As SCOTUS decision on Obamacare sinks in, momentum grows for Convention of States

conventionofstates.com ^ | 6/26/15

[Political Junkie Too]

Of course I know. I was responding to your equating repealing with rewriting. You don't repeal whole Articles, you rewrite sections.

Prior to the 21st amendment, all amendments rewrote sections of Articles in the Constitution, or they granted new rights. The 13th and 18th banned behavior (slavery and manufacture/sale of liquor). The 21st is the only repeal, of the 18th.

To the point of contention with an Article V convention, the question is proposing an amendment that is strong enough to withstand (and hopefully discourage) challenge or outright ignoring. I said that a repeal amendment that restores prior structural state processes is hard to avoid; where a writing of new rights is much easier to ignore. A CoS that focuses on structural power of the states is more likely to be successful.

-PJ

[Da Bilge Troll]

"It is too late to get organized and have a convention of the states. "

Wrong. It doesn't matter who we elect - their effect will be temporary. We still need the convention to make structural changes that will be permanent.

[bfh333]

I wish you well...

The adults in the room will continue to “fight” despite your name calling and hyperbole...

Saul Alinsky would be proud of you...

[Armando Guerra]

You do not define what a man or a woman is.

It's a sad world that we live in that you are absolutely correct that the terms man and woman would have to be defined.

[MarMema]

When????

[MarMema]

Don’t we need two more states?

[dware]

Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, so there is nothing proposed to twist

Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, yet here we are with a SCOTUS opinion on marriage, something they have no right or standing to provide an opinion on.

[thorvaldr]

us, every day

[Ted Grant]

The liberals would take over a new constitutional convention and what you will get is far worse than what we have now.

[thorvaldr]

The constitution isn’t a very big document. How about you look up how this convention ifs supposed to work.

[Political Junkie Too]

The closest thing to marriage that I have seen in the Constitution (and it is a Supreme-worthy stretch) is in the Preamble; that the Constitution was ordained and established to secure the Blessing of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity. Certainly, we do not need marriage to produce Posterity, but we do need a coupling between a man and a woman. A gay marriage will not produce Posterity.

-PJ