3) Writing a new constitution.
The Framers were keen to avoid using the term "constitutional convention," and instead wrote, "...a convention for proposing amendments...as part of this constitution...."
The Article V Convention is strictly limited to proposing amendments to the Constitution we have, and is forbidden to compose a new one. No matter what amendments are proposed, the structure itself remains intact. The Article V Convention can never become a constitutional convention, cannot write a new constitution, nor can it mandate new law because whatever ideas put forth, they then must garner the approval of 38 states in order to be ratified. To get 38 states out of 50 to agree to an idea is very difficult and for good reason: whatever it is--whether conservative or liberal--you'll have to get all of one side signed on, plus at least half the other. How's that for a smart constitutional principle?
The NRA, John Birch Society, and other conservative groups have always been against a convention, saying that the first thing it would do is take away our weapons. Similarly the ACLU and liberal groups have always been against a convention, saying it would remove freedom of speech. The convention can do no such thing, any delegate who put forth such an idea would be isolated, not to mention that 38 states would never agree to such nonsense.
That said, there are still those who view a convention irrationally and illogically as a bunch of chaos and disorder. First of all, our corporate elites already produce chaos and disorder day in and day out with TV and radio--with partisan issues, one after the next, never discussing the things the right and left have in common. Ben Franklin once said, "Half a truth is often a great lie." And that's exactly what our corporate elites feed us--a bunch of half-truths. Secondly where's the proof a convention today would be chaotic and disorderly? There've been hundreds of state conventions over the years, and every last one has put fetters on institutionalized corruption, and/or provided new protections against special interests. And then think about this: If you yourself were a convention delegate (and why shouldn't you be--you're here on the internet politically engaged--still caring enough about the fate of your country), do you think you'd start foaming at the mouth, and try to beat another delegate with your shoe? No, you wouldn't. The gravity of the situation would require calm, rational deliberation. It's the corporate elites who have us thinking we'd go to pieces at a convention, when really we'd be more rational and civil than they are. They're the ones who would go to pieces if a convention were called, because it would be the beginning of the end of their monopoly. While some of the negatives of the human condition are greed and corruption, one of the positives is that when people come together consensus happens. It's natural. And as soon as conservatives and liberals come together, they'll quickly realize, that while they have differences of opinion about subjective matters, we're all sick and tired of excessive taxes going to earmarks and government waste, corporate welfare, corporate greed, and the radical double-standard in our lives today between those who take and those who give.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
