Dave Rubin Goes All-In for Convention of States (Blaze TV)

Convention of States Action ^ | November 12th 2021 | Mark Meckler

[Jacquerie]

Convention of States.

[Jacquerie]

Article V ping!

[AnotherUnixGeek]

Article V of the Constitution gives us a way to call a convention, propose amendments and shove the federal government back in the constitutional box.

Call a convention? Check.
Propose amendments? Check.
Shove the federal government back in the constitutional box? Why would anyone believe this is what a constitutional convention would achieve? I think it's far more likely that well-organized and well-funded leftists would use the opportunity to simply destroy the Bill of Rights.

[The Pack Knight]

If there was a possible amendment with enough support to be ratified by 38 states, wouldn’t it likely be proposed by Congress first?

[Jacquerie]

Congress will never diminish its powers.

That’s why George Mason, at the end of the federal convention, reintroduced the state-derived applications method.

[rarestia]

They'd do us all a favor by repealing the 17th Amendment and ratifying Article the First.

[Jacquerie]

<>think it’s far more likely that well-organized and well-funded leftists would use the opportunity to simply destroy the Bill of Rights.<>

Do your equate delegates to a Convention of States with members of Congress? If so, that is an error. The states will send delegates with commissions that frame their authority.

[BobL]

Nice idea...but why would the Democrats follow an amended Constitution when they won’t follow our present one?

[lodi90]

Do your equate delegates to a Convention of States with members of Congress? If so, that is an error. The states will send delegates with commissions that frame their authority.

---

That should not inspire confidence after the role that GOP controlled states played in the stolen election of 2020.

[Jacquerie]

All good things are possible with repeal of the 17th and impossible without.

Yes, and congressional districts should be downsized.

[Jacquerie]

Fine. Just keep voting. But doing so reminds me of the common definition of insanity.

[Jane Long]

Better late, than never, right?

[DJ MacWoW]

Absolutely! With Marxists in charge of government and Republicans assisting, this would be a mammoth disaster!

[CA Conservative]

I think it's far more likely that well-organized and well-funded leftists would use the opportunity to simply destroy the Bill of Rights.

Then I don't think you understand how a convention of states works. Any amendments proposed by the convention would still need to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. Unless you think there are 38 state legislatures that are prepared to repeal the Bill of Rights, I think your concerns are misplaced.

I think the greater concern is that we would have a difficult time getting ANY proposed amendments ratified. But I don't think that is an excuse to not try.

[The Pack Knight]

Congress has already proposed “Article the First,” so there is nothing for Congress or an Article V convention to do there. You just need another 27 states to ratify it.

[CA Conservative]

If there was a possible amendment with enough support to be ratified by 38 states, wouldn’t it likely be proposed by Congress first?

Not necessarily. Congress has different priorities than the states. Congress tends to pass things that enhance the power of the federal government, while states tend to prefer things that restrain the power of the federal government.

[usconservative]

BINGO!

And when that happens, the shooting war starts.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

Do your equate delegates to a Convention of States with members of Congress? If so, that is an error. The states will send delegates with commissions that frame their authority.

Those delegates will be subject to the same lobbying and pressure that members of Congress are subject to now. And I don't trust even Republican legislatures to appoint sufficiently conservative delegates. The First and Second Amendments are already under siege by both the Left and RINOs in state legislatures. What would prevent an unrestricted convention from making wholesale changes to both?

An unrestricted constitutional convention with no limits on its scope opens a Pandora's box, with no assurance that we will be happy with the results. We could end up with something even worse than we have now - given the amount of money the Left now has, the support it has from BigTech and the MSM, and the proven effectiveness of these groups in corrupting the 2020 election, conservatives should be very wary of giving such an opportunity to the Left.

[Jacquerie]

Yes. Considering the growth of authoritarian power and oppression these past ten months, it is silly to think Congress will limit itself or the high criminals that occupy the highest federal offices.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

I think the greater concern is that we would have a difficult time getting ANY proposed amendments ratified.

The amendments that conservatives don't like are the ones that will get concerted, organized backing, funding, lobbying and massive media support from BigTech, the MSM, and the rest of the Left machine which successfully corrupted the 2020 presidential and congressional elections. That's what concerns me.