https://www.jbs.org/jbs-news/news/item/19276-who-s-behind-a-constitutional-convention lol, i had to reexamine my position on an article V convention in the guise of a convention of states after finding and reading the position of the john birch society today. it seems they believe it to be a horrible idea, but not for the same reason i oppose one. still it is common ground and if i can find it with the john birch society, there is still hope for republicans and democrats to find the same with one another.
It sure doesn't seem like they are opposing the same group to me. But I will not explain the terminology again. I would expect the JBs to take this position and I agree.
That is a rather interesting article... Marzy will be horrified to hear he's carrying water for the globalists. barfo
You don't agree! You started this thread with a call to have a convention! Or have you changed your mind (first time for everything)? barfo
Well this is as clear as I can be. I agree with the JB society and their reasons for opposing a Constitution Convention. I support the Convention of the States to put forth some amendments to the Constitution for the ratification or not by the States. I do hope this does not add to your confusion.
As has been pointed out numerous times here, Constitutional Convention = Convention of the States. There's not two mechanisms. There's just one. So you are both for it and against it. Which is amusing. barfo
You should read this, the entire thing. I know it's long, but it is written by right-wing nutballs so you should find it to your liking. However, it DIRECTLY addresses the point about your two types of constitutional convention, and directly addresses your "Convention of States". Spoiler You're wrong barfo
>>> You are confused, not amused. >>> Correct, there is only one authorized in Article V >>> This is obtuse but I will indulge one time. This very well could be true. But a Convention of the States as authorized in Article V is Not Equal to Constitutional Convention as defined in the dictionary. Carry on!
Ok, you've got your mind made up that people are looking in the dictionary and deciding they want whatever it says there under 'constitutional convention'. I don't see any evidence that anyone but you thinks that, but... Carry on! barfo
I think you are correct. The founders did it, a one time deal. Unless of course we have the revolution to start over. Then we have no rules going in.
You do understand that that is the magazine of the John Birch society, and that is the source article which lays out the views that you said you agreed with. And that article says that the Convention of States is a globalist plot and should not be allowed to happen. I think they are confused, but so are you. barfo
It is a different article barf. Perhaps those that make up them are not is sync, but I am not confused even though you probably are. Carry on!
COSP’s proposed delegate-constraining laws will not work for several reasons. First, nothing in the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to control their states’ delegates any more than state legislatures can control their states’ Members of Congress. Once selected, delegates to an Article V convention become federal officials with authority derived from Article V, not from the states. In Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., the U.S. Supreme Court held that, when state officials derive their powers from the U.S. Constitution, federal law can constrain state officials’ actions. Second, even if such state laws were valid and binding, no one is or can be empowered to enforce them. Article V limits Congress’s role to calling a convention once a sufficient number of states have made valid requests; it would have no authority to oust delegates even if it wanted to do so. As noted, the Supreme Court has made clear that such matters as political questions that federal courts may not decide. State courts have no authority to intervene in a federal constitutional convention. Finally, even if such laws were valid and enforceable, the convention would almost certainly finish its work before the laws could be invoked. Particularly if delegates are aware of such state laws, they could readily arrange for all matters before the convention to be decided by a single up-or-down vote at the end of its proceedings. Negotiators on complex matters routinely operate on the basis that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. This leads to a single large package that is approved as a block at the very end. At that point, the convention would disband, and any recall of delegates would be meaningless. Calling an Article V convention is reckless, especially at this divisive moment in our nation’s political history. Nothing these groups propose does anything even to mitigate the risks that a convention would bring. State legislatures should not delude themselves that the dangers of an Article V convention can somehow be contained. http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign...tes-is-the-last-thing-america-needs-right-now
Good god man. The one lawai'a linked and you agreed with is literally a summary of the one I linked. barfo
