Yes... they used to refer to it as "comity"... nowadays, that quaint notion is more akin to its near-homonym, "comedy!"

I'm tempted to agree with you, simply to avoid having to come to the defense of the thousands of honorable legislators you've just painted with your broad brush! Certainly there are some who shouldn't be allowed out of your sight, but they are not the majority... at least not the majority of those who will be attending the COS.

I thought that I had already described the process of delegate selection, but maybe that was in another forum.

To begin with, the "assumption" that the delegates will speak for the states is not only correct, it is critical. Without delegates sworn to uphold their legislative commission, there would be no reason to call for a convention, and other than paranoia and an oft-stated general distrust for "anyone involved in the political process", you've offered no evidence to support your fear that they won't.

There have been no less than 32 multi-state conventions in the United States - at least 21 prior to the Declaration of Independence, and another 11 between 1776 and 1786. And that's not to mention the Washington Conference of 1861 or more recently, the Colorado River Compact of 1922. Nowhere in the records of any of these assemblies are there reports of delegates breaching their commissions en masse and absconding with the convention. It just hasn't happened.

But despite a couple centuries of scandal-free events, the organizers of the COS are thinking like you and being very cautious. The delegates will be selected by the participating states based, among other things, on their fealty to the Constitution, particularly those states in favor of limiting the size and scope of the federal. It would make no sense whatsoever for a pro-COS state to send a wishy-washy delegate. But just to ensure that all possible bases are covered, the states that are passing the application are also passing concurrent legislation requiring a sworn commission, and imposing penalties (a felony here in Arizona) for failure to perform, plus they are all subject to immediate recall by vote of the legislature.

Not all of the states are required to attend, mind you. It takes just 28 to meet the Article V threshold for a mandatory call. There may be some liberal leaning states who will simply opt out. Frankly, that would be the best of all possible worlds, but we're not counting on it. Just as the Democrat Party recently toyed with the idea of boycotting the House Select Committee on Benghazi, but eventually agreed to participate as the minority party, even if only to interrupt, interfere and obfuscate, many if not all of the liberal states will send delegates as well, with those same "progressive" intentions, no doubt.

But just as the House Select Committee investigation will proceed to its conclusion, so will a Convention of States. If it were easy, it would have already been done a long time ago.

Sorry Rimcountry. I still do not want an article V convention.

RimCountry, you have won on this one.

I'm glad that my wife and I are not the only ones to still be happily married. And for all those who respond to this one, may your marriages be blessed as much as mine is. I do have certain weaknesses; fortunately they don't bother my wife. Moroever, she is strong where I am weak, so it all works out.

Those senators are pretty pretentious, aren't they?

Indeed you did ask for that one. ;)

You've cleverly dodged the issue again: It's not too late. The law (Article V) is still on our side. All we have to do is apply it.

Internal controls... I like it.

In the 35 years that Suzy & I have been married, there were a couple periods of turmoil, caused mostly by my lack of respect for her wants and/or needs. The first event we somehow managed to stumble through. The second, nearly 30 years later, almost ended the marriage.

As a result, I made a number of commitments, some of them to others, but mostly to myself. One of those was, "When listening to others, listen to learn, then honor their needs."

Somehow, it just made more sense than anything that St. Paul ever taught me, and so far, so good.

Agree to the letter... I might only add that the "pretense" of cordiality and respect went out the window.

Man, I asked for that one, didn't I?

OK... the only frame of reference I have for what it sounds like you're describing is maybe something along the lines of the process used in electroplating, e.g., chrome to steel, etc., only I would expect the bath to be different, the current much lower, and the component parts would be considerably smaller... as in no-seeums.

Smelling salts are quartenary amines, meaning that they have N atoms and are actually ionic (salts). They are common templating agents for making nanomaterials.

That would be a clever app, but it's outside of my expertise. State politicians are an improvement. The assumption is that the CoS will represent the state's interests. All poliiticians will do what is in their best interest. We have few, if any, statesmen or stateswomen in politics anymore.

I'm not afraid of boogeyman, but we already have a bloodless coup.

I literally PRAY that he gets seriously primaried in 2016... then maybe he'll be forced to switch parties (like Crist), get defeated, and then he'll have to go out and get a real job in this economy that he's helped to damned near destroy!

Really... now I'm intrigued. Not a scientists here, but very curious... up until the point where it hurts to think that hard.

No amendment that conflicts with any part of the Constitution would ever survive ratification. Once ratified, it is the Law of the Land, and the Constitution speaks plainly to the way (the ONLY way) that it can be changed: Article V.

So, of course it matters, jbrenner... from the instant that it is ratified it matters, and it continues to matter every second of every day, 24/7/365, right up until that dark and distant moment when some hypothetical, yet-to-be-conceived lawyer you've envisioned magically re-invents jurisprudence without benefit of law.

That would be called a coup.

After that happens, the country is all his... what's left of it.

This is no different from your other "sky is gonna fall" arguments, j... if you expect me to be afraid of this boogeyman, you're going to have to put a little more meat on his bones. This one's less than pathetic.

;)

99% agreement here, jbrenner... but here's the 1%:

FEDERAL politicians are not empowered by our COS movement. To the contrary, they are dis-empowered. It is the STATE legislators who stand only to benefit from returning to them power appropriated by the Fed.

That's why this entire movement is initiated at the state level, completely independent of the federal government, as provided for in Article V.

But other than that, you're right on the money... as long as judges are human they will be subject to human failings, if bias is, indeed, a failing.

Hey... maybe there's an idea you could toss into your inventor's cauldron: The iJudge app.

I have no problem with guilt that is well-earned. I get over it, but without guilt as a check, I would probably be far less respectful of others than I should be.

Your state's senator McCain would undoubtedly try to set himself as that arbiter. Oh, that's right, he did via McCain-Feingold.

Actually smelling salts are quite important to my work in nanotechnology, the area that I have made most of my research reputation in.

Ignorance by choice, as opposed to circumstance. Sad.

At the very least, you think you do.

And, if it's any consolation, I think you do, too... so if Descartes were here in The Gultch, he'd posit that we are either both products of our own and each other's consciousness simultaneously, or we're some insignificant part of someone else's hallucination!

Please... no smelling salts... I'm not done yet!

OK... that makes sense... I've stopped getting the requests for further contributions from Kickstarter, but I do still get the follow-on updates for the project to which I contributed, in this case, AS III.

And thanks for your kind words!