Convention of States... Article V... 12 states are in...

[DvlDog4WVU]

According to this, West Virginia passed a resolution earlier this year. Most of the states have targeted a single issue, the balanced budget amendment.
http://inthesetimes.com/article/18940/alec-balanced-budget-corporate-constitutional-convention

But this movement should scare everyone. I can see it turning into a debacle that would repeal a bunch of amendments other than the Second.

Little premature to start fear mongering, no? If there is liberal concern, perhaps they should join the movement to ensure their voice is heard through their respective state's representatives to the convention.

Why would the exercising of provisions within the constitution by the people scare anyone? That's the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. It's another check to the Federal Gov't's power. I'm 100% for the states pushing back on the Fed to a certain degree. Article 5 should be exercised if enough people feel strongly about it. Term Limits for Congress don't bother me. The ability to reign in/overturn Executive Orders don't bother me. The ability to challenge the Supreme Court's decisions on specific items doesn't bother me. For instance, challenging and possibly overturning the Citizens United decision, doesn't bother me.

There are other things they are talking about that I would not be in favor of, but that's why the most liberal of states should join the cause as well so their concerns are realized and incorporated.

 

[Popeer]

Little premature to start fear mongering, no? If there is liberal concern, perhaps they should join the movement to ensure their voice is heard through their respective state's representatives to the convention.

Why would the exercising of provisions within the constitution by the people scare anyone? That's the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. It's another check to the Federal Gov't's power. I'm 100% for the states pushing back on the Fed to a certain degree. Article 5 should be exercised if enough people feel strongly about it. Term Limits for Congress don't bother me. The ability to reign in/overturn Executive Orders don't bother me. The ability to challenge the Supreme Court's decisions on specific items doesn't bother me. For instance, challenging and possibly overturning the Citizens United decision, doesn't bother me.

There are other things they are talking about that I would not be in favor of, but that's why the most liberal of states should join the cause as well so their concerns are realized and incorporated.

Liberal concern? How about American concern? Fear-mongering over the big, bad Federal government is what brought this on. If I thought a convention would limit its focus to those issues I'd have no problem with it, but if you think this movement is only about those and not repealing certain existing amendments then you're just a bit naive. Revolutions have a way of eating their children.

 

[dave]

Liberal concern? How about American concern? Fear-mongering over the big, bad Federal government is what brought this on. If I thought a convention would limit its focus to those issues I'd have no problem with it, but if you think this movement is only about those and not repealing certain existing amendments then you're just a bit naive. Revolutions have a way of eating their children.

3/4's of the states would have to agree to change anything. Anything accomplished by a convention of states would have massive nationwide and bipartisan support.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

I haven't followed this thread much at all, but I can't see 2/3 of the Senate voting for this, which is essentially currently 50/50 Ds and Rs.
I'm all for Congressional term limits but it will never happen. You think Congress is going to impose the term limits upon themselves?

 

[mneilmont]

Liberal concern? How about American concern? Fear-mongering over the big, bad Federal government is what brought this on. If I thought a convention would limit its focus to those issues I'd have no problem with it, but if you think this movement is only about those and not repealing certain existing amendments then you're just a bit naive. Revolutions have a way of eating their children.

I am not sure I buy the many amendments unless intended as a poison pill to find something that would be disagreeable and cause failure. I would think most would be in the form of single issue.

Even the balanced budget stand alone would bee difficult. It would have to bewritten to allow flexibility. Written in absolute terms of balance would not allow Admin to protect us from any aggressor.

 

[WVU82_rivals]

38 states in agreement CAN change the Constitution...

But, they can only change one item at a time...

 

[Popeer]

I haven't followed this thread much at all, but I can't see 2/3 of the Senate voting for this, which is essentially currently 50/50 Ds and Rs.
I'm all for Congressional term limits but it will never happen. You think Congress is going to impose the term limits upon themselves?

Of course Congress would never propose such an amendment, but that's the beauty and the danger of Article V - the way I read it I'm pretty sure that if 34 states agree to the call, Congress has no choice under Article V but to convene the Convention, and may not withhold any amendment(s) agreed upon by such a Convention from being voted on by the states. If it does come to pass it will be the first time in history that the states will have succeeded in getting a Convention called.

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

I haven't followed this thread much at all, but I can't see 2/3 of the Senate voting for this, which is essentially currently 50/50 Ds and Rs.
I'm all for Congressional term limits but it will never happen. You think Congress is going to impose the term limits upon themselves?

That's the point of the convention of "states". They can bypass Congress at a State level to impact items on a Federal level.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Liberal concern? How about American concern? Fear-mongering over the big, bad Federal government is what brought this on. If I thought a convention would limit its focus to those issues I'd have no problem with it, but if you think this movement is only about those and not repealing certain existing amendments then you're just a bit naive. Revolutions have a way of eating their children.

Look, I know we're on opposite sides of the spectrum on this. I personally don't see it as fear mongering to take a look at the current situation and see where the Fed is trampling rough shod over many issues which should be at a state level. Take something as simple as term limits. I would wager the majority of Americans who even know what they are would be in overwhelming favor of it, yet in the current status, no elected official would dare push for it, let alone get it passed.

I personally would like to see the Fed reigned back in on a variety of topics, most of which I listed previously. The amount of pork in the budgets which find their way onto the random bills solely to whip support for the main bill is absolutely sickening to me.

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[Popeer]

Look, I know we're on opposite sides of the spectrum on this. I personally don't see it as fear mongering to take a look at the current situation and see where the Fed is trampling rough shod over many issues which should be at a state level. Take something as simple as term limits. I would wager the majority of Americans who even know what they are would be in overwhelming favor of it, yet in the current status, no elected official would dare push for it, let alone get it passed.

I personally would like to see the Fed reigned back in on a variety of topics, most of which I listed previously. The amount of pork in the budgets which find their way onto the random bills solely to whip support for the main bill is absolutely sickening to me.

As far as the issues go we're not as far apart as you make it seem, but given the current climate I'm leery of putting the future of the Constitution in the hands of people who haven't read much of it, let alone understand what it means. Too many people who think blow it up and start over would be the way to go.

 

[PriddyBoy]

The problem is that the sausage keeps getting made of sausage and we're left with bologna.

 

[mneilmont]

3/4's of the states would have to agree to change anything. Anything accomplished by a convention of states would have massive nationwide and bipartisan support.

Are you suggesting this is a better method to make changes than by US Supreme Court or exec order by the president?

 

[mneilmont]

As far as the issues go we're not as far apart as you make it seem, but given the current climate I'm leery of putting the future of the Constitution in the hands of people who haven't read much of it, let alone understand what it means. Too many people who think blow it up and start over would be the way to go.

You want to abide by the constitution by denying part of that same constitution? Think about it.

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[WVU82_rivals]

CoS Progress Update

Here are all the latest numbers:

Total Passed States: 8
Total House Wins: 18
Total Senate Wins: 11
Total States with Committee Wins: 24
Total States that have filed the COS Resolution: 44

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[WVU82_rivals]