No, because the interest of state legislators are often contrary and opposed to the interests of federal Congressman.
Posted on 11/13/2021 10:19:43 AM PST by Jacquerie
Article V opponents typically equate an Article V state amendments convention with congress, an institution in which freedoms and rights are easily traded away today for money, media support, and reelection tomorrow.
This is an erroneous comparison, for congress is popularly derived and thoroughly corrupted from its designed purposes. An Article V convention will be new, fresh, uncorrupted, and federal, just like the only other remaining federal institution from 1787, the familiar Electoral College (EC).
Like an Article V amendments convention, operation of the EC is extra-congressional and controlled by the states. Not only congress, but the executive and judiciary have no more authority to regulate or participate in the deliberations or parliamentary rules of an Article V convention than they do to direct the EC.
Both federal institutions derive their independence from discrete sources in the Constitution itself. Like the EC, an Article V convention is temporary, and neither can be made subservient to any branch of the government. This renders the Article V convention distinct from, and superior to, the three existing branches.
If the states are so wild and politically insane such that everyone should fear the outcome of a convention, why haven’t we experienced a ‘runaway’ session of the EC? States do not have to cast their votes for the nominee of any political party. The EC is a one-day event outside the control of congress or scotus. Why hasn’t the EC proved to be dangerous? How often do electors disobey their duty under state law?
Typically you propose 3-4 things with the idea that you settle on at least one which for me would be the term limits.
We should also consider all the Scotus decisions that removed so many disputes from the public square, the give and take of a free people to decide for themselves.
All the social justice “rights” like abortion, the shape of electoral districts, homosexual marriage and so many others that don’t come to mind are beyond the reach of society.
As opposed to constitutional amendments, which can be removed by the amendment process (like the 18th amendment), judicial outrages are beyond the reach of a supposedly self-governing society.
Correct. So let’s give the Framers’ peaceful means a try to do an end-run around, a flanking movement around our ruling oligarchy.
I am fundamentally against Article V as seen by the Convention of States Mob. They subscribe 100 percent to the idea and talking point that nothing can go wrong with their plan.
I appreciate the link that I haven’t seen before that leads to history and study of the Article the First issue. Thanks.
FBI and the deep state would declare such a thing terrorism and shut it down. It would likely trigger a civil conflict.
Being rightly concerned about this is “hysterical” (LOL!)?
Under your calm reasoning that you are very confident about, what’s the point then? Why are people cheering this?
There is now way in heaven and earth, that any leftist would ever agree to anything that would make enough of a majority for any changes.
There is a large amount of evidence that lily-livered leftist RINO’s are more than willing to capitulate to the left. Look no further than this last week.
I trust very few people to do the right thing, and definitely no politicians.
“Amendments to the Constitution change the Constitution.”
Only if ratified. Duh.
.
No, because the interest of state legislators are often contrary and opposed to the interests of federal Congressman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.