Could limit the power of Congress to delegate that authority.

I do not doubt but that popular hysteria might not compel the Congress to send the matter to the states and for the states to ratify them.

Half the states voted for Hitlery. Given how much the looters have to lose if the people regain control of government and how easily the looters and statists manipulate the limits of the constitution and manipulate the judgement of officers of the court, I have no confidence in your arguments, Storo. I think we both want the same thing, but I think it unlikely to be achieved peacefully because the statists will use force if necessary to retain power.

The excerpt above is simply wrong for reasons stated in my earlier post below. This is simply misinformation that is either from a source that doesn't understand Article 5 of the Constitution, or from a source connected to the Washington Ruling Class cabal.

If you read Article 5, all Amendments passed by the Convention of States will still need to be ratified by 3/4 ths of the States, or 38 states, in order to become part of the Constitution. Given this, it is unlikely that even a runaway convention could pass anything that is radical, like throwing out the Constitution, or the 2nd Amendment, or the like.
Secondly, the group at conventionofstates.com has published model legislation for use by the states, the operable part of which reads:

"Section 1. The legislature of the State of __ hereby applies to Congress, under the provisions of Article V of the Constitution of the United States, for the calling of a convention of the states limited to proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress."

These are the limited purposes for which a convention would be called. Anything else is out of order.
It is clear that the ruling cabal in Washington have neither the will, stomach, nor the courage to address the issues of over spending and government overreach that concern the American People. It is equally clear that our elected and appointed officials in Washington have as their primary goal to continue "business as usual", and ignoring the real problems of the country and the true needs of the Country.
This is why I strongly support a Convention of States as outlined above. It's time for the American People to take back our country, and get overreaching, oppressive government under control as our Founding Fathers intended.

The Constitutional Separation of Powers between the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches must be preserved. Stripping the Rules and Regulations practices away from the Executive branch and replacing them with express responsibilities and restraints in the Legislative branch would be a BIG improvement.

Since the original constitution is rarely conformed to if it were replaced the method might be different or more dramatic but the results will still be the same.

"the purpose as "to limit the powers of Congress."
Shouldn't it also be to limit the power of the executive branch. Congress has unofficially abdicated the power to declare war to the Executive Branch. I would like the Executive Branch limited.

The call currently being considered states the purpose as "to limit the powers of Congress." I see no reason why anything more specific need be spelt out before the convention meets.

Evidence? Gladly.

https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/

Please provide evidence of that so I can review it. And, you can't use the Declaration itself as evidence as the logic would then be circular.

Oh, but the Declaration does govern the powers and the plenipotentiarity of delegates to a "convention for proposing amendments." The reason: it is the only document that does so govern. The Constitution, and more specifically Article Five, are absolutely silent on the matter.

Patrick Henry "smelt a rat" and did not attend the original Constitutional Convention. I smell the same rat.

No institution can survive a second exposure to the process that created it.

The Declaration of Independence is does not govern; the Constitution does. A Convention of the States (which is not a Constitutional Convention) first requires 2/3 (34) of the states to be called and, for any amendment proposed, requires 3/4 (38) of either the legislatures or State Conventions (determined by Congress) to pass.

My name for President Bush. I call clinton...clintonians, carter, cartatonian, hillery, hiltery and obama, obobo.

Perhaps a solution would be to first pass a constitutional amendment through the time honored Congressional method that would restrict a constitutional convention to considering only those proposed objectives in an agenda approved in advance by the state legislatures calling the convention, and providing that any other changes proposed at the convention be not considered.

What is meant by "babuski"? I don't recall ever having read or heard the word before.

Well, Mark Levin on his radio show claims that that
would not happen. From what he said, I gather that
he means that it would mean passage of certain
Amendments that would then be submitted to the States for their approval. But I think that it is probably not worth the risk.

They'd have to pick one or the other, I think. Not sure the subject could be "debt," for example, then include many things that contribute to it.

5. A valid argument, even though this nation is more than 200 years removed from the Articles. You can bet there would be a lot less spending, however!

#7. I can't - and shouldn't - control the representatives from another part of the country no matter how much I agree or disagree with their politics. Nancy Pelosi doesn't represent me and I don't get to vote for her. And if I don't get to vote for her and she doesn't represent me personally, I shouldn't be meddling in her election. This is how Bloomberg and Soros have been campaigning to fill selected Senate and House seats, most recently the Virginia Governor's race.

That's just the sort of thing a COS is likely to propose. And, of course, term limits on Congress, which are never going to happen without a COS.

#5 would re-create the problem that made it necessary to do away with the Articles of Confederation.

#7 would make safe districts even safer, thus making it harder to remove incumbents. For example, we could no longer even try to get rid of Nancy Pelosi unless we wanted to begin by individually moving to her district.

2. Let's not consider merely one hypothetical, but several of them. Can you imagine how Presidential elections would change from the existing two-party system if the runner-up got rewarded instead of nothing? And can you imagine how this might have affected things if Mitt Romney were the VP during Obama's second term while there were active cries for Obama's Impeachment for legitimate abuses of power? What if Sanders had remained in the race for the Democrats after the DNC shenanigans had been uncovered? And let's remember, that the Vice President can be impeached just like the President for abuses of power. Can you imagine if Hillary were President how the Justice Department wouldn't just be letting her antics as Sec State slide any longer because they'd get to replace HER as well? Overall, I think there are a lot of positives to this one.

#8. Actually, I've run the numbers and it doesn't unbalance things as much as you think, especially when you consider that even in California they have pockets of Republicans. What this does in aggregate is actually de-emphasize the big cities' stranglehold on the current voting process and encourage more representation from rural areas which are more commonly non-Democrat. You get more accurate representation.

The second part of #8 is that you greatly reduce the effects of lobbying in the House because you spread the influence out significantly. Lobbying becomes much more expensive. (This one would need to be tied to #1 especially to have a beneficial effect on the Senate.) For similar reasons, (barring #7 above) "interference" by outside PAC's and big-money donors in House races would be severely blunted. Again, lots of positives here.

You do realize that #2 would make Hillary the Veep, right? Do you think the Dems would hesitate for one second after Trump was sworn in to try to impeach him everyday to get Hillary into the White House's Oval Office?
#8 would severely unbalance the House as California would have 197 representatives almost 4 times their current number, while Montana would only gain 2 for 3 total.

Those were just the two that jumped out at me.

That certainly id a negative outlook. It means that those of us who believe in the Constitution as written by the founders would be dead on arrival if a Constitutional convention were to be held today.So...we've already lost?Perhaps so. That means we are fighting a strategic retreat trying to keep the USA as close to its founding while it crumbles beneath our feet.

Me dino will never understand the twisted thinking of enabling libtard voters and there being so many of them.
It is plain as day that the arrogant Evil Hag is as crooked as felons come with out in the open multiple counts of criminal acts.