CDZ Is It Time For A Constitutional Convention?

[S.J.]

With an overreaching federal government increasingly imposing their will on the American people, running half trillion dollar annual deficits, and shredding the Bill of Rights, many states rights advocates are calling for a Constitutional Convention to stop the dismantling of our republic. Elections don't seem to matter any more, since both parties are working together to deny the will of the people, as this election clearly illustrates.
Article V of the Constitution gives the states the right to do this and it requires two thirds of the states to make it happen. Three fourths are then required to ratify it. It's never been done but the provision is there and a lot of people are fed up with the abuses by our federal government and this could be the only way to make real change.
6 states have signed on so far, 28 more are needed. Would you support such a move?
States' rights advocates eye convention to bypass Congress, amend Constitution | Fox News

 

[Dale Smith]

With an overreaching federal government increasingly imposing their will on the American people, running half trillion dollar annual deficits, and shredding the Bill of Rights, many states rights advocates are calling for a Constitutional Convention to stop the dismantling of our republic. Elections don't seem to matter any more, since both parties are working together to deny the will of the people, as this election clearly illustrates.
Article V of the Constitution gives the states the right to do this and it requires two thirds of the states to make it happen. Three fourths are then required to ratify it. It's never been done but the provision is there and a lot of people are fed up with the abuses by our federal government and this could be the only way to make real change.
6 states have signed on so far, 28 more are needed. Would you support such a move?
States' rights advocates eye convention to bypass Congress, amend Constitution | Fox News

Indeed I do and there needs to be a return to the original 13th amendment that prevent those that have a title of nobility from running office...thus no lawyers are eligible.

Then we dissolve USA.INC that has us under admiralty law, the Universal Commercial Code and re-establish the Republic. Abolish the Federal Reserve central bank....I have quite a few things on my list that needs to be done.

 

[S.J.]

With an overreaching federal government increasingly imposing their will on the American people, running half trillion dollar annual deficits, and shredding the Bill of Rights, many states rights advocates are calling for a Constitutional Convention to stop the dismantling of our republic. Elections don't seem to matter any more, since both parties are working together to deny the will of the people, as this election clearly illustrates.
Article V of the Constitution gives the states the right to do this and it requires two thirds of the states to make it happen. Three fourths are then required to ratify it. It's never been done but the provision is there and a lot of people are fed up with the abuses by our federal government and this could be the only way to make real change.
6 states have signed on so far, 28 more are needed. Would you support such a move?
States' rights advocates eye convention to bypass Congress, amend Constitution | Fox News

Indeed I do and there needs to be a return to the original 13th amendment that prevent those that have a title of nobility from running office...thus no lawyers are eligible.

Then we dissolve USA.INC that has us under admiralty law, the Universal Commercial Code and re-establish the Republic. Abolish the Federal Reserve central bank....I have quite a few things on my list that needs to be done.

I'd like to hear them.

 

[gtopa1]

With an overreaching federal government increasingly imposing their will on the American people, running half trillion dollar annual deficits, and shredding the Bill of Rights, many states rights advocates are calling for a Constitutional Convention to stop the dismantling of our republic. Elections don't seem to matter any more, since both parties are working together to deny the will of the people, as this election clearly illustrates.
Article V of the Constitution gives the states the right to do this and it requires two thirds of the states to make it happen. Three fourths are then required to ratify it. It's never been done but the provision is there and a lot of people are fed up with the abuses by our federal government and this could be the only way to make real change.
6 states have signed on so far, 28 more are needed. Would you support such a move?
States' rights advocates eye convention to bypass Congress, amend Constitution | Fox News

Indeed I do and there needs to be a return to the original 13th amendment that prevent those that have a title of nobility from running office...thus no lawyers are eligible.

Then we dissolve USA.INC that has us under admiralty law, the Universal Commercial Code and re-establish the Republic. Abolish the Federal Reserve central bank....I have quite a few things on my list that needs to be done.

I agree; there should be NO people of Title running for office. However, it is a chance to redress a Great Wrong done to the People of the USA. America needs a Constitutional Monarchy!!! It is obvious that the present system produces far too much Polarisation. Now a Royal Family is ABOVE Politics and provides stability AND continuity. Plus Trump could conduct a Royal Pageant that runs along the lines of Miss Universe!!

And instead of those silly US sports you too could appreciate the Noble games of Cricket and Rugby!!!

And just think; one day Will and Kate could be The King and Queen of the USA!!!!

Winner-winner!!!

Greg

 

[westwall]

A CC is a wet dream for progressives. They realize that the result of one will not be a return to the original concept but instead you would see a rewrite more in line with the UN's
Declaration of human rights. Nowhere is there a mention of the right to bear arms. Nope. Lots of words that mean nothing because there is no way to enforce a single one of them. The UN would LOVE a CC. That would be the final nail in the coffin of US sovereignty.

No thank you.






Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations

 

[Boss]

With an overreaching federal government increasingly imposing their will on the American people, running half trillion dollar annual deficits, and shredding the Bill of Rights, many states rights advocates are calling for a Constitutional Convention to stop the dismantling of our republic. Elections don't seem to matter any more, since both parties are working together to deny the will of the people, as this election clearly illustrates.
Article V of the Constitution gives the states the right to do this and it requires two thirds of the states to make it happen. Three fourths are then required to ratify it. It's never been done but the provision is there and a lot of people are fed up with the abuses by our federal government and this could be the only way to make real change.
6 states have signed on so far, 28 more are needed. Would you support such a move?
States' rights advocates eye convention to bypass Congress, amend Constitution | Fox News

What you are talking about is NOT a "Constitutional Convention" and you do your cause a great disservice to refer to it as such. A Constitutional Convention is convened in order to deliberate a new Constitution. Everything is on the table, it's the entire Constitution. Very few people would be willing to risk everything we have in our Constitution on the chance that we could come away with some better alternative. With the activists and progressives so prevalent today, we might come away with a much different style of government and one you would certainly not appreciate. So please... AVOID calling this a Constitutional Convention... it's not.

The Article V movement is about state conventions to amend the Constitution. And yes, it HAS been done before, just not successfully. The last time was in 1985 over a Balanced Budget Amendment... before we could get the required 2/3 of states, Congress acted to pass legislation requiring a balanced budget. Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Balanced Budget Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There have been other times it has been tried as well, however, usually if the measure in question has the momentum to pass, Congress intervenes and passes legislation. But we see with the example of Gramm-Rudman what generally happens. It's not an amendment to the Constitution so it has caveats and loopholes, ways Congress (often with the help of SCOTUS) can avoid complying and of course, they always take advantage of that.

I have argued that what needs to happen here is a precedent for Article V needs to be set first. Pick something that Congress is not likely to do on their own, yet most of America favors... like maybe, term limits or revisit the balanced budget... finish the process and actually GET an amendment ratified.... THEN you have a precedent. THEN you know it CAN be done... you've proved it. From there, you can continue with more Article V conventions. Until you see one through to completion, it remains an enigma that many people simply don't believe can happen and will therefore dismiss.

 

[gipper]

IMO it is way past time to get rid of the worthless lying corrupt government we have...and get rid of all of it...then start anew.

 

[Searcher44]

With an overreaching federal government increasingly imposing their will on the American people, running half trillion dollar annual deficits, and shredding the Bill of Rights, many states rights advocates are calling for a Constitutional Convention to stop the dismantling of our republic. Elections don't seem to matter any more, since both parties are working together to deny the will of the people, as this election clearly illustrates.
Article V of the Constitution gives the states the right to do this and it requires two thirds of the states to make it happen. Three fourths are then required to ratify it. It's never been done but the provision is there and a lot of people are fed up with the abuses by our federal government and this could be the only way to make real change.
6 states have signed on so far, 28 more are needed. Would you support such a move?
States' rights advocates eye convention to bypass Congress, amend Constitution | Fox News

Weird, the Left is also looking for an Amendment;

"Wolf PAC is an American non-partisan political action committee formed in 2011 with the goal of "ending corporate personhood and publicly financing all elections in our country", to include the restriction of large monetary donations to political candidates, parties, and groups.[4][5] It began with an announcement at an Occupy Wall Street rally in New York Cityby The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur.[6] On a state level Wolf PAC has bi-partisan support for its objectives.[7]

Its strategy is to add a 28th amendment to the Constitution, thereby overturning multipleSupreme Court cases including Citizens United v. FEC and Buckley v. Valeo, which cumulatively have made it impossible to achieve Wolf PAC's campaign finance goals through simple legislation. Wolf PAC believes that Congress is too corrupt to pass such an amendment itself, and therefore advocates a convention of the States, which is a procedure outlined in Article V of the Constitution. As of July 2015, four out of the necessary thirty-four states have passed resolutions calling for such a convention."

Too bad the two groups couldn't get together somehow.

 

[oldsoul]

With an overreaching federal government increasingly imposing their will on the American people, running half trillion dollar annual deficits, and shredding the Bill of Rights, many states rights advocates are calling for a Constitutional Convention to stop the dismantling of our republic. Elections don't seem to matter any more, since both parties are working together to deny the will of the people, as this election clearly illustrates.
Article V of the Constitution gives the states the right to do this and it requires two thirds of the states to make it happen. Three fourths are then required to ratify it. It's never been done but the provision is there and a lot of people are fed up with the abuses by our federal government and this could be the only way to make real change.
6 states have signed on so far, 28 more are needed. Would you support such a move?
States' rights advocates eye convention to bypass Congress, amend Constitution | Fox News

What you are talking about is NOT a "Constitutional Convention" and you do your cause a great disservice to refer to it as such. A Constitutional Convention is convened in order to deliberate a new Constitution. Everything is on the table, it's the entire Constitution. Very few people would be willing to risk everything we have in our Constitution on the chance that we could come away with some better alternative. With the activists and progressives so prevalent today, we might come away with a much different style of government and one you would certainly not appreciate. So please... AVOID calling this a Constitutional Convention... it's not.

The Article V movement is about state conventions to amend the Constitution. And yes, it HAS been done before, just not successfully. The last time was in 1985 over a Balanced Budget Amendment... before we could get the required 2/3 of states, Congress acted to pass legislation requiring a balanced budget. Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Balanced Budget Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There have been other times it has been tried as well, however, usually if the measure in question has the momentum to pass, Congress intervenes and passes legislation. But we see with the example of Gramm-Rudman what generally happens. It's not an amendment to the Constitution so it has caveats and loopholes, ways Congress (often with the help of SCOTUS) can avoid complying and of course, they always take advantage of that.

I have argued that what needs to happen here is a precedent for Article V needs to be set first. Pick something that Congress is not likely to do on their own, yet most of America favors... like maybe, term limits or revisit the balanced budget... finish the process and actually GET an amendment ratified.... THEN you have a precedent. THEN you know it CAN be done... you've proved it. From there, you can continue with more Article V conventions. Until you see one through to completion, it remains an enigma that many people simply don't believe can happen and will therefore dismiss.

You are correct, Boss, what we need is not a CC, but an Article V convention to Amend the Constitution. As stated above, a CC could change everything, I am not in favor of ANYONE deliberating our current rights, privileges, and form of government. I am in favor of "We the People" rising up and telling those who mean to govern us, "We are in charge here, and you will do as we wish."

 

[jwoodie]

A CC is a wet dream for progressives. They realize that the result of one will not be a return to the original concept but instead you would see a rewrite more in line with the UN's
Declaration of human rights. Nowhere is there a mention of the right to bear arms. Nope. Lots of words that mean nothing because there is no way to enforce a single one of them. The UN would LOVE a CC. That would be the final nail in the coffin of US sovereignty.

No thank you.






Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations

"Progressives" generally HATE the idea of letting the States amend the Constitution. They much prefer judicial activism to allowing the People to express their will.

 

[S.J.]

With an overreaching federal government increasingly imposing their will on the American people, running half trillion dollar annual deficits, and shredding the Bill of Rights, many states rights advocates are calling for a Constitutional Convention to stop the dismantling of our republic. Elections don't seem to matter any more, since both parties are working together to deny the will of the people, as this election clearly illustrates.
Article V of the Constitution gives the states the right to do this and it requires two thirds of the states to make it happen. Three fourths are then required to ratify it. It's never been done but the provision is there and a lot of people are fed up with the abuses by our federal government and this could be the only way to make real change.
6 states have signed on so far, 28 more are needed. Would you support such a move?
States' rights advocates eye convention to bypass Congress, amend Constitution | Fox News

What you are talking about is NOT a "Constitutional Convention" and you do your cause a great disservice to refer to it as such. A Constitutional Convention is convened in order to deliberate a new Constitution. Everything is on the table, it's the entire Constitution. Very few people would be willing to risk everything we have in our Constitution on the chance that we could come away with some better alternative. With the activists and progressives so prevalent today, we might come away with a much different style of government and one you would certainly not appreciate. So please... AVOID calling this a Constitutional Convention... it's not.

The Article V movement is about state conventions to amend the Constitution. And yes, it HAS been done before, just not successfully. The last time was in 1985 over a Balanced Budget Amendment... before we could get the required 2/3 of states, Congress acted to pass legislation requiring a balanced budget. Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Balanced Budget Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There have been other times it has been tried as well, however, usually if the measure in question has the momentum to pass, Congress intervenes and passes legislation. But we see with the example of Gramm-Rudman what generally happens. It's not an amendment to the Constitution so it has caveats and loopholes, ways Congress (often with the help of SCOTUS) can avoid complying and of course, they always take advantage of that.

I have argued that what needs to happen here is a precedent for Article V needs to be set first. Pick something that Congress is not likely to do on their own, yet most of America favors... like maybe, term limits or revisit the balanced budget... finish the process and actually GET an amendment ratified.... THEN you have a precedent. THEN you know it CAN be done... you've proved it. From there, you can continue with more Article V conventions. Until you see one through to completion, it remains an enigma that many people simply don't believe can happen and will therefore dismiss.

You're splitting hairs, Boss. It is the very same process. The issues to be voted on are established at the beginning of the process, whether it be one amendment or the entire Constitution. I am not advocating for an entirely new Constitution. In fact, I didn't advocate anything, I asked a question. And it hasn't been tried before either, it was "mentioned" (or you could say "threatened").

 

[Boss]

You're splitting hairs, Boss. It is the very same process. The issues to be voted on are established at the beginning of the process, whether it be one amendment or the entire Constitution. I am not advocating for an entirely new Constitution. In fact, I didn't advocate anything, I asked a question. And it hasn't been tried before either, it was "mentioned" (or you could say "threatened").

Not splitting hairs. There is a HUGE difference between a Constitutional Convention and an Article V Convention to Amend. It's not at all the very same process and there is nothing in the Constitution that allows for a Constitutional Convention.

And sorry, but it most certainly HAS been tried several times. As I said, the last time was 1985 (actually began in 1957) with the Balanced Budget Amendment.

Article V of the Constitution specifies that if the legislatures of two-thirds of the states apply to Congress for a constitutional amendment by means of an amendment-proposing convention, then Congress must call that convention. Between May 8, 1957 (Indiana), and July 21, 1983 (Missouri), such applications, from 32 different state legislatures, were submitted to Congress on the subject of a Balanced Budget Amendment. The petitioning states were Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska,Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.[19] After a dry spell lasting three decades, on November 20, 2013, lawmakers in Ohio provided the 33rd application on the subject (Senate Joint Resolution No. 5) and, on March 26, 2014, Michigan legislators (Senate Joint Resolution "V") provided the 34th. Taking into account the states whose lawmakers rescinded their prior Article V convention applications—and did not later re-apply—this leaves the count at 27 states, or 7 shy of the needed 34.

This wasn't a threat, it is an ongoing process that is still in the works. What this doesn't mention is the reason for the three-decade dry spell, which was Gramm-Rudman. And I further predict, if the measure ever gets the remaining 7 states, when that becomes apparent, the Congress will pass a Balanced Budget Amendment and send it to the states for ratification as opposed to letting an Article V convention happen.

 

[westwall]

A CC is a wet dream for progressives. They realize that the result of one will not be a return to the original concept but instead you would see a rewrite more in line with the UN's
Declaration of human rights. Nowhere is there a mention of the right to bear arms. Nope. Lots of words that mean nothing because there is no way to enforce a single one of them. The UN would LOVE a CC. That would be the final nail in the coffin of US sovereignty.

No thank you.






Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations

"Progressives" generally HATE the idea of letting the States amend the Constitution. They much prefer judicial activism to allowing the People to express their will.

That's certainly how they like to present it. But after they have been dragged kicking and screaming, then the scheming begins. A CC would be the end of this country. Conservatives simply don't play politics very well and would be eaten alive. They simply wouldn't know what hit them.

 

[S.J.]

You're splitting hairs, Boss. It is the very same process. The issues to be voted on are established at the beginning of the process, whether it be one amendment or the entire Constitution. I am not advocating for an entirely new Constitution. In fact, I didn't advocate anything, I asked a question. And it hasn't been tried before either, it was "mentioned" (or you could say "threatened").

Not splitting hairs. There is a HUGE difference between a Constitutional Convention and an Article V Convention to Amend. It's not at all the very same process and there is nothing in the Constitution that allows for a Constitutional Convention.

And sorry, but it most certainly HAS been tried several times. As I said, the last time was 1985 (actually began in 1957) with the Balanced Budget Amendment.

Article V of the Constitution specifies that if the legislatures of two-thirds of the states apply to Congress for a constitutional amendment by means of an amendment-proposing convention, then Congress must call that convention. Between May 8, 1957 (Indiana), and July 21, 1983 (Missouri), such applications, from 32 different state legislatures, were submitted to Congress on the subject of a Balanced Budget Amendment. The petitioning states were Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska,Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.[19] After a dry spell lasting three decades, on November 20, 2013, lawmakers in Ohio provided the 33rd application on the subject (Senate Joint Resolution No. 5) and, on March 26, 2014, Michigan legislators (Senate Joint Resolution "V") provided the 34th. Taking into account the states whose lawmakers rescinded their prior Article V convention applications—and did not later re-apply—this leaves the count at 27 states, or 7 shy of the needed 34.

This wasn't a threat, it is an ongoing process that is still in the works. What this doesn't mention is the reason for the three-decade dry spell, which was Gramm-Rudman. And I further predict, if the measure ever gets the remaining 7 states, when that becomes apparent, the Congress will pass a Balanced Budget Amendment and send it to the states for ratification as opposed to letting an Article V convention happen.

Sorry, but it IS the same process. And attempting to gather support for it is not the same as actually bringing it to fruition and beginning the process. Therefore, it has not been tried before, only discussed. And Gramm-Rudman-Hollings was not article V. Now would you care to actually discuss the topic or do you just want to argue over technicalities?

 

[Boss]

Sorry, but it IS the same process. And attempting to gather support for it is not the same as actually bringing it to fruition and beginning the process. Therefore, it has not been tried before, only discussed. And Gramm-Rudman-Hollings was not article V.

It's NOT the same process and there is nowhere in the Constitution where a Constitutional Convention is mentioned or allowed. Go read it.

The process begins as states submit petitions. They need 34 states in order to convene the convention to AMEND. Then, they have to gain ratification. The Article V method has never resulted in an Amendment directly, however, the process has resulted in several of our Amendments being passed by Congress through the years. You really do need to stop being stubborn with me about this, I know what the fuck I am talking about here. I'm on your side, I'm not the enemy, so stop trying to turn me into one. Read Mark Levin's Liberty Amendments and gain some better understanding of this.

If you keep yammering about a Constitutional Convention which won't ever happen, you'll simply turn people off to the idea entirely. It's very important to point out the convention is to AMEND the Constitution and nothing more. Fear mongering will ensue from those who do not wish to have the Constitution amended and they will point to your yammering to alarm people and dissuade them.

 

[2aguy]

With an overreaching federal government increasingly imposing their will on the American people, running half trillion dollar annual deficits, and shredding the Bill of Rights, many states rights advocates are calling for a Constitutional Convention to stop the dismantling of our republic. Elections don't seem to matter any more, since both parties are working together to deny the will of the people, as this election clearly illustrates.
Article V of the Constitution gives the states the right to do this and it requires two thirds of the states to make it happen. Three fourths are then required to ratify it. It's never been done but the provision is there and a lot of people are fed up with the abuses by our federal government and this could be the only way to make real change.
6 states have signed on so far, 28 more are needed. Would you support such a move?
States' rights advocates eye convention to bypass Congress, amend Constitution | Fox News

The lefties just started drooling....they would love to crack open the Constitution.......

 

[2aguy]

With an overreaching federal government increasingly imposing their will on the American people, running half trillion dollar annual deficits, and shredding the Bill of Rights, many states rights advocates are calling for a Constitutional Convention to stop the dismantling of our republic. Elections don't seem to matter any more, since both parties are working together to deny the will of the people, as this election clearly illustrates.
Article V of the Constitution gives the states the right to do this and it requires two thirds of the states to make it happen. Three fourths are then required to ratify it. It's never been done but the provision is there and a lot of people are fed up with the abuses by our federal government and this could be the only way to make real change.
6 states have signed on so far, 28 more are needed. Would you support such a move?
States' rights advocates eye convention to bypass Congress, amend Constitution | Fox News

Weird, the Left is also looking for an Amendment;

"Wolf PAC is an American non-partisan political action committee formed in 2011 with the goal of "ending corporate personhood and publicly financing all elections in our country", to include the restriction of large monetary donations to political candidates, parties, and groups.[4][5] It began with an announcement at an Occupy Wall Street rally in New York Cityby The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur.[6] On a state level Wolf PAC has bi-partisan support for its objectives.[7]

Its strategy is to add a 28th amendment to the Constitution, thereby overturning multipleSupreme Court cases including Citizens United v. FEC and Buckley v. Valeo, which cumulatively have made it impossible to achieve Wolf PAC's campaign finance goals through simple legislation. Wolf PAC believes that Congress is too corrupt to pass such an amendment itself, and therefore advocates a convention of the States, which is a procedure outlined in Article V of the Constitution. As of July 2015, four out of the necessary thirty-four states have passed resolutions calling for such a convention."

Too bad the two groups couldn't get together somehow.

Why would we want to publicly fund the campaigns of corrupt politicians......?

Jeb spent 140 million dollars and lost.....so money is not the issue.....

 

[S.J.]

Sorry, but it IS the same process. And attempting to gather support for it is not the same as actually bringing it to fruition and beginning the process. Therefore, it has not been tried before, only discussed. And Gramm-Rudman-Hollings was not article V.

It's NOT the same process and there is nowhere in the Constitution where a Constitutional Convention is mentioned or allowed. Go read it.

The process begins as states submit petitions. They need 34 states in order to convene the convention to AMEND. Then, they have to gain ratification. The Article V method has never resulted in an Amendment directly, however, the process has resulted in several of our Amendments being passed by Congress through the years. You really do need to stop being stubborn with me about this, I know what the fuck I am talking about here. I'm on your side, I'm not the enemy, so stop trying to turn me into one. Read Mark Levin's Liberty Amendments and gain some better understanding of this.

If you keep yammering about a Constitutional Convention which won't ever happen, you'll simply turn people off to the idea entirely. It's very important to point out the convention is to AMEND the Constitution and nothing more. Fear mongering will ensue from those who do not wish to have the Constitution amended and they will point to your yammering to alarm people and dissuade them.

YOU'RE the one yammering, Boss. You've had numerous chances to discuss the points made in the link but instead you choose to keep focusing on the wording. I'm not going to indulge you on this any further. If you care to discuss it, fine. Otherwise, bye.

 

[Boss]

YOU'RE the one yammering, Boss. You've had numerous chances to discuss the points made in the link but instead you choose to keep focusing on the wording. I'm not going to indulge you on this any further. If you care to discuss it, fine. Otherwise, bye.

I'm looking at the last few comments and we can see that people are already assuming this will be a convention to rewrite the entire constitution... YOU are causing that misconception, not me... I am trying to clear it up and you want to fight with me about it.

Again, an Article V convention to amend is NOT a Constitutional Convention. It's not semantics or hair splitting... it's just a fact.

The biggest and most pronounced "fears" over an Article V convention is the "runaway convention" notion which is fueled by YOUR misconception of the facts. People believe (because of rhetoric like yours) that such a convention would put the entire Constitution on the table and therefore, would risk a runaway convention completely rewriting our Constitution. It's insane because that could never happen with an Article V convention.

The Article V process is not states petitioning for a convention where we'd get together and decide what we want to put in or take out.... there is no such provision in our constitution for such a thing. The states submit a petition for a convention to amend and the thing they specifically want to amend has to be presented in that petition. If they want to amend for something else, they have to submit an entirely new petition.

 

[Staidhup]

There is no need to rewrite the constitution or call for a constitutional convention, just enforce the laws and bill of rights, hold those elected to political office accountable. Its a great document testifying to the will of man and freedoms granted from God. Live with it or get the hell out of the country!