Assuming that a *rewritten* 1st and 2nd amendment is successfully proposed out of the convention, "muster" means it cannot be willfully ignored or bypassed or challenged in court.
The constant argument here is that the government will ignore CoS amendments, so why bother? Would you not hold the same to be true of a liberal amendment curtailing the 1st or 2nd, in this case coming from the states or special interest groups?
Would you grant that the delegates to a CoS would know this, and take pains to not forward to the states any amendment that is not solid in its structure? To do so, something much more substantive than a clarification on a rewrite (not repeal) would be expected?
-PJ
That depends on the delegates that are elected by the states, and on what those delegates intend to accomplish, and on how little they fear for safety of their families. Governments have an excellent track record in controlling a well defined, small group of people.
Would you grant that the delegates to a CoS would know this, and take pains to not forward to the states any amendment that is not solid in its structure?I can't grant you anything anymore than you can grant me anything on what someone else would do or know.
To do so, something much more substantive than a clarification on a rewrite (not repeal) would be expected?An amendment can't be rewritten (wording clarified) without repealing the previous amendment... I thought you being an Article V advocate would at least know that.
That's why they're calling for THE REPEAL of the 17th amendment. It can't be repealed without a new amendment.
The 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment. The 18th amendment didn't just get erased off the page, it's still there.