• 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!

Does the Article V Convention...?

Goshin said:
Thank you, I am doing rather well. Got the heart issue under control, lost 70 lbs on the diabetic diet, and my knee is finally working properly again.

Best wishes to you also, Redress. :)

(I am also a 1965 baby btw)
Click to expand...

It's good to see you, dude.
 
Goshin said:
Thank you, I am doing rather well. Got the heart issue under control, lost 70 lbs on the diabetic diet, and my knee is finally working properly again.

Best wishes to you also, Redress. :)

(I am also a 1965 baby btw)
Click to expand...

Great to hear!
 
Redress said:
Hi Goshin, nice to see you. When it comes to fear vs hope, remember that I would have a say in an AVC. Is that something you are really comfortable with? I can state with surety that some of what I would push for would be things you diametrically oppose(eg limiting the 2nd).
Click to expand...


Yes, that is my personal "touchstone issue", along with some other items of concern.

We're a very polarized nation. For every hope that an AVC (lovely acronym btw, thanks for that) might kindle, there is an equal fear that something treasured will be lost or changed in a bad way. Thus most people view an AVC with uncertainty at least, if not outright fear.

And not without good reason. "People are disposed to suffer familiar ills, while such ills are tolerable, rather than upend the forms to which they are accustomed" (something like that, closest I can quote without looking it up).

As much as we complain, for most things remain tolerable if far from ideal, which (for most) is preferable to uncertain changes that might *not* be tolerable.
 
JD1965 said:
That's one of the interesting pieces to this puzzle: the states have legally satisfied the convention clause of Article V and the Congress has yet been made to acknowledge it. Though, it has been counting the applications and posting them to the website of the Clerk of the House, so members are vaguely aware I suppose. Regardless, the call has to be issued before delegates can be elected.
Click to expand...

Thomas Jefferson seems to have been in favor of a full re-write of the Constitution every generation or so.

Calling a Constitutional Convention would be one way, the best way perhaps, to do it.
 
Redress said:
We can "have discussions" just fine without actually holding an AVC.
Click to expand...

Yes, we have discussions, but they are informal. Which is exactly where politicians/special interests want our discussions to remain. The convention call formalizes the discussion, so that should an idea reach overwhelming/broad consensus, it has the chance to become legally binding.

Redress said:
Holding an AVC carries certain risks(actions taken that are not good for the country), so why take risks to hold a conversation you can have without those risks?
Click to expand...

You have yet to comprehend that a non-binding deliberative assembly carries no risks to the people, only to the special interests leading us around by the nose. You're under the impression that somehow 7 out of 10 states (or 38 in total) are going to suddenly agree to ratify something detrimental. You might as well be a child afraid of the dark in a room. An AVC turns on the lights, allowing us to examine what's in the room, why those things are there, whether we still need them, and/or what we might add to it.

Redress said:
You mention "electoral reform", which is something that can be discussed without an AVC
Click to expand...

Again, we're talking about a formal discussion which can only occur in two places: Congress or an AVC. When was the last time Congress formally discussed electoral reform? The past quarter century legislation/court rulings have all moved away from strengthening The Vote for the people, placing it in the hands of the wealthy and corporations. And yet, here we are today, still discussing the situation informally, and folks like you thinking everything is fine. Common sense and all history says our current situation cannot continue without inevitable consequences.

Redress said:
Others have suggested eliminating the electoral college, which while probably nor harmful, is hardly necessary. Others have suggested ranked choice, which seems like a bad idea to me.... None of them need an AVC,
Click to expand...

At the AVC other more knowledgeable delegates would reason with you why your fears and views are undeveloped and/or irrational.

Redress said:
...and none that I know of are worth changing the constitution for(and some would be actively bad). We make mistakes with amendments(see 18th amendment), so there would have to be some real reward for taking the risk, and you have not explained what the reward would actually be.
Click to expand...

An AVC does not change the Constitution - An AVC does not change the Constitution - An AVC does not change the Constitution.... The only thing that can change the Constitution is agreement by 38 states from across a huge regionalized country.

Yes we've made mistakes, and we're never allowed formally discuss them. The reward of an AVC is that we can formally discuss things the Congress cannot or will not.

Finally, you being former military and your oath and all, the states have legally satisfied the clause and Congress is illegally operating without issuing the call as mandated by the Constitution. So if nothing else, we should have an AVC because the law says we shall, regardless of your understanding. It would be more refreshing for someone like you to say something like: "I don't see the point of an AVC, but the Constitution mandates it, so of course we have to do it."
 
swing_voter said:
LOL. Zombie politicians? Are you a believer in conspiracies? If you open up the Constitution for change, everyone will want to make changes and who knows what we'll wind up with.
Click to expand...

I was using the word "zombie" as a polite characterization. The word Conspiracy exists for a reason, and laws against conspiracy exist for a reason. You seem to be one of those who have been neutered to believe conspiracies don't exist. What is/are politics in general if not a conspiracy to obtain power?

You're also mistaken and parroting what you've been told: the Article V Convention is not going to open up anything other than formal discussion of our collective situation. In order for any changes to result from that formal discussion, the idea must have overwhelming and broad consensus, i.e. roughly 7 out of 10 Americans in agreement.
 
Harshaw said:
Like Redress, I don't see any wisdom in calling a constitutional convention just to have one.

Give me a bona-fide reason for one, and I'm all for it. But trying to coax one out of you is like pulling teeth, and you've responded with nothing but vagaries. If you want to discuss it, why won't you . . . you know, discuss it?
Click to expand...


1) We're not talking about a constitutional convention, that by definition is held to write a constitution. The Article V Convention is held to formally discuss amendments to the one we have. Big difference if you think about it.

2) A bona-fide reason for an AVC is electoral reforms and other things the Congress will not or cannot take up.
 
Redress said:
Harshaw and I do not agree on much at all. I respect him, but he is wrong about just about everything. We have completely different views, and viewpoints. So when we agree on something, that should be a signal...
Click to expand...

That you and Harchaw rarely agree but seem to agree here only tells me you're both misinformed about the subject. The things I'm saying are not my personal opinion, they are the truth based on all history and everything known about the human condition.
 
Goshin said:
And some of us remember that a former convention was only supposed to amend the Articles of Confederation, and we ended up with an entire new Constitution and a very different structure of government.
Click to expand...

Incorrect all the way around. This essay will set you free: http://www.foavc.org/reference/file12.pdf

The fears have no basis in reality because you're never going to get 7 out of 10 states to adjourn from a federal convention only to end up agreeing to dicey propositions. In fact 75%+ approval means that whatever a delegate proposes at the convention, whether it be a conservative idea or a liberal idea, it must get all one side of the political spectrum signed on, plus at least half the other, or it goes where 10,000+ other proposed amendments have gone--the dustbin of history.

75%+ approval mathematically precludes partisan nonsense from becoming part of our high law.

You're still undecided? Fiddling while Rome burns? Oh the irony.... :) I don't mean that to be snide, I do respect that you're aware enough to recognize this subject as important. The job now is to really understand what has been tarred and feathered with misinformation. Please read the essay above and report back? If you are so moved.
 
JD1965 said:
1) We're not talking about a constitutional convention, that by definition is held to write a constitution. The Article V Convention is held to formally discuss amendments to the one we have. Big difference if you think about it.
Click to expand...

No. "Big difference" if you want to be contentious rather than, as you put it in your OP, "reasonable."

2) A bona-fide reason for an AVC is electoral reforms and other things the Congress will not or cannot take up.
Click to expand...

Specifically, what?
 
Redress said:
When it comes to fear vs hope, remember that I would have a say in an AVC. Is that something you are really comfortable with? I can state with surety that some of what I would push for would be things you diametrically oppose(eg limiting the 2nd).
Click to expand...

This is what you're missing: the convention process is not about finding what we disagree on, but rather what we do agree on. Non-binding deliberative assemblies are tasked with that, the Article V Convention is tasked with that. At the very least, opposing ideas would be floated to the republic for it to decide--not for you or Goshin or me to decide, but for our society to decide.
 
Goshin said:
...there is an equal fear that something treasured will be lost or changed in a bad way. Thus most people view an AVC with uncertainty at least, if not outright fear.

And not without good reason. "People are disposed to suffer familiar ills, while such ills are tolerable, rather than upend the forms to which they are accustomed" (something like that, closest I can quote without looking it up).
Click to expand...

Treasured or lost? We might argue what is treasured is already lost. The USSC and Congress have been ruling and legislating against the letter and spirit of the law since the Reagan Revolution. Lobbyists write legislation that politicians sign off on without even reading. 2008 private banks ripped off the USA and one of the principal villians became Treasury Secretary. Lose what is treasured? It's gone baby gone, unless and until a tipping-point say it's time to formally discuss our situation.

Jefferson's quote illustrates our situation: we've had decades of ills, and we're all still hanging onto the ridiculous hope that the USSC and Congress are going to suddenly start acting in our interests again. It's a slow normalization of the destruction of everything won with the American Revolution, and here we are in this forum, debating whether or not to deploy the objective solution--a non-binding deliberative assembly allowing for consensus outside the politics as usual on Capitol Hill.
 
Last edited:
Rich2018 said:
Thomas Jefferson seems to have been in favor of a full re-write of the Constitution every generation or so. Calling a Constitutional Convention would be one way, the best way perhaps, to do it.
Click to expand...


The Article V Convention embodies our ultimate right of alter/abolish as handed down from the Declaration of Independence. Indeed it's how we reform without resorting to a bloody revolution. It is a peaceable reformation of the status quo.
 
Harshaw said:
No. "Big difference" if you want to be contentious rather than, as you put it in your OP, "reasonable." Specifically, what?
Click to expand...

Obviously there is a big difference between proposing a new constitution and proposing amendments to one we have.

You want my pet amendment? I want a convention to propose an amendment to publicly fund elections as such would transform politicians on the corporate take into true public servants.
 
JD1965 said:
Obviously there is a big difference between proposing a new constitution and proposing amendments to one we have.
Click to expand...

How about "Amendment 28: This Constitution, upon ratification of this Article by three-fourths of the States, shall be null and void."

You want my pet amendment? I want a convention to propose an amendment to publicly fund elections as such would transform politicians on the corporate take into true public servants.
Click to expand...

So propose the language for it.
 
Harshaw said:
How about "Amendment 28: This Constitution, upon ratification of this Article by three-fourths of the States, shall be null and void."
Click to expand...

Correct, in order to formally propose a new Constitution, you would need to ratify an amendment to abolish the Constitution, then need another convention to draft the new one. But because you would never get 75%+ approval to do away with the Constitution all we're left with is amending the one we have.

From here on all state and federal elections for public office shall be publicly funded.
 
JD1965 said:
Correct, in order to formally propose a new Constitution, you would need to ratify an amendment to abolish the Constitution, then need another convention to draft the new one.
Click to expand...

No, you wouldn't need a whole new convention; you just specify the new constitution in the amendment, or propose it in a separate but simultaneous amendment. And in reality, you wouldn't even need to declare the Constitution null and void; just re-write the whole thing in a single amendment.


From here on all state and federal elections for public office shall be publicly funded.
Click to expand...

That is so vague as to be entirely meaningless. "Publicly funded" by whom? By how much? It doesn't preclude other funding; it just says there will be public funding. It doesn't preclude independent expenditures. And I'm sure I could spend the rest of the day exploring its inadequacies.
 
JD1965 said:
1) We're not talking about a constitutional convention, that by definition is held to write a constitution. The Article V Convention is held to formally discuss amendments to the one we have. Big difference if you think about it.

2) A bona-fide reason for an AVC is electoral reforms and other things the Congress will not or cannot take up.
Click to expand...

Here is the relevant text:

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.[3]
Click to expand...

An AVC is part of one of the processes whereby the constitution can be amended. That is its purpose. I do not think amending the constitution right now is a good idea. Therefore, an AVC is something I oppose.
 
Harshaw said:
No, you wouldn't need a whole new convention; you just specify the new constitution in the amendment, or propose it in a separate but simultaneous amendment. And in reality, you wouldn't even need to declare the Constitution null and void; just re-write the whole thing in a single amendment.
Click to expand...

Theoretically yes, but in terms of practical politics, i.e. in reality, such as you describe would never make it out of the convention itself.

Harshaw said:
That is so vague as to be entirely meaningless. "Publicly funded" by whom? By how much? It doesn't preclude other funding; it just says there will be public funding. It doesn't preclude independent expenditures. And I'm sure I could spend the rest of the day exploring its inadequacies.
Click to expand...

In today's political status quo the language might appear to lawyers as meaningless, but again, in reality, it's literally all you would need. The part I left out to trip you up, is that other amendments requiring an amount of legislation to function, they include language to effect "...and the Congress shall make this so...." Can't remember which number, but yes it's true.

"From here on all state and federal elections for public office shall be publicly funded, 'and the Congress shall make this so.'" is literally all the amendment would need to say. From there, humanity is home free because in a natural progression of events legislators would become public servants, and from there all other issues will be legislated in favor of the people, rather than corporations and lawyers.
 
Redress said:
An AVC is part of one of the processes whereby the constitution can be amended. That is its purpose. I do not think amending the constitution right now is a good idea. Therefore, an AVC is something I oppose.
Click to expand...

The Article V Convention is one of two modes of proposal. Regardless of mode, there is only one way to amend the Constitution.

The convention is not the process of amendment, ratification is the process of amendment. They are two entirely different processes.

The only other way the Constitution can be changed is by bogus court rulings and bogus legislation. And all the individuals who are creating bogus rulings and legislation, and all those who aspire to one day join the creation of bogus things, they don't want the alternate mode of proposal to take place because suddenly, literally overnight, we stop looking at Congress as a cesspool we can do nothing about, and instead as something to be reformed.
 
JD1965 said:
Theoretically yes, but in terms of practical politics, i.e. in reality, such as you describe would never make it out of the convention itself.
Click to expand...

You're going to have to decide if you're discussing theory or practicality. In terms of practical politics, there will never be a convention.


In today's political status quo the language might appear to lawyers as meaningless, but again, in reality, it's literally all you would need. The part I left out to trip you up
Click to expand...

Why are you trying to "trip me up"?

Apparently, despite your OP, you do NOT want a "reasonable" discussion; you want to play games.

I'll let you do that all by yourself now.
 
Harshaw said:
Why are you trying to "trip me up"? Apparently, despite your OP, you do NOT want a "reasonable" discussion; you want to play games. I'll let you do that all by yourself now.
Click to expand...

Because you're a lawyer telling me the objective truth is entirely meaningless? That's usually when I shift gears in reason, from soft ball to hard ball. I apologize if that was too brusque for you. Bow out if you must, but may I leave you with this:

In 2010, during the 110th Congress, the Tea Party Congress read the Constitution first day from the floor of the House. Before reading, sponsor Goodlatte from Virginia noted that because the Constitution had been amended, members would be reading what the Congressional Research Service deemed valid. They skipped over the convention clause of Article V, did not read it. Then in 2012 the CRS issued a two-part white paper all about the Article V Convention. So how is it that the CRS is at once telling members of Congress not to read the convention clause, and two years later writing a paper all about it?

That paper has been updated multiple times, most recently 2017: http://www.foavc.org/reference/R44435_20171115.pdf

That paper spawned a rule which has the House now officially counting state applications and posting them as PDFs: Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives

In addition to that, over the past ten years, in the comment section to blogs and op-eds focused on the Article V Convention, it has gone from roughly 75% against a convention, to today where it's roughly 75% for a convention.

The above is all evidence that what you believe, that the Article V Convention will never be convoked, is not true. All the above says we will get the call, and we will go through the process. Hopefully the flim-flam of impeachment will hasten it.
 
Last edited:
JD1965 said:
Incorrect all the way around. This essay will set you free: http://www.foavc.org/reference/file12.pdf

The fears have no basis in reality because you're never going to get 7 out of 10 states to adjourn from a federal convention only to end up agreeing to dicey propositions. In fact 75%+ approval means that whatever a delegate proposes at the convention, whether it be a conservative idea or a liberal idea, it must get all one side of the political spectrum signed on, plus at least half the other, or it goes where 10,000+ other proposed amendments have gone--the dustbin of history.

75%+ approval mathematically precludes partisan nonsense from becoming part of our high law.

You're still undecided? Fiddling while Rome burns? Oh the irony.... :) I don't mean that to be snide, I do respect that you're aware enough to recognize this subject as important. The job now is to really understand what has been tarred and feathered with misinformation. Please read the essay above and report back? If you are so moved.
Click to expand...


I read it. I was not overly impressed. Semantics and fig leaves. Perhaps a thin legal justification over what was done, I am not a lawyer splitting hairs so I don't care much. What was done was done. Could it happen again? Perhaps the odds are low, but they are imho not zero.

In any case making changes is on the table, and tmk there isn't a limited agenda, so there could be changes I would find intolerable. This worries me.

And yes, you are being a bit snide, which is not the best way to convince someone who is undecided but not opposed to your pet advocacy. "Fiddling while Rome burns" was not a reference to my preferences, but to this forum in general... we argue passionately about X and Y as if it means anything, as if "winning the argument" will actually affect national policy, when in fact it will not. During my more active years here, I may have convinced a few dozen people to alter their attitude about a given subject to some degree... so what? Probably won't affect how most of them vote, and even if it did the effect on policy could not be measured with a micrometer. Thus, the "fiddling".
 
Last edited:
JD1965 said:
Th...
Click to expand...


Did I understand a previous post correct, that the required number of states has already petitioned for the Convention? And Congress has not responded?

I haven't been keeping up lately... if so this is news to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom