The problem I have with a constitutional convention is that they can ADD to the constitution, but they can also take away from it.
Which of the personal protections would you (general you, not personal) like to see squelched or removed? Shall we strike ‘’shall not be infringed’’ from Amendment 2? Shall we set exceptions to freedom of speech, press, or religion? Shall we eliminate Amendment 4? Or maybe we should allow presidents to become dictators where their executive orders become personal law?
Maybe the convention could do away with Congress totally since they seem so willing to relinquish their authority, and fail to represent the states, not to mention the costs of salaries and benefits...
Once that door is opened, trying to prevent the horse from charging off is going to be a monumental exercise which could lead to a bigger disaster than what we’ve got going on right now!
If we can’t enforce the constitutional laws that we do have right now, what is going to ensure enforcement of MORE laws? We have too many as it is, and most of it is designed to cover the tyrannical government’s ass!
National government’s job is to protect the state’s rights and the rights of the people’s therein. It is NOT the job of fed government to enhance it’s own power while reducing the powers of the states or the peoples.
Until the perspective returns to where it belongs, it’s dangerous to open the door to further destruction.
Simply MHOP
Would you please ping your list of Article V references to PrairieLady2?
First, it's not a constitutional convention, it's a Convention of States with very strict parameters, both of the convention and the delegates.
I am posting the link below which is a list of links that goes into detail, with several that address your specific concerns.
Please check out the Duties of Delegates at the Indiana link. Their duties are limited with penalties if they violate them.
I think the actual Convention of States, once it gets going, has a good chance of adding some very specific amendments to the constitution. Again, the Constitution itself is sacrosanct and will not be touched. If the Convention does not follow the rules, it would be null and void and challenged in court. Also, 38 states would have to ratify any individual amendment that is agreed upon at the convention. That's 38 states. That said, I think it will be difficult to get any amendment passed, but I think ideas such as balanced budget, term limits and others as outlined by Mark Levin are the primary initial amendments being considered, and they are populist ideas.
A concept put forth by many is if the Convention of States really gets going, it will prompt Congress to pass similar amendments. I personally don't see this happening, but it won't hurt to wake up the beltway that we're serious.
I don't have the actual list of links to post but here is a link from another thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3384421/posts?page=15#15
Please review these and let me know what you think.
The door is already open under 5 federal employees with the effective power to make law and inclination not to limit their appointing masters.
Ideally we would have a Constitution that is enforceable, but that isn’t going happen when 5 federal employees can tell the rest of us what that Constitution says.
Checks and balances do not exist when one side gets to make all the rules of all the other sides, There is no more balance than there is check for that side.
The court must be made accountable. The Federal Employee’s edicts Must be restrained with in the domain of the cases before them and NOT extend to telling other elected officials what they must do with their branch of government.
I would recommend reinforcing the 11th amendment but that demented has been repealed in practiced by the Federal Court. A new system of accountability must be put in place where the Court is subjugated to State interest. We had a limited system in the appointment of judges before the 17th amendment made the U.S. Senate anther version of the U.S. House, but we lost that in 1913.
A new system must be invented to bind the interest of the court to respect the rights of the States, unless we repeal the 17th amendment. I favor State veto, if not by State legislators then by State supreme court Justices who are themselves appointed and approved by legislators.