Do You Support a Constitutional Convention?

You betcha.

I know 38 states aren't going to ratify the repeal of any of that.

Not really; but even if a CoS proposes "everything", the states aren't going to ratify "everything". Thus, the danger is from sabotage of beneficial amendments, not from a rerun of the original ConCon, which was a whole different animal to begin with.

 

Once the convention starts and things are decided, what happens when some states agree and other dont? Oh that is right the people at the convention decide on the rules of ratification. They decide how many votes a state gets and even how many delegates matter. No court has jurisdiction to over ride this as well. They can also decide if there are even going to BE states. Then a state has to decide if they can stand alone or if they have allies of other states. Which once we start breaking into sides things get real scary. It is literally playing with fire, if you want change use the current system.

 

Thus, my requirement that the current Constitution immediately be voided by amendment, and any state that chooses to not ratify the new constitution be not bound by it.

 

Which would then end the USA as a power. Once we are divided into regional powers war will soon follow. Lets face it we are not a peaceful people. We fight and will find cause to fight to support our interests.

 

Sure. The effect will be felt worldwide.

 

Oh yah, most likely a world wide depression on a scale never before seen. (if we broke up not if we have a convention)

 

I would support a convention aimed at revision and protections to assure we cannot become what this President is heading us to and to set minimum qualifications on the highest office in the land.

 

Sure except there is no way to limit the scope to just revisions and protections. Now the amendment procedure does allow for that.

 

Evidently the distinction between deciding and proposing escapes you.

Only way this comes close to making any sense is if you mean to say they can propose an amendment to A5; which they can, of course, but it still needs to be ratified by 38 states.

What the hell are you talking about?

Oh, the humanity :vapors:

Abolishing statehood would amount to a repeal of the Constitution in toto, which requires unanimous ratification.

In case you didn't get the memo, the CoS option has been part of the current system since 1789.

Baloney. Any state can make its application to Congress contingent on any limits it wants; and if 34 states limit their applications to, e.g., repeal of 17A, they can throttle any proposed repeal, e.g., of 2A.

 

For some reason I think of Jericho when I read the words "constitutional convention"

 

You really do not understand this topic and the disputed issues on it, do you? Have you not done any research on the different positions put forth by Constitutional scholars?

Below is the whole article and my concerns.
1.The underlined is all that is said about the states creating a convention. That is it, there is no BINDING criteria to this creation such as topics or limitations.

2. The Red is hugely important, anything decided is now a part of the Constitution as long as it ratified. Any changed can be done by amendment. You can declare ice cream the national dish or ban free speech, or enact term limits. As long as ratified it now has the force of law and there is no judicial review because the new Constitutional verbiage is IN it, which would leave the justices no choice but to say it is Constitutional.

3. The Bold is another HUGE problem three fourths of the CONVENTION can ratify these changes. It does not need the states and their legislatures to do it. Or by the conventions! Really think about that.

4 The Italic lists the only conditions set. The first part protects the 1st through amendments until 1808. Hm I think we passed that date. The second says that states must have EQUAL suffrage in the Senate. Now think of all the ways a lawyer can manipulate the word EQUAL. Such as everyone has five delegates or perhaps limiting the powers of the Senate to only an advisory board to the new leader BUT with equal suffrage.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

 

You're misreading the amendment. Acting unanimously, the CoS can't ratify a damn thing, any more than Congress can, if it proposes amendments. What you bolded refers to separate ratification conventions in the several states, which would, if Congress chooses that option, be called after the CoS has issued its proposal.

 

I agree with your interpretation there, it is speaking of the state conventions to ratify the COS.