Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #20

---

Quote: Cyber Liberty wrote in post #19

---

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #17

---

Quote: Rev wrote in post #16

---

Quote: Sanguine wrote in post #14

---

"a convention to rewrite the Constitution."

CyberLiberty is right. Since our elected politicians and judges play so fast and loose with the current Constitution, I don't understand what rewriting this inspired document would do.

---

If memory serves me, that is precisely what could happen.

In a Constitutional Convention, elected officials would be given carte blanche (blank document) to do as they will. Is this correct?

---

I did some googling on this and to my understanding no matter what amendments are proposed or what is done the results would still have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.

From the Constiutional Rights Foundation there is this:

Zitat

---

The other way of amending the Constitution has never been successfully used. Under this procedure, the states initiate the amending process by petitioning Congress for a constitutional convention. When two-thirds of the states have submitted petitions, Congress must call a convention. Any amendments approved by such a convention must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. Congress decides whether state legislatures or state conventions will ratify these amendments.

---

and

Zitat

---

Of course, any amendments produced by a convention would still have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. We may soon see how this never-used method works if the balanced budget people swing two more states over to their side.

---

This idea was first proposed by Mark Levin in his book The Liberty Amendments. In August 2013 CNS News reported:

Zitat

---

Levin says in The Liberty Amendments that he used to oppose the idea of the state legislatures convening a convention to propose constitutional amendments.

“I used to buy the argument that it’s a constitutional convention until I actually read Article V,” said Levin.“There is no constitutional convention. It’s a convention for proposing amendments—proposing amendments.”

---

and:

Zitat

---

But after studying the language and history of Article V, Levin realized this was not the case, and given the current propensity of all three branches of the federal government to ignore the Constitution and its original meaning, he decided the time had come for the state legislatures to call for a convention to propose amendments that would renew the limits on federal power that the Framers intended the original Constitution to impose.

“There can be no runaway convention because three-fourths of the states still need to ratify [the amendments a convention proposes],” said Levin.

---

If the above is correct, then the only thing they can do is amendments. And then those must be ratified by 3/4 of the states.

Any other legal scholars around who can verify this one way or the other?

---

I'm not a legal scholar, but what you describe is an Article V convention. There is also a Constitutional Convention, and I have no idea what the ratification procedure would be. Both are in the constitution, so I suppose I could dig it out. But that's what I kept getting screamed at about at TOS: Everybody there seems to think the writing would be limited to certain topics, and I flat out refuse to believe the people mentioned in my post above would allow themselves to be so limited. Open the barn door and birds will fly in as the horses flee.

---

I'm not either, but Levin is. I've also read some stuff on this from Herb Titus, who is also a constitutional legal expert. According to both (if I'm interpreting them correctly) the constitutional convention everybody refers to IS the Article V convention. There was only one "Constitutional" convention in order to ratify the constitution, and the constitution allows for no other re-writes except for amendments (again if I'm interpreting them correctly). That's what Levin is arguing in his book. I'll have to do more research on this.

If a convention per se can only produce amendments (not re-writes or throw-outs) and then those must be ratified as mentioned above, then I'm probably in Levin's corner here.

BUT, if its not amendments we are talking about but actual re-writes or throw-outs of the constitution perpetrated by brain dead liberals, and there is no ratification process by the states in whatever they come up with then I'm in your corner absolutely. We can't have that obviously.

Definitely going to have to do more research on this.

---

Thank You for bringing some clarity to this. I URGE everyone here to educate yourself on this topic.

There is almost nothing but FUD being spewed about this topic from ALL Establishment corners ("left," "right," and in between), that should tell you something right there.

Using the second part of Article V in NO WAY creates a "Constitutional Convention." It was placed in the Constitution near the end of the original convention primarily because of George Mason. Even back then, Mason and others recognized that this federal government that they were creating had a good chance to become tyrannical at a point in time (owing primarily to their views of the nature of mankind). (Check Madison's notes in Federalist N for a pretty good description of Mason's earnest remarks on this topic.)

Mason was wise enough to know that depending on the Congress as the sole source of Amendments to the document was foolhardy in that they would never propose to limit their own powers (or other tyrannical powers in other branches). So his proposal resulted in what we see as the second part of Article V, that is, an alternate method of drafting and proposing Amendments. Rather than the first approach (which has resulted in all 27 Amendments to date) which has 2/3 of both chambers of Congress approving an Amendment for ratification by 3/4 of the several States (via State legislatures or a State ratifying convention), the second approach permits 2/3 of the several States (currently 34) to come together to draft and propose a specific Amendment, or set of Amendments. The ratification process of any such Amendment is the same, 3/4 of the several States (via State legislatures or a State ratifying convention).

That is the Article V process (both forms) in a nutshell. If you think about what the essence of it is -- giving the States the power to reign in the federal government, you can quickly understand WHY their is so much FUD being spewed about it!! Take a look at some of the potential Amendments that Levin has outlined in his The Liberty Amendments and you will quickly understand two things: 1. the potential power that this approach has to halt and repair the Republic, and 2. the reasons why virtually every entity that somehow benefits from the current federal leviathan will be against it.

I have become convinced that this approach, in which the several States come together to amend the Constitution in an effort to halt and turnback this tyranny, is basically our 'last straw' to fight for this Nation absent a complete collapse and/or revolution. Just consider one of them: term limits. I think that we all can agree that the Congress (no matter which party is in control at a given time) will *NEVER* bring about a term limits amendment. But, the several states could do just that. Other Amendments that he has proposed cover things as term limits of SC justices, the ability of 3/4 of the several States to overturn SC rulings, the ability of 3/4 of the several States to overturn bureaucratic "rules" (which are the way our "laws" are now developed since Congress gave away its primary power to the Executive decades ago), and so forth.

A couple of other resources that you may want to try are:
1. The website of the http://www.conventionofstates.com/Convention of States movement that has sprung up as a sort of coordinating body for the movement (a lot of good information there, link the FAQ).
2. "Lawful and Peaceful Revolution: Congress’ Present Duty to Call a Convention for Proposing Amendments," at the Hamline Law Review, a PDF that is very thorough and educational.


Seriously, take the time to get acquainted with this subject, it is important to not allow the FUD and fear mongering about it confuse you. I agree with many that have come to the conclusion that this is our last chance to save the Republic prior to violent revolution. At this point it is very much a "chance" in that things have spiraled out of control for so long, ideally this method would have been invoked decades ago. Our chances of success may not ever be better in light of the fact that the GOP controls a large majority of the State legislatures, now we all know that "GOP" control doesn't necessarily translate to Conservative Patriot control, but it is what it is. (And yes, sadly a lot of the Article V grassroot efforts in many States have run into roadblocks set up by establishment GOP legislative leaders; one of the reasons that the approach is very much a "chance.")

FUD? I hope you are aware there are reasons beyond the readers' stupidity to oppose this, right?

Yes, FUD: Fear, Uncertainty, & Doubt.

No, I have not seen any valid reasons to oppose this. If you know of any, please describe them.

You didn't read what I wrote before, or you did and didn't think it was important, so I don't see the point in repeating myself. It's upthread. I have a feeling if you do, you'll find it invalid so I don't see the point in arguing with you. I just don't seem to have the intellectual horsepower.

I don't argue with people who dismiss others who disagree as stupid.

CL, I don't read that as what FWP is saying at all.

I appreciate this thread because this is an eminently important topic, and because there is so much misinformation out there. Thank you both for presenting information.

Quote: Cyber Liberty wrote in post #34

---

You didn't read what I wrote before, or you did and didn't think it was important, so I don't see the point in repeating myself. It's upthread. I have a feeling if you do, you'll find it invalid so I don't see the point in arguing with you. I just don't seem to have the intellectual horsepower.

I don't argue with people who dismiss others who disagree as stupid.

---

Quote: FWP wrote in post #36

---

Quote: Cyber Liberty wrote in post #34

---

You didn't read what I wrote before, or you did and didn't think it was important, so I don't see the point in repeating myself. It's upthread. I have a feeling if you do, you'll find it invalid so I don't see the point in arguing with you. I just don't seem to have the intellectual horsepower.

I don't argue with people who dismiss others who disagree as stupid.

---

I went back and re-read the whole thread, again. Sorry, there are no substantive arguments against it anywhere to be found in the thread.

There is a huge difference between "stupid" and uninformed. I am of the opinion that no one that posts in this forum is "stupid," including yourself (as a matter of fact, I am very happy to see you here!!). But yes, there are many people here (as well as all over the rest of the country) that are currently uninformed on this topic. I am uninformed about other topics that are discussed here, it doesn't make me "stupid," just uninformed.

It is understandable that many are currently uninformed on this topic, because while it is as old as the Constitution itself, it has never been used nor discussed all that much outside of academia until the past few years. A great deal of "intellectual horsepower" isn't required to understand it, there has been a lot of spadework performed by scholars that has been published in clear everyday language that anyone can read for themselves.

Anyone that wants to spend a few hours here and there can very easily come up to speed on the topic. I certainly don't have all of the answers but I am willing to try to find them as I progress.

As I said above, I have not seen any substantive, valid arguments presented here (or elsewhere) against it. I am not saying that they don't exist, I just haven't seen them yet. What I have seen all over the place is a lot of FUD-based speculation and fear mongering by people that have not spent the time to do the reading and study. But that does not surprise me in the least because almost every article that I have seen in the media (old and new) is filled with inaccuracies and just plain falsehoods about it. Again, not a surprise because of who has a lot to gain from this (We The People) and who has a lot to lose from this (the political establishment of all stripes).

I rarely press people to look further into many issues or topics, I simply don't care all that much. But I do make an exception for this topic, because of what is at stake, and how late in the game we are.

---

Quote: Cyber Liberty wrote in post #37

---

Quote: FWP wrote in post #36

---

Quote: Cyber Liberty wrote in post #34

---

You didn't read what I wrote before, or you did and didn't think it was important, so I don't see the point in repeating myself. It's upthread. I have a feeling if you do, you'll find it invalid so I don't see the point in arguing with you. I just don't seem to have the intellectual horsepower.

I don't argue with people who dismiss others who disagree as stupid.

---

I went back and re-read the whole thread, again. Sorry, there are no substantive arguments against it anywhere to be found in the thread.

There is a huge difference between "stupid" and uninformed. I am of the opinion that no one that posts in this forum is "stupid," including yourself (as a matter of fact, I am very happy to see you here!!). But yes, there are many people here (as well as all over the rest of the country) that are currently uninformed on this topic. I am uninformed about other topics that are discussed here, it doesn't make me "stupid," just uninformed.

It is understandable that many are currently uninformed on this topic, because while it is as old as the Constitution itself, it has never been used nor discussed all that much outside of academia until the past few years. A great deal of "intellectual horsepower" isn't required to understand it, there has been a lot of spadework performed by scholars that has been published in clear everyday language that anyone can read for themselves.

Anyone that wants to spend a few hours here and there can very easily come up to speed on the topic. I certainly don't have all of the answers but I am willing to try to find them as I progress.

As I said above, I have not seen any substantive, valid arguments presented here (or elsewhere) against it. I am not saying that they don't exist, I just haven't seen them yet. What I have seen all over the place is a lot of FUD-based speculation and fear mongering by people that have not spent the time to do the reading and study. But that does not surprise me in the least because almost every article that I have seen in the media (old and new) is filled with inaccuracies and just plain falsehoods about it. Again, not a surprise because of who has a lot to gain from this (We The People) and who has a lot to lose from this (the political establishment of all stripes).

I rarely press people to look further into many issues or topics, I simply don't care all that much. But I do make an exception for this topic, because of what is at stake, and how late in the game we are.

---

I apologize, I was in a mood unrelated to being online. For the record, upon reflection, I do not think you called me stupid. I chose to take a moment and look at it from Sanguine's point of view.

I've had discussions about this before with folks, and disagreements are pretty firmly rooted.

My opposition is not easily addressed: If the politicians and courts don't respect the current very well written document, and distort its meaning at every turn, just think of what they'll do once they get hold of one they had a hand in writing.

Then there's the safe harbor of ratification. The argument is if Amendments are bad they'll fail ratification. I don't trust the states to approach ratification with the seriousness it deserves: If politicians in the Federal legislature are willing to horse-trade votes for favors, what's stopping the politicians in the State legislatures from doing the same thing to get the new Amendments ratified? A small state's legislature may be willing to ratify an amendment its constituents hate as a trade-off to some large state's legislature's ratification of another Amendment likewise hated by their constituents. We end up with two hated Amendments ratified. The argument that all Amendments must be ratified, or none take effect is not valid because courts will pick and choose which ones to honor and which to reject. There will be no non-severability backstop, because these have been written into laws in the past and then subsequently ignored (example, Obamacare).

Please don't dismiss these concerns as uninformed FUD, they are very real and based on a half-century of observation of lying, thieving politicians of both parties. Precious liberties are at stake, and I don't like the idea of handing the ability to take them away to dirty rotten scoundrels, like Pelosi, McCain and Reid. They are thumb-sized midgets compared to the Founders.

---

Quote: Cyber Liberty wrote in post #37

---

I apologize, I was in a mood unrelated to being online. For the record, upon reflection, I do not think you called me stupid. I chose to take a moment and look at it from Sanguine's point of view.

I've had discussions about this before with folks, and disagreements are pretty firmly rooted.

My opposition is not easily addressed: If the politicians and courts don't respect the current very well written document, and distort its meaning at every turn, just think of what they'll do once they get hold of one they had a hand in writing.

Then there's the safe harbor of ratification. The argument is if Amendments are bad they'll fail ratification. I don't trust the states to approach ratification with the seriousness it deserves: If politicians in the Federal legislature are willing to horse-trade votes for favors, what's stopping the politicians in the State legislatures from doing the same thing to get the new Amendments ratified? A small state's legislature may be willing to ratify an amendment its constituents hate as a trade-off to some large state's legislature's ratification of another Amendment likewise hated by their constituents. We end up with two hated Amendments ratified. The argument that all Amendments must be ratified, or none take effect is not valid because courts will pick and choose which ones to honor and which to reject. There will be no non-severability backstop, because these have been written into laws in the past and then subsequently ignored (example, Obamacare).

Please don't dismiss these concerns as uninformed FUD, they are very real and based on a half-century of observation of lying, thieving politicians of both parties. Precious liberties are at stake, and I don't like the idea of handing the ability to take them away to dirty rotten scoundrels, like Pelosi, McCain and Reid. They are thumb-sized midgets compared to the Founders.

---

I find both of your arguments persuasive. Here's something I had not thought of, contained in gramma's post: This may be the last stop before a shooting war. Winston Churchill once said: "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war." This is true even if the MSM stacks the deck against us, as you know they will.

It is correct to note my problem is not the process as much as it's the environment. Really, that's a few paragraphs of writing distilled down to a single sentence, you nailed it. I'll never trust the politicians, any of them. Even ones I thought could be trusted have turned on us (yes, I don't trust Cruz either. He is still new, I have confidence he will burn us some day). I'd jump all over an Article V convention if I knew that nobody presently in government (both elected politicians and unelected bureaucrats) would be able to get their grubby mitts on the process. Good luck getting that.

On balance, I think it might be better to try the Jaw-jaw (Article V) before we start the War-war (AR2). My caveat: If there's going to be a war, it had better be before the government disarms us by wiping out the Second Amendment. A government so corrupt that even the Amendments offered by an Article V can't stop it, will do everything it can to win the war without firing a shot. What is that group? The "Three Percenters?" The US never fielded more than 3% of the population in fighting the Revolution.

Thanks for making me think. It was stimulating.

Quote: Cyber Liberty wrote in post #40

---

I find both of your arguments persuasive. Here's something I had not thought of, contained in gramma's post: This may be the last stop before a shooting war. Winston Churchill once said: "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war." This is true even if the MSM stacks the deck against us, as you know they will.

It is correct to note my problem is not the process as much as it's the environment. Really, that's a few paragraphs of writing distilled down to a single sentence, you nailed it. I'll never trust the politicians, any of them. Even ones I thought could be trusted have turned on us (yes, I don't trust Cruz either. He is still new, I have confidence he will burn us some day). I'd jump all over an Article V convention if I knew that nobody presently in government (both elected politicians and unelected bureaucrats) would be able to get their grubby mitts on the process. Good luck getting that.

On balance, I think it might be better to try the Jaw-jaw (Article V) before we start the War-war (AR2). My caveat: If there's going to be a war, it had better be before the government disarms us by wiping out the Second Amendment. A government so corrupt that even the Amendments offered by an Article V can't stop it, will do everything it can to win the war without firing a shot. What is that group? The "Three Percenters?" The US never fielded more than 3% of the population in fighting the Revolution.

Thanks for making me think. It was stimulating.

---

Zitat

---

“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

---

Also, this may be of interest to some:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/mark-levin-to-speak-at-american-legislative-exchange-council-300003473.html

Zitat

---

Mark Levin to Speak at American Legislative Exchange Council

PURCELLVILLE, Va., Dec. 2, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- Mark Levin will address why Article V is the way to reclaim self-governance in America at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) meeting in Washington, D.C. on December 4, 2014. Sponsored by the Convention of States (COS) Project, Levin -- a Constitutional expert and nationally syndicated talk show host -- will speak at a special breakfast keynote plenary session,

"No one understands the necessity and efficacy of Article V more than Mark Levin," said Mark Meckler, President of Citizens for Self-Governance and co-founder of the Convention of States Project. In fact, Levin is an endorser of COS's Jefferson Statement, explaining why the Convention of States project is so necessary at this time, and sits on COS's Legal Board of Reference. "We appreciate Mark's support and his powerful voice in the media, and look forward to hearing what he has to say about how ordinary citizens can reclaim our nation from our overreaching, inept federal government."

Immediately following Levin's speech, the COS Project will host a Convention of States workshop with panelists including: Professor Rob Natelson, Professor Randy E. Barnett, Michael Farris and Mark Meckler. The breakfast plenary session will be held from 8:00 a.m. to 9:15 a.m. EST.; the Convention of States Project Policy Workshop is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. EST. Properly credentialed media are welcomed to cover these events.

COS encourages citizens to call a Convention of States to return the country to its original vision of a limited federal government that is of, by and for the people. COS has enabled three Article V applications to pass (in Alaska, Florida and Georgia) and has organized leadership in 43 states around the country. For more information visit www.ConventionofStates.com.

ALEC aims to provide a constructive, non-partisan forum for state legislators and private sector leaders to discuss public policy issues which focus on free markets, limited government and constitutional division of powers between the federal and state governments. The organization includes more than 2,000 Republican and Democratic state legislators.

Contact: Tamara Colbert
Phone: C – (626) 244-5571

---

(Having Randy Barnett (among others) on board with this effort is one of the reasons that I have a lot of confidence in the "brainpower" that I mentioned above.)

Any nation that could elect Barack Obama as POTUS is not a nation that is prepared to hold a convention designed to alter the Constitution. This is not the late 18th century when Americans were deeply involved in government activity and knew and lived by what the Constitution actually said. Sorry to tell you that but it's true.

In addition I disagree with this statement: "I agree with many that have come to the conclusion that this is our last chance to save the Republic prior to violent revolution." Our last best hope is something along the lines of Third Great Awakening which would cause a morally regenerated people to seriously reconsider what they have been allowing the government to do. Do I think this possible? Well, yes, because with God all things are possible but I fear, as with the Israelites, it will take a catastrophe, probably economic, to force the American people to their knees. And even then they might be kneeling instead to a "savior' who resembles Obama.

I wish the Article V the very best but given today's political climate consider the movement an impossible dream and quite possibly a dangerous one.

Quote: Cincinnatus wrote in post #42

---

Any nation that could elect Barack Obama as POTUS is not a nation that is prepared to hold a convention designed to alter the Constitution. This is not the late 18th century when Americans were deeply involved in government activity and knew and lived by what the Constitution actually said. Sorry to tell you that but it's true.

In addition I disagree with this statement: "I agree with many that have come to the conclusion that this is our last chance to save the Republic prior to violent revolution." Our last best hope is something along the lines of Third Great Awakening which would cause a morally regenerated people to seriously reconsider what they have been allowing the government to do. Do I think this possible? Well, yes, because with God all things are possible but I fear, as with the Israelites, it will take a catastrophe, probably economic, to force the American people to their knees. And even then they might be kneeling instead to a "savior' who resembles Obama.

I wish the Article V the very best but given today's political climate consider the movement an impossible dream and quite possibly a dangerous one.

---

Zitat

---

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

---

-- 2 Chronicles 7:14

I don't think an Article V could even happen in the first place, absent some wort of awakening.

As to the Churchill quote about fighting now rather than later, he's correct as usual, but things like WW2 happen anyway because of a general triumph of hope over experience.