I think you are close to agreeing, according to the data you provide. Not being an expert in this, but I suspect the definition from the Law Dictionary is correct about the definition of a Constitutional Convention. This is why the Convention is not called this. It is call a Convention of the States consistent with the language used in Article V This convention is authorized in the Constitution as one of the two way to initiate an amendment to the Constitution. A copy/past of Article V: 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." Note. it not the same as the Dictionary definition of a Constitutional Convention and is more restricted in scope. Therefore, that term has been specifically avoided.
Constitutional convention. A duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising, or amending its constitution. this is by your own definition the convention of states sole function. how can it not be a constitutional convention when it is the very definition that you agree with from the law dictionary?
Well, if you do not see the difference now, then so be it. I do. The Convention of the States has but one function, purpose amendments, one or more. It can not approve the amendments. Just as Article V authorizes.
MarAzul, your argument seems to be that the supreme court justices were talking about a constitutional convention OTHER than that authorized by article V. But that would be an unconstitutional constitutional convention, so why would they even be talking about it? It seems obvious that they were talking about article V. Otherwise they would have said "we should not overthrow our current system of government". barfo
Apparently real Americans want to follow the constitution to the letter, but now also want to change it in some way. There is a logical disconnect happening here.
Indeed, I have found Burger's quote - in a letter to Phyliss Schlafly, and it starts by saying "I am glad to respond to your inquiry about an Article V Constitutional Convention..." barfo
The founders anticipated every possible future scenario, except one: they did not know that one day, people would say mean things about Donald Trump. Thus we need to rewrite the constitution. barfo
Yes, right or wrong, that is my view. The original convention to create the Constitutions would be very difficult to repeat and succeed again. Article V does not authorize a Convention with all of the following activity; "A duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising, or amending its constitution." In fact it only authorizes Convention to purpose amending as an alternative to Congress doing so. This is also the only purpose of the effort to hold a Convention of States.
Obviously, since we have a constitution now. Making a new one would require repealing the old one, or a coup, or revolution, or what have you. Again: Article V is what everyone is talking about. Doesn't matter whether you call it a Constitutional Convention or Convention of States. It's the only type available without a revolution of some sort. barfo
Well I have no idea why the man wrote the letter. First of Article V does not authorize the Dictionary definition of a Constitutional Convention. Only a Convention to propose amendments. I see no reason to fear an uncontrollable free for all. Each amendment must be ratified by 3/4 of the States. The only part of the letter that seem accurate would be the last sentence; "What ever may need repair on our Constitution can be dealt with by specific amendments." Yes, this is precisely the intended purpose of the Convention of the States, purpose those amendments that Congress will never purpose.
Sounds like a plan that could really happen. Why do Republicans get to have all the wild ideas? Can this convention be held under the authority of the 25th Amendment?
This is the powerful and secretive banjo lobby. The more poor white people that are born the more banjo pickers there will be.
Sales tax is a tax on the poorest workers. Can't be plainer than that. A Navy base in Coos Bay would finish off Oregon's struggling fishing industry and necessitate the building of massive highways, the closing of public lands currently bringing in most of Coos County's tourism bucks, and ultimately pollute our most sensitive coastal wildlife areas.
Wow! I see none of this doom! The port would only be suitable for ship of modest draft, like Destroyers. No way would they spend to bucks to make port able to handle Carriers. Might need to spend a bit of money on the Railroad and the Docks. A ship building yard there would be a grand boost to the local economy instead of concentrating it even further in already glutted population centers. But I would say, any improvement to a Highway to the area from the central valley would be a welcome improvement in any case. Like the one from I-5 to Reedsport. I won't even drive that anymore after seeing a pickup truck get buried in a landslide there one dark and rainy night.
The problem is that the convention could change the ratification rules. So maybe it's 50% of the states instead. barfo
How could it change the rules? These are in Article V. Any amendment to that section would require ratification first. I for one, am not interested in making the amendment process easier. One of the beauties of the Constitution is that it takes a super majority to change it. Very appropriate and exactly the reason to avoid a Judges that would do it by creating precedent with superior insight, accountable to no one.
And yet you are in favor of a constitutional convention that supreme court jurists say might result in unconstrained changes to the constitution. I can't make the legal argument for why that's so, but I am willing to accept that anyone on the supreme court knows enough about the constitution to be taken seriously on the issue. barfo
River, I agree 100%. The tourist and Washingtonians can help offset my high property tax and maybe state income tax? This State blew it by not having only a sales tax. Now I feel unclean as I cant stand taxes period, but I do understand they are need to support certain gov functions. Washington did it right by no state income tax instead a sales tax.
Stand up like a man! Is that your attitude when the pirates are boarding and the storm is flipping you upside-down?
