All of these are inevitable steps toward the end of the looters' era. May their reign be brief!

Neither. The Convention of States is worth the effort as a next-to-last resort. I am confident that it won't work. Thus, I have shrugged.

There isn't much left. You are correct. All of this is part of the reason why I have shrugged.

OK... so, pouting and using the system for political retribution. Are these reasons FOR or AGAINST an Article V Convention of States?

Then after they pout, they will strike back like Obama's coming after his enemies with the IRS goons.

They will pout. Do you remember when the Wisconsin Democrats picked up and moved to Illinois to force Scott Walker to cave to the teachers' unions? Their childish little ploy fortunately didn't work, but that is what we should expect from these petulant looters. They act entitled to loot you, as if it is their money.

I don't mean to sound argumentative here, but what are you saying they will do? Just sit there and pout? A convention is parliamentary in nature and such that nothing is done without approval from the Chair. How are they going to "not follow" that rule?

I know that is what the "rules" are. I just don't expect that following rules is in their self-interest.

Well, OK, then… if they refuse to play well with others, they simply won’t be invited… at least not in enough numbers to matter.

I’m only being partially facetious here. The way the delegate selection works is as I’ve said – the state legislatures will select as many or as few delegates as they want and commission them to represent their state at the COS. It’s a one-state, one-vote affair, so it doesn’t matter if there are one or 100 delegates, it will not change the final vote count on any proposal.

And let me clarify something that I said earlier: The delegates WILL be state legislators, and they WILL be sent to the convention with a specific agenda, and they WILL be subject to recall under penalty of law, but none of this is in the text of Article V of the Constitution. These are convention rules established over more than two hundred and some-odd years of multi- and interstate assemblies, dating back to the Colonial “compact” days, and enshrined in current-day legislation being passed at the state level in conjunction with this application to Congress for a Convention of States. It’s all in the fine print, and if Democrats are good at anything, it’s fine print.

But more to your point, let’s take a quick tally of Redness and Blueness out there in the states. If you look at the number of state legislatures that are currently controlled by conservatives (26) versus those controlled by liberals (18)*, conservatives have a clear and commanding majority, and one that only stands to increase in the midterm election, both in state governorships and chambers of the legislature controlled by conservatives.

Certainly there will be states like California, New York, Illinois, Hawaii and others that will send their flaming extremists, but as I’ve pointed out, the rules dictate that it’s a one-state, one-vote system.

So even if the liberal delegates were somehow able to approach the number of conservative delegates, no leftist proposal (or ANY proposal, for that matter) can be passed inside the convention short of a 2/3 vote of the states, and that just isn’t mathematically possible.

* Source: https://www.statescape.com/resources/par...

Your premise is that the Democrats will follow the "the delegates to the COS will be state legislators, not federal, and they will be elected as “commissioners” and sent to the convention with a specific agenda, subject to recall by the sending legislatures under penalty of law." That is what the Constitution says, but the Democrats will not follow that. They will not.

Actually, that’s one of the misconceptions that’s being spread around about Article V. The delegates to the COS will be state legislators, not federal, and they will be elected as “commissioners” and sent to the convention with a specific agenda, subject to recall by the sending legislatures under penalty of law. Remember, the government that best represents the people is the government closest to the people.

As a matter of fact, members of Congress are precluded by constitutional law (Article 1, Sec 6, Clause 2) from holding another elected or appointed position simultaneously. And if you really think about it, what sense would it make for the Founders to give the states a method of bypassing Congress if Congress were to be allowed to participate in the decision-making? Article V is pretty clear that the only authority that Congress has in the entire process is to “call” the convention in response to the requisite number of applications. Congress MUST (that’s the word in the text) set the time and place of the convention (and for ratification, they get to choose the method - either by state convention or a vote of the legislature), but that’s it… and then the delegates, after they've convened, can even change the location that Congress designates to a place of their own choosing, as they’ve done before, most famously in the 1922 multi-state Colorado River Compact. Granted, the subject matter at that assembly wasn’t the Constitution, but it was, in all other respects, a convention of states to propose legislation that eventually would require ratification by all the states involved.

And I’m relieved to hear that my remarks weren’t offensive. As can often be the case, when passion exceeds the time available, things don’t always come out right!

One last comment, then I have to run – unfortunately, I’m still a working stiff – you referred to the Founders’ language as “very clearly written,” and for the most part, that would be a fair characterization. In hindsight, however, looking at some of the most egregious interpretations of that language, a fairly unassailable argument can be made in certain specific instances for clarification, if not re-write. Let me emphasize that no one I know wants a wholesale overhaul of the Constitution, or anything even close to that. We’re talking about closing the loopholes that the SCOTUS has found, is finding, and will continue to find until and unless they are restrained by the written words they now broadly construe. Opponents of the A5 movement are often heard to say, “They don’t obey the Constitution now, what makes you think they will after it’s amended?” I would counter that they do, indeed, obey the Constitution… as it is interpreted by the Supreme Court. And therein lies the problem.

To borrow a catch-phrase from Citizens for Self-Governance, the primary sponsors of the Convention of States Project, “Article V – It’s a solution as big as the problem!”

CSG COS - http://conventionofstates.com/

I'm not offended. The point of the analogy was to emphasize the importance of caution in what could be a volatile situation. In general, I like the Convention of States idea, and have been criticized reasonably by others in this forum for taking that stance.

Part of this hesitance stems from the fact that those in all three branches of government has been successful in twisting the very clear written documents that the Founding Fathers authored. There was much reasonable debate then. Now many delegates to such a convention would include Charles Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, et al., all of whom are far less trustworthy than any of those at the original Constitutional Convention.

Well, since we no longer have our liberties, “Hope” is just about all we have left… except for the 7.62x39 (To the NSA: that’s a joke, guys)

I completely understand the resistance of some to “tinker” with the Constitution. I felt exactly the same way for years. As a matter of fact, I used to think that people like me were kinda out there on the fringe, whackos, if that’s no too politically incorrect, until I actually took a look at what the Fivers are doing today and set aside my old (and I do mean old) prejudices.

The Article V movement and the legislation that they are advancing through state legislatures across the nation is making it a brand new ballgame, with multiple layers of built-in procedural safeguards to address all the fears brought up by the John Birch Society and the Eagle Forum. I would invite you to spend an hour or so at ConventionOfStates.com… it may completely change your position on the issue. As a bit of an incentive, I’ll mention that many great conservative thinkers and leaders have recently re-examined the issue and subsequently joined in support of an Article V Convention... people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, George Will, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Mike Church, David Barton, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, Alan West and Tom Tancredo, among others. Needless to say, none of these people would be considered by any serious conservative to be reckless or incapable of sound judgment, regardless of our personal opinions regarding other aspects of their character. And, of course, I can’t forget to mention the man who some consider to be the father of the modern-day A5 movement, Mark Levin.

What brought me around was when I finally realized that the Constitution is being “amended” every day… either by a stroke of the president’s pen, or by the Supreme Court reading something into the words of the Founders that they never intended. I simply don’t believe that the Equal Protection clause was meant to defend abortion on demand, or sodomy, or same-sex marriage. And as I've said before in another post, I don’t remember Congress passing any amendments codifying these “constitutional rights.”

If they can do it without the blessings of the Constitution, why can’t we do it legitimately? That’s not a rhetorical question.

I took a shot at your “explosives” analogy in an earlier post, and if that came off as insulting, I apologize. It just concerns me when folks characterize the process and our intent in those terms. I love this country, its ideals and its founding documents as much as the next guy, so I feel obliged to offer clarification in circumstances where I see that it’s needed, and when I saw the implication that supporters of an Article V Convention of States run the risk of blowing up our government, my response was that this clearly was one of those circumstances.

Once again, I truly respect your hesitance to making a headlong rush into such matters. I would only ask that you acknowledge that many people have given this much thought, and know that there is an ongoing effort of sober and deliberate planning that may well span over a number of years, however long it takes. This is not pie in the sky. This is no longer just the idle talk of political strategists. It is real, and it is happening. We simply cannot let the fear of a possible “runaway convention” over-ride our reason and ignore the reality of an absolutely runaway federal government.

I will try it before going to war, but I don't hold out a lot of hope.

Glad to be here! Sad to say, but I never thought it would come to this... not in my lifetime. But it has, and thank God there are places like this where we can go to gather our thoughts and ideas and debate them, the good and the bad, and ultimately to plan a response!

Exactly... NEXT to last. The Founders believed that we should resort to violence only after all peaceful means of remedy had been tried... and failed.

They gave us this tool just for such a circumstance... Don't you think that the least we can do is respect their wisdom and use it?

The convention of states was designed as a next-to-last resort, and I hope it doesn't have to get that far. But...

Thank you very much, Rim Country, for joining our little discussion. Welcome to the Gulch!

One thing that seems to have been overlooked in these comments is that, as long as we remain a free country, the Left is as entitled as anyone to try to advance an Article V Convention of States movement all they want. Their agenda, of course, will be to grow and expand the scope and power of the federal, all at the expense of the states. That's just the way they roll.

Personally, I wish them the best of luck. Since all it takes is 13 states to block any ratification attempt - actually, just one chamber in the legislatures of those 13 states would be enough - and since no less than 26 state houses are now controlled by conservatives, a number that only looks likely to increase after the midterm, I think George Soros' chances of success are pretty slim. Even he doesn't have enough money to buy off that many state legislators. The government that most represents the people is the government closest to the people.

So, OK... that's the Left. We, on the other hand, would be that other group... the ones a bit further to the right on the political spectrum... the activists who support an entirely different and separate Article V Convention of States project... the one that would be called exclusively and specifically to propose amendments to the Constitution that would impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, that would limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and that would limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress. And that's just for starters.

To conflate the two does a disservice to folks who know better, and especially to those who don't. We should strive to change opinion and to win over the hearts and minds of others based on the strength of our arguments, not by a misrepresentation of the truth, unintentional or otherwise.

For anyone interested in the real deal on what conservatives are up to with regard to A5, here's a very info-rich website: CSG COS - http://conventionofstates.com/

And for those who haven't read Article V since high school mandatory reading, here it is... it's only 140 words, but they can rock our world: A5 - http://www.archives.gov/federal-register...

Excellent analysis of a convention, Wanderer... and I think you're 100% right about the 10th Amendment laws. Not only has state nullification never been upheld when litigated, even if it were, it still couldn't solve problems like term limits and NSA spying, like the federal deficit or the growing national debt, or the court using international treaties and foreign law to interpret US law, or the executive getting us into undeclared wars with the stroke of a pen, or a million other things, the remedies for which are not found in the 10th Amendment, remedies that require courage and action, not dithering in fear.

And IMHO, I don't think that the "explosives" analogy is a good one at all. No one that I know of is talking about blowing anything up.

@Hiraghm - Although your comment was hidden when I arrived here, due, I have learned, to a lack of UP votes, I viewed your remarks anyway and am glad that I did.

You are right on all counts. We do not have a democracy, and we never have. The Constitution established a republican form of government specifically to avoid the pitfalls of a democracy, e.g. the tyranny of a simple majority, among others which were well known at the time to our Founders. That the term was incorrectly used in an eMail from the Left doesn't surprise me at all.

You might have gone on to point out that amending the Constitution is not done by a majority vote, either. It would take 2/3 of the delegates at a convention to even propose an amendment, and then after the convention adjourned, it would then take 3/4 of the state legislatures (both houses) in order to ratify any such proposals.

Conversely, it would only take one chamber in each of 13 state legislatures to stop anything... that's ANYthing... from becoming the Law of the Land. That's a pretty high bar, if you ask me, for those who are fearful of a convention doing something foolish.

And as for your observation that we are devolving toward totalitarianism... it's been a long time since Civics class, but IIRC, a leftward move on the political spectrum from a republic (less government) to a totalitarian state (most government) involves the ascension of an oligarchy, or a political structure where power effectively rests with a small number of people. Think Congress (535), plus SCOTUS (9), plus POTUS (1), equals a pretty damned small number of people.

Nuff said, sir.

Our problem is not the Constitution... it's the way it's being interpreted by the courts. No one is calling for a re-write, but there certainly is some language that could use some clarification, to close some of the "loopholes" that the courts keep finding.

Anyway, if people fear amending the Constitution, they should stop and think about this: The courts are doing just that every day... without the consent of Congress, without a vote of the people, without even so much as a signature of the president... while we sit by and do nothing.

The Founders (George Mason in particular) gave us Article V so that the states could act when the federal government failed or refused to do so. What's it gonna take...?

States can't. They're addicted to cash from the Federal Gov't. If a state pops-off, the feds withhold hiway funding, education, etc.
If states are willing to take on those losses, then they can take the stick away from DC.
A Con-con is fairly limited and difficult to pull off. Bottom Line, you need 3/4 of the states to ratify anything that comes of it. We can't 5 states to agree on anything.
Limit the con-con to repealing the 12th, and 17th amendments and I feel we can restore control of our gov't back to the people, get the big money out of out elections, and put a serious dent in the two party grip on our gov't.
Change nothing else in the constitution, and see the ramifications of these 2 changes.

That may lead to anarchy but what We have isn't working out so well.