We’re talking about political power here — do not for a moment assume it only “...would be to propose amendments...”. My main concern is the agenda, and who controls it. That is why I do not like the idea of an Article V Convention.
Right now we can propose amendments in Congress. Because of Obama we probably won’t be successful at getting them implemented, but it would be a start.
Propose a marriage amendment, making it only between one man and one woman.
Propose an amendment declaring life began at the Universe’s Creation (one cannot make a baby from inert or dead materiel).
I believe both are entirely possible to pass and send to the States.
What does Obama have to do with constitutional amendments? That's a legislative function.
/johnny
Seriously, read the Constitution or take some civics classes. Amendments can be proposed in two ways, namely through a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress or via a convention of the states (Article V Convention). In either case, proposed amendments are sent to the states for ratification, either by state legislatures or special state ratification conventions. The President has no power whatsoever regarding the amendment process.
I think you’re dreaming if you think either of those two amendments you propose could possibly garner support of 2/3 of both houses of Congress. The ONLY way that such amendments could even hope to see the light of day is through an Article V convention. Even then, I seriously doubt they’d pass muster.
The ONLY power that the Article V convention has is proposing amendments. There’s no political power involved. The convention proposes amendments which are then subject to the normal ratification procedure by the states. That would place a very restrictive limit on its power. Do you seriously believe that, for instance, 38 states would ratify a repeal of the 2nd amendment?