A Question for Article V State Amendment Convention Opponents

[Jacquerie]

To Free Republic opponents of Article V, I put this question, “what infringement of our natural and constitutional rights, or other high crime against our republic, could compel you to support an Article V state amendment convention to propose amendments to our constitution?”

[LS]

No, of course they are not conservatives, but 90% of the state legislatures are not "conservative," nor are the governors. Name 30 governors who could be counted on to name delegates we could trust?

For ex., do you think Jan Brewer of AZ would nominate Sarah Palin or John McCain to such a ConCon? I know it would be McCain. Here in OH, Kasich is a good guy---but he'd nominate the Tafts or the DeWines, not rock-ribbed conservatives. You might get a decent block of delegates from Scott Walker or Nikki Haley.

The feeling in the Weimar Republic was that they were "morally bankrupt" and/or completely nonfunctional, and surely the Nazis could do better, so what the heck.

[LS]

ANY---I repeat---ANY gathering of national delegates empowered to amend ANY part of the Constitution will begin by amending their own instructions, and then INVALIDATING the ratification process. (This is precisely what the Articles congress did.)

You don't think it will be a Concon, but I guarantee you, THEY WILL and they will treat it that way.

[T Ruth]

Thank you for a thoughtful reply.

I think the true battleground is the culture: the schools, universities, news and entertainment media, Hollywood. The battle will be a decades-long slog, and it is late in the day. Until the tide starts to turn, the role of political battle will be mostly defensive: to prevent further losses and preserve freedom of action for the cultural battle. Trying for offensive gains with inadequate force and on unfavorable terrain is likely to result in serious defeat and loss of positions that could have been defended.

[EternalVigilance]

Who will pick the delegates?

Will it not be the same political class that refuses to keep their oaths to support and defend the Constitution as it now exists?

Personnel IS policy.

Garbage in, garbage out.

I say NO.

Direct your limited resources of time, energy and money to throwing all the bums out. Replace them with folks who understand their oaths, and who have a proven commitment to keeping them.

[ctdonath2]

There is no problem with the Constitution.

The problem is adherence thereto and enforcement thereof.
If people won’t be persuaded by plain words, more words won’t help.

[plain talk]

I reject your premise. Nice try though.

[SatinDoll]

There already exists the power of the States. Texas should call up its Texas National Guard to protect our border. Gov.Perry is owned completely by the same folks who own Boehner, Reid, Obama, and the Bush family.

Without leadership OR a revolution, we are most likely finished as a constitutional republic.

[RKBA Democrat]

I agree that the problem with a concon being a runaway is not going to happen. Because I don’t see the concon happening at all, and for much the same reason you’ve discussed why it won’t be a runaway convention: you need 3/4 of the states to ratify. Which means that 1/4 plus one can scuttle anythIng that comes out. Here are 15 states that would be likely to do exactly that;

HI, CT, MA, NY, CA, RI, VT, WA, OR, MN, NJ, ME, NM, DE, MD.

[familyop]

"The feeling in the Weimar Republic was that they were 'morally bankrupt' and/or completely nonfunctional, and surely the Nazis could do better, so what the heck."

That's certainly a danger. Everyone should be educated with the fact, along with a few other facts, that Nazis were overly concerned about appearances.

[nathanbedford]

The original Articles delegates had "restrictions" placed upon them "by the states."

You are rewriting history.

And don't give me this crap about what "fight" I'm in

You have not answered the point that the left is already attempting to rewrite the First Amendment proving that the left does not need us to initiate an Article V process. You are indeed in that fight but don't worry they are not going to be able to change the first or the Second Amendment because of the arithmetic I pointed out in my post #52 which I again recommend to your attention.

There is a history of conventions and there is a history of states controlling their delegates. The United States has never had a runaway convention including the Constitutional convention in Philadelphia in 1787 which was fully within the charter of the Articles of Confederation and the authorizations of the states and was properly ratified.

In short there is no historical American basis for your fears.

[nathanbedford]

I fully agree with your point which I describe as culture trumps politics.

However, with respect to your point:

"Trying for offensive gains with inadequate force and on unfavorable terrain is likely to result in serious defeat and loss of positions that could have been defended"

I disagree on both points. If our forces are inadequate, they will never be stronger until we have a black Swan event. The terrain is not unfavorable but rather the most favorable available among a majority of Republican held conservative states rather than in an electoral college with the numbers are not to our advantage anymore or in the national legislature were, even when we have a nominal majority, establishment Republicans sell us out.

There is the possibility of a moral defeat with the loss of conviction and persistence but that is an imponderable which is difficult to quantify and it might just work in precisely the opposite fashion.

[OneWingedShark]

Those are awesome amendments! The only critique I have is the one about the fed paying its employees in gold only—how do you deal with the military, which, in war may number in the millions, and where would you find that amount of gold in a legitimate war, where, say the United States is attacked bodily and some states are invested by the enemy?

Part of my rationale for that is to keep the number of federal employees down; also the requirement that all payments to the States be gold should restrict the federal-payout game that they seem to be playing (i.e. by forbidding easy [eg electronic, or paper] transfer of assets the Federal government would be more inclined to not spend).

[OneWingedShark]

There is no problem with the Constitution.

There are:

1. There is no penalty for government agents who violate it.
2. There is no limitation on that of Taxation.
3. The Senate is now a super-HoR.
4. The current 'interpretation' of the Commerce Clause

[RipSawyer]

Post no. three says it all, there is really nothing to add. I could think up other ways to say the same thing but that is pointless.

[RipSawyer]

You just mowed down a regiment of straw men. The point is that the vast majority of our problems could be solved by simply abiding by the constitution as it exists, even with its flaws, most of which are the result of previously passed amendments. There is no point in giving the same crowd a different constitution to ignore. They proudly support the constitution when it says or they can pretend it says what they want it to say. They studiously ignore anything which says something they don’t like. Without some way to change that fact there is simply zero point in proposing new amendments. It matters not what a doctor prescribes for a patient who will not take his medicine.

[nathanbedford]

Please see my post #31.

If, for example, term limits are imposed much of the dynamic which generates the culture which ignores the Constitution will be changed for the better. So it is with a series of "process" amendments. It is virtually impossible, for example, to evade a term limit amendment.

So, we will not be giving "the same crowd" a new constitution to ignore, we will be creating a "new crowd" who in their turn will spawn future generations of Washington insiders that will piss off our great-grandchildren. Meanwhile, the Republic might be saved.

Let us avoid the counsel of despair and let us not permit the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[Tau Food]

If this country’s House of Representatives cannot summon up the courage to impeach this president, then I have to wonder if it is possible to get this country to call for another Constitutional Convention. Maybe this could happen after an impeachment.

[nathanbedford]

Please see my reply #51.

[Jacquerie]

I notice the roar of crickets to your question.

[LS]

Then we have a totally different reading of the Articles convention, and your arithmetic is useless when it comes to political reality.