Replies

These numbers have huge implications for the Article V movement.

The gainsayers among conservatives fear a runaway convention which results in the loss of existing Bill of Rights liberties and the potential for a worse constitutional system. Most of these objections come from people who are myopically focused on the Second Amendment and fear that any Article V activity threatens their right to own and bear arms.

With 66 of 99 legislative houses firmly in control of Republicans, these fears are obviously groundless. It would require three quarters of the state legislatures to force such distortions of the Constitution through and that is simply a practical impossibility. Those conservatives who oppose a convention of the states should reconsider their position in the light of these numbers.

Because Republicans have acquired more control the ability of conservatives to secure meaningful amendments through an Article V convention of the states has been enhanced but is by no means assured. But the downside risk has been virtually eliminated.

In addition to your points, I would remind opponents there are around 1.1 guns/American, say 340 million or so.

IIRC, a recent Connecticut law requires some form of gun registration, which has been largely ignored and local law enforcement is in no hurry to enforce.

In 2000, algore went waaaay out his way at the opening of a debate w/GWB to make it very clear that he supported the 2A.

Outside of the moonbat Left there is minuscule, practical opposition to gun rights.

As for the rest of the Bill of Rights, they are largely gone. The remaining peaceful way to possibly restore them is via Article V.

One other aspect of Article V hasn't been discussed very much at FR. Though I know elements of the national government predictably thinks otherwise, the language of Article V doesn't require the states to make identical applications to Congress.

From Federalist 85, just two thirds of them need to apply and Congress must call a convention, and it is at the convention where amendments are proposed.

I won't assign comments to the Framers which I can't prove, but two thirds of the states to merely call a convention is not an especially high hurdle. I don't think it was designed to be as difficult, nearly impossible as the modern statists would have it. It is about what the Articles of Confederation required for major, weighty decisions.

However, three-fourths to ratify amendments is far higher, yet less than the unanimous consent required under the Articles, which BTW were never amended because of it, and in itself lead to the Federal Convention.

Based on the explicit wording of Article V, it is clear that congress must call a state convention to propose amendments when two thirds have applied, with or without justification in the form of amendments.