• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Article 5 Convention Of States

zyzygy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2014
Messages
43,804
Reaction score
8,669
Location
Flanders.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why don't people seem to know of Article 5 Convention Of States of the Constitution , 10 states have already joined-----call your senators and representatives to support it-----it was written in by the framers as a last resort for the states when their power is being usurped by a lawless and too far overreach by the federal government.
 
Why don't people seem to know of Article 5 Convention Of States of the Constitution , 10 states have already joined-----call your senators and representatives to support it-----it was written in by the framers as a last resort for the states when their power is being usurped by a lawless and too far overreach by the federal government.
I disagree with your initial premise.

The concept of State-level Constitutional Convention is taught in H.S. civics class. It is a required class in my state. I suspect many if not most Americans are aware of it in general terms, though they might not remember the specific details.

I also suspect many on this board are at least familiar with the process in general terms - it's referenced here often enough.
 
Be careful what you wish for.

An Article Five convention is an open door to rewriting the entire Constitution, not a method for pushing a single amendment.

Once empaneled you could have States like California able to convince other large States with similar views amongst their populace to push for changes in free speech, second amendment rights, and religious freedom.

On the other hand States with a conservative lean might go for "defense of marriage" and other kinds of "protections" which may sound good to extremists...but IMO infringe on individual liberty just as much as Left-wing efforts to curb free speech and self-defense rights.

As for your comment about why people don't know much about it? I believe the only prior time our nation saw such a convention was at the original Founding when the Bill of Rights was constructed.

That is typically covered in American History classes in 11th or 12th grade. But while some States and localities require civics classes, many don't, so the only time kids learn of it is briefly in such American History classes.
 
Captain Adverse is right.

A convention is not limited to a certain topic, it is open ended! Once convened, no one knows where it will go or what may happen!

The Catholic Church has something similar called an "Ecumenical Council", which occur every century or so. They had one in 1962 and BAM - it totally changed directions from that intended and resulted in a significantly changed Church as it related to the faithful! Something more traditional Catholics were not happy with.

The same could occur with our country!
 
Be careful what you wish for.

An Article Five convention is an open door to rewriting the entire Constitution, not a method for pushing a single amendment.

Once empaneled you could have States like California able to convince other large States with similar views amongst their populace to push for changes in free speech, second amendment rights, and religious freedom.

On the other hand States with a conservative lean might go for "defense of marriage" and other kinds of "protections" which may sound good to extremists...but IMO infringe on individual liberty just as much as Left-wing efforts to curb free speech and self-defense rights.

As for your comment about why people don't know much about it? I believe the only prior time our nation saw such a convention was at the original Founding when the Bill of Rights was constructed.

That is typically covered in American History classes in 11th or 12th grade. But while some States and localities require civics classes, many don't, so the only time kids learn of it is briefly in such American History classes.

Well, population isn't a factor. Any amendments -- even an amendment to jettison the entire Constitution and substitute a new one -- requires 3/4 of the states, which, for that purpose, are all on equal footing.

In ANY case, just to point out the electoral deficit that Democrats are in, Republicans VERY NEARLY control enough states to push through any amendment at will. I, personally, find that problematic.
 
Be careful what you wish for.

An Article Five convention is an open door to rewriting the entire Constitution, not a method for pushing a single amendment.

Once empaneled you could have States like California able to convince other large States with similar views amongst their populace to push for changes in free speech, second amendment rights, and religious freedom.

On the other hand States with a conservative lean might go for "defense of marriage" and other kinds of "protections" which may sound good to extremists...but IMO infringe on individual liberty just as much as Left-wing efforts to curb free speech and self-defense rights.

As for your comment about why people don't know much about it? I believe the only prior time our nation saw such a convention was at the original Founding when the Bill of Rights was constructed.

That is typically covered in American History classes in 11th or 12th grade. But while some States and localities require civics classes, many don't, so the only time kids learn of it is briefly in such American History classes.

The runaway convention is not really a valid argument against it. It takes 3 fourths of the states to ratify anything. That is a serious hump to get over. Population doesn't even figure in with the convention. Just the states. If there are changes then there is consensus which is what we want when we change the constitution anyhow. I would prefer that over the stupidity we have going on now.
 
Why don't people seem to know of Article 5 Convention Of States of the Constitution , 10 states have already joined-----call your senators and representatives to support it-----it was written in by the framers as a last resort for the states when their power is being usurped by a lawless and too far overreach by the federal government.

because its a bad idea!
 
Be careful what you wish for.

An Article Five convention is an open door to rewriting the entire Constitution, not a method for pushing a single amendment.

Once empaneled you could have States like California able to convince other large States with similar views amongst their populace to push for changes in free speech, second amendment rights, and religious freedom.

On the other hand States with a conservative lean might go for "defense of marriage" and other kinds of "protections" which may sound good to extremists...but IMO infringe on individual liberty just as much as Left-wing efforts to curb free speech and self-defense rights.

As for your comment about why people don't know much about it? I believe the only prior time our nation saw such a convention was at the original Founding when the Bill of Rights was constructed.

That is typically covered in American History classes in 11th or 12th grade. But while some States and localities require civics classes, many don't, so the only time kids learn of it is briefly in such American History classes.

Exactly. The people that are pushing for this want to use the process to slip changes in that most of the population will regret. Do a little research on who backs this drive and who funds them. Please.
 
Exactly. The people that are pushing for this want to use the process to slip changes in that most of the population will regret. Do a little research on who backs this drive and who funds them. Please.

Who are they, what do they want, and who funds them?
 
Well, population isn't a factor. Any amendments -- even an amendment to jettison the entire Constitution and substitute a new one -- requires 3/4 of the states, which, for that purpose, are all on equal footing.

In ANY case, just to point out the electoral deficit that Democrats are in, Republicans VERY NEARLY control enough states to push through any amendment at will. I, personally, find that problematic.

It is because Republicans now enjoy a large advantage that this would be a good time for an Article V convention of states. Mark Levin has talked quite a lot about this, and in general I like the amendments he has proposed.
 
It is because Republicans now enjoy a large advantage that this would be a good time for an Article V convention of states. Mark Levin has talked quite a lot about this, and in general I like the amendments he has proposed.

What does he propose?
 
Why don't people seem to know of Article 5 Convention Of States of the Constitution , 10 states have already joined-----call your senators and representatives to support it-----it was written in by the framers as a last resort for the states when their power is being usurped by a lawless and too far overreach by the federal government.

Because most people have no idea what The Constitution says.

There are people on this forum that believe the Supreme Court can interpret The Constitution anyway they want. That should tell you something.
 
It is because Republicans now enjoy a large advantage that this would be a good time for an Article V convention of states. Mark Levin has talked quite a lot about this, and in general I like the amendments he has proposed.

Levin's amendments aren't bad on the surface. I'm just against any changes to law driven by an ideological extreme, and these guys are extreme.

The Christian right group wants to get rid of that pesky church state thing - see what the former head and founder of Patrick Henry college says about that, always using fluffy terms, but he's been clear. Heard him on Levin's show, no less.

This guy claims he represents and speaks for "Americans" and what they want? What an obnoxious, presumptuous idiot:
https://www.conventionofstates.com/meckler_the_health_care_fiasco

Note that at the bottom you get "click to go to Breitbart for more". Yeah, THAT'S not the product of the extreme right wing.
 
Last edited:
Levin's amendments aren't bad on the surface. I'm just against any changes to law driven by an ideological extreme, and these guys are extreme.

The Christian right group wants to get rid of that pesky church state thing - see what the former head and founder of Patrick Henry college says about that, always using fluffy terms, but he's been clear. Heard him on Levin's show, no less.

There is no, "church state thing". The 1st Amendment only says, "Congress shall make no law establishing religion". There's nothing there that prevents a state capital from displaying The Ten Commandments.
 
Why don't people seem to know of Article 5 Convention Of States of the Constitution , 10 states have already joined-----call your senators and representatives to support it-----it was written in by the framers as a last resort for the states when their power is being usurped by a lawless and too far overreach by the federal government.

If you could give some examples of what you're talking about in regards to federal overreach we could have more to go off of.
 
There is no, "church state thing". The 1st Amendment only says, "Congress shall make no law establishing religion". There's nothing there that prevents a state capital from displaying The Ten Commandments.

Okay, good. No need to change it then, right?

I'd actually welcome the 10 commandments displayed to spark conversation. But it has to be the full version, including lines like "...unto the 4th generation". They always want the sanitized, PC, Sunday school version.
 
Okay, good. No need to change it then, right?

I'd actually welcome the 10 commandments displayed to spark conversation. But it has to be the full version, including lines like "...unto the 4th generation". They always want the sanitized, PC, Sunday school version.

That isn't a part of The Ten Commandments.
 
That isn't a part of The Ten Commandments.

Exodus 20:
“You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5“You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
 
I don't recall the details offhand, but I remember hearing him discuss several proposed amendments on his radio program. He has also written a book about it.
This is from the wiki on the book:
The eleven amendments proposed by Levin:[3][4]

Impose Congressional term limits
Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, returning the election of Senators to state legislatures
Impose term limits for Supreme Court Justices and restrict judicial review
Require a balanced budget and limit federal spending and taxation
Define a deadline to file taxes (one day before the next federal election)
Subject federal departments and bureaucratic regulations to periodic reauthorization and review
Create a more specific definition of the Commerce Clause
Limit eminent domain powers
Allow states to more easily amend the Constitution by bypassing Congress
Create a process where two-thirds of the states can nullify federal laws
Require photo ID to vote and limit early voting

I'm okay on the surface with at least half of them. There are a few I oppose and a few more on which I'd need more specifics.

I generally find it ironic that such a pumper of the Constitution thinks we need to amend the hell out of it to save it.
 
The Christian right group wants to get rid of that pesky church state thing - see what the former head and founder of Patrick Henry college says about that, always using fluffy terms, but he's been clear.

He may have been clear, but you have not been. What, specifically, do you mean by "that pesky church state thing?" If you are trying to say something about the Establishment Clause, then make your arguments. I agree with Justice Thomas' view, which he expressed in most detail in his concurring opinion in Elk Grove Unified School District, that the Supreme Court grossly misinterpreted that clause by ever incorporating it in the Fourteenth Amendment and applying it to the states.

I do not agree with your attempt to characterize a return to the original meaning of the Constitution as "driven by an ideological extreme." It is a standard ruse of statists to claim the current state of affairs, in which the federal government has become a leviathan which operates largely outside constitutional authority, is the norm, and that attempts to restore the original constitutional order are the work of extremists.
 
Exodus 20:
“You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5“You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

Right, not The Ten Commandments
 
Be careful what you wish for.

An Article Five convention is an open door to rewriting the entire Constitution, not a method for pushing a single amendment.

Once empaneled you could have States like California able to convince other large States with similar views amongst their populace to push for changes in free speech, second amendment rights, and religious freedom.

On the other hand States with a conservative lean might go for "defense of marriage" and other kinds of "protections" which may sound good to extremists...but IMO infringe on individual liberty just as much as Left-wing efforts to curb free speech and self-defense rights.

As for your comment about why people don't know much about it? I believe the only prior time our nation saw such a convention was at the original Founding when the Bill of Rights was constructed.

That is typically covered in American History classes in 11th or 12th grade. But while some States and localities require civics classes, many don't, so the only time kids learn of it is briefly in such American History classes.
This fear of an Article 5 convention is wholly unwarranted. 38 states must agree before anything can be ratified. The Federal government is already out of control, we literally have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.
 
He may have been clear, but you have not been. What, specifically, do you mean by "that pesky church state thing?" If you are trying to say something about the Establishment Clause, then make your arguments. I agree with Justice Thomas' view, which he expressed in most detail in his concurring opinion in Elk Grove Unified School District, that the Supreme Court grossly misinterpreted that clause by ever incorporating it in the Fourteenth Amendment and applying it to the states.

I do not agree with your attempt to characterize a return to the original meaning of the Constitution as "driven by an ideological extreme." It is a standard ruse of statists to claim the current state of affairs, in which the federal government has become a leviathan which operates largely outside constitutional authority, is the norm, and that attempts to restore the original constitutional order are the work of extremists.

Okay, then rather than selectively removing all laws passed by those evil "progressives" (per judgement of those who push for the Article 5 process), let's just return to, oh, say 1800 or so - delete everything that came after and debate what gets put back in. When done, we can adjust to the new baseline.

I am familiar with Thomas' view on that specific topic and I don't agree with it. Suffice it to say that I agree with the majority ruling and also Scalia's concurring opinion. Thomas went too far in my view.
 
Back
Top Bottom