What do you guys think of this--convention for amendments?

[Lymeade-Lady]

Curious about pros and cons of using the methods described in the article:

http://www.wallstreetdaily.com/wallstreet-research/pdf/SAVEAMERICAweb.pdf

The style of the article is sorta a big hype--it's a it's all a "secret". But if you skip down it gets to the point, it's to call a convention to force congress to vote on an amendment. Is this a good or bad strategy for some of the things we would like to see done (End the Fed? balance the budget? make congress declare war? whatever). Actually would it do any good since certain things are already in the constitution that aren't followed?

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

Curious about pros and cons of using the methods described in the article:

http://www.wallstreetdaily.com/wallstreet-research/pdf/SAVEAMERICAweb.pdf

The style of the article is sorta a big hype--it's a it's all a "secret". But if you skip down it gets to the point, it's to call a convention to force congress to vote on an amendment. Is this a good or bad strategy for some of the things we would like to see done (End the Fed? balance the budget? make congress declare war? whatever). Actually would it do any good since certain things are already in the constitution that aren't followed?

You trust the amendments and constitution, to be protected by public opinion in this country nowadays?

[fisharmor]

Oh, good, another Article V discussion.

I think the pdf is duplicitous in that it says congress hasn't proposed a successful amendment in 15,000 days. Which is true, but the last amendment was ratified in 1992, so it's only been 20 years since the last amendment.

I think Article V would be a brilliant idea in 15-20 years. Possibly longer.
People are waking up in droves. But just look at vote totals. We're talking an absolute maximum of 10% of the population at this point.

20 years from now we'll either be in the aftermath of the liberty revolution in the context of our current state, or our current state will be totally defunct.
Either way an Article V convention will be in the context of restoring the rule of law.

To put it succinctly, right now an Article V convention would dedicate a large amount of time to deciding just how to implement the Kyoto Protocols in our new constitution.
I don't trust an Article V convention until we're at a point, as a society, when that convention has a trained orangutan dedicated to pulling the anus of the man who even brings that up out through his mouth.

[Simple]

I think we'd end up with more Marxism if we had a convention.

[Zippyjuan]

A Constitutional Convention could only propose any amendments to the Constitution. Any of those would have to be aproved by two thirds of the states before they would come into effect.