Replies

First and foremost is repeal the 17th Amendment.

We can already do that via Congress, just like they did prohibition. Trump would ask Congress to start the process to repeal the amendment.

Second, begin repeal, or rather overturn dozens of supreme court decisions by constitutional amendment.

So someone takes the amendment(s) to the court system and says we think this/these amendment(s) is/are unconstitutional. It winds itself all the way up to the Supreme Court and they rule it unconstitutional. The amendment is then tossed before it is ever enacted.

You see therein lies the problem, the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitutionality of a law. It can't make or enforce laws, but only rule on them. That's why when we allowed abortion to become law, or gave same sex marriages constitutional protection, it now falls on the court system to reverse itself, and constitutionally that becomes hard, due to precedence. It's a kind of catch-22 legally. It can be done but the makeup of the court is everything, and it may even require judicial activism. I myself think the argument should be that the Supreme Court in affect made law, which is itself unconstitutional. They in fact only ruled on the law that banned all abortions. Which means they cannot make it law that all abortions are legal upon demand at anytime during the pregnancy.

But again these can all be done by Congress. A Constitutional Convention is not necessary. What is necessary is for there to be a overwhelming hue and cry from the populace to motivate Congress to start the process. If they then fail to do so, then a Constitutional Convention may indeed be in order as a recourse of last resort. Realize though that one has never met the requirements needed to compel Congress to call one. Which means they are very hard to get enough momentum to actually go that route.

First, the supreme court can't rule a properly-ratified amendment unconstitutional. If you think that, nothing else you say is worth considering. Second, yes Congress could repeal the 17th amendment. But it won't; the feral federal government will never agree to reduce its power. The only way to get something like this done is via an Article V convention, bypassing Congress entirely.

As for "one has never met the requirements needed to compel Congress to call" an Article V convention, there have been over 400 state resolutions calling for such a convention. Since these resolutions haven't been identically worded Congress has pretended that they didn't meet the constitutional requirements, but the Constitution nowhere says that such resolutions must be identical to be valid. For that reason the Convention of States movement is working to get states to pass identical resolutions. So far, six states have done so, and the resolution is being considered by a fair number more.

I must disagree as Article III does not authorize judical review. Judical review is not in Section 1, Section 2, and of course not in Section 3. Your point that the government doesn’t follow the constitution now so what good would would amending the constitution do, has some merit. I argue that an Article V convention could be used to empower the states to overturn federal dictates without resorting to violence. This begs the question, will the federal government resort to violence to keep their slaves, slaves. I think we have to try and find out.

ahh, but how can they call something in the constitution unconstitutional..... they cannot formalize any reasoned argument for why they would do such a thing. If they could do that, then what is stopping them from claiming that the First amendment is unconstitutional. Once something is added textually to the constitution, unless it strictly goes against what is stated previously. For instance, stating that there is no right to bear arms, there is preceding legal code for that. It would not work unless it was a repeal of the second amendment.