[righttackle44]

What a mess.

Do you do-gooders understand that a Constitutional Convention opens up the entire--the ENTIRE--Constitution for amendment, not just simply the little portions you are concerned about?

That, of course, means that the Mexicans, the Muslims, the gun-dooer-away-withers, and anyone else with an agenda, can put their two-cents ideas into the mix? So instead of amendments having to do with your particular agenda, we may have amendments that legitimize actions that are now illegal?

How would you like abortion as a Constitutionally-guaranteed action? Or the First Lady or First Husband as a paid U.S. employee? Or . . . a First Husband of a male president?

Boy, what a mess.

[Publius]

The amendatory process under Article V consists of three steps: Proposal, Disposal, and Ratification.

Proposal:

There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.

• The Congressional Method requires the House and Senate to pass an amendment by a two-thirds majority.
• The Amendments Convention Method requires the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to petition Congress to call a Convention for Proposing Amendments. The states may request a single-subject convention or a general convention open to all subjects. Once the two-thirds threshold is reached, Congress is required to set a time and place for the convention.

Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.

Disposal:

Once Congress, or an Amendments Convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:

• State Legislature Method, or the
• State Ratifying Convention Method.

The State Ratifying Convention Method has only been used twice: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.

Ratification:

Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three-quarters of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.

Forbidden Subjects:

Article V contains two explicitly forbidden subjects and one implicitly forbidden subject.

Explicitly forbidden:

• No amendment may be added to the Constitution concerning slavery or capitation taxes until 1808. We’re past that deadline.
• No amendment may be added to the Constitution to change the principle of equal representation in the Senate. So if California wants five senators, every state must have five senators. To permit this principle to be violated, this provision in Article V would first have to be amended; it would be a two-step process.

Implicitly forbidden:

• The Constitution of 1787 may not be abrogated and replaced with a new document. Article V only authorizes “a convention for proposing amendments to this Constitution”; therefore, the Constitution of 1787 is locked in place forever. Congress and an Amendments Convention have exactly the same Proposal power; therefore, neither Congress nor an Amendments Convention can start over. Both bodies can only propose amendments. To permit the drafting of a new constitution, this provision in Article V would first have to be repealed; it would be a two-step process.

I have two reference works for those interested.

The first is from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative pro-business group. This document has been sent to every state legislator in the country.

Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers

The second is a 1973 report from the American Bar Association attempting to identify gray areas in the amendatory process to include an Amendments Convention. It represents the view of the ruling class of 40 years ago. While I dislike some of their conclusions, they have laid out the precedents that may justify those conclusions. What I respect is the comprehensive job they did in locating all the gray areas. They went so far as to identify a gray area that didn't pop up until the Equal Rights Amendment crashed and burned a decade later. Even if you find yourself in disagreement with their vision, it's worth reading to see the view of the ruling class toward the process.

Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee

[OneWingedShark]

What a mess.

What in particular do you disagree with?
What can I do to better explain the needs for these amendments?

Do you do-gooders understand that a Constitutional Convention opens up the entire--the ENTIRE--Constitution for amendment, not just simply the little portions you are concerned about?

In any case, whether the whole Constitution is opened for amendment or only the subjects of the amendment-convention, do you not understand that the legislatures of 38 States would have to agree to it?
If you're asserting that we can't count on 13 States to reject utter crap, then the only other recourse is violence. Period.

That, of course, means that the Mexicans, the Muslims, the gun-dooer-away-withers, and anyone else with an agenda, can put their two-cents ideas into the mix? So instead of amendments having to do with your particular agenda, we may have amendments that legitimize actions that are now illegal?

Do you think that less than 13 states would oppose these?

How would you like abortion as a Constitutionally-guaranteed action?

Do you think that less than 13 States would oppose that?

Or the First Lady or First Husband as a paid U.S. employee? Or . . . a First Husband of a male president?

Do you think that less than 13 States would oppose this?

[Repeal The 17th]

“What a mess”...
...that you have such poor skills in comprehension.

[Cheerio]

Artilce V no way opens up the entire Consitution.

[Nuc 1.1]

I understand your concern but what you have stated here is highly improbable. Any amendment proposed by a convention of states must be ratified by the state’s just as any other proposed amendment must be. IMHO none of what you fear could happen because amendments proposing what you fear could ever be ratified.

[John Valentine]

What a mess? What a crock.

These are poorly thought out suggestions. Thankfully they will not be on any agenda for an Article V convention. Still, at least his heart is in the right palce and his head screed on relatively straight.

Unlike the “FUDmasters,” constantly cranking out the crock that an Article V Convention would open up every provision of the Constitution for revision.

Instead of blowing bad smelling smoke, why don’t you make an effort to educate yourself?

[c-b 1]

Levin, and company have picked up on what the ultra rich leftist tax exempt foundatgions, and other lefitsts have been trying to accomplish for 40 years, gave it a new name, and claimed it as their new idea.

I can't understand how doing the work of the leftust tax exempt foundations can have a good outcome.