You start by proposing non-discretionary amendments. What if an amendment to repeal the 17th amendment passes, or a term-limits amendment passes? Do you really think that a sitting Senator can "defy the Constitution" and refuse to vacate his seat?
2. A Article V convention is a pandora’s box. The Left would love to rewrite the Constitution, so that they could start being Constitutionally correct. Their rewrites will be a long list of group rights and a short list of individual right repeals.
Are you one of the people that the author of this article was writing about?
But today the idea of restricting the scope of an amendments convention is in play for a very different reason: to placate fear-mongers who gratuitously assert that the assembly would be the constitutional equivalent of a nuclear bomb. Though completely discredited, this remnant of opponents from the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) dustup of the 1980s sees only sinister plots. To this day, the opponents continue to feign ignorance of the distinction between an Article V Convention for Proposing Amendments -- which, needless to say, proposes amendments -- and a full authority Constitutional Convention.
-PJ
You can start proposing whatever you'd like, but so can any other attendee. They may not have voted for an Article V for the same reasons you did. NY or MA may have voted for the Article V to repeal the Second Amendement, you know, some common sense changes.
If we reach a point where we actually have 38 rock solid red states and that isn't a worry, then I'm on board. Right now, I'm not seeing that.
To this day, the opponents continue to feign ignorance of the distinction between an Article V Convention for Proposing Amendments -- which, needless to say, proposes amendments -- and a full authority Constitutional Convention.
Yep, that's me. At least sort of. I understand the distinction, I fail to see the difference. Let me repeal and add amendments to a document and I can quickly make it whatever I want it to be, without ever starting from scratch.