A con-con is NOT what this is.
It's a States Convention.

Call it anything you like but once called, it's out of your hands, and what they produce could be as radical as what was produced 220 years ago. They were supposed to be "limited" as well, and they ignored that suggestion, and they had the right to.

 

[Mojo2]

You don't have to take my word, it's America history and American law. Once a Convention is called, what comes out of it is entirely up to the delegates. No one has control over it.

As for the runaway convention that gave us the current Constitution, the were supposed to be fixing the Articles of Confederation after the war was over.

Here is the other side: Stop the Con-Con

A con-con is NOT what this is.
It's a States Convention.

Call it anything you like but once called, it's out of your hands, and what they produce could be as radical as what was produced 220 years ago. They were supposed to be "limited" as well, and they ignored that suggestion, and they had the right to.

Up your nose Pantyhose!