It is True that delegates to an Article V convention have the "self-evident right" (acknowledged in the 2nd para of our Declaration of Independence) to throw off the Constitution we have and set up a new Constitution which creates a new government. James Madison specifically invoked this right in Federalist Paper No. 40 (15th para) as justification for what they did at the federal "amendments" convention of 1787. Instead of proposing amendments to the Articles of Confederation as they had been instructed to do, they wrote a completely new Constitution which created a new government. That is why Madison "trembled" at the prospect of an Art. V convention; why Alexander Hamilton "dreaded" one; and why 4 Supreme Court Justices (John Jay, Arthur Goldberg, Warren Burger, Antonin Scalia) warned against it.
And the central claim of the COS lobby is idiotic! They claim the remedy for a government which IGNORES the Constitution is to AMEND the Constitution. Hello?
The conventionofstates.com process is not a constitutional convention, but rather an amending convention with a specific, focused mandate, to reign in the power of the tyrannical federal government.
No it is not loud and clear of anything except you have not read Article V-It states "proposing amendments" and they would once ratified become "part of this Consitution" neither of which is a"rewrite and replace the Constitution" like you suggest. Nor can this process change the method of ratification. Part of enforcing our Constitution is going to require us to propose amendments that do just what you suggested-using the words of the founders (like the Federalist Papers) to undo the damage the Supreme Court has done to the original meaning of what they wrote. The states must be able to correct/overturn their bad rulings and restore the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause to what they meant when written in a clear way in order for us to enforce it without interference from the Supreme Court again.
This piece appears to be more of a hit piece most that a substantive informative post. It is more about selectively attacking individuals and groups.
If I understand the sediments of this one, Amendment XVII, would be a result of a Con-Con. Amendment XVII came from the same Article V process that encompasses the Convention of the States. Amendment XVII was from those that wanted to weaken our system of checks and balances. Convention of the States would hope to repeal that "rewriting" of the Constitution.
The federal government was intended to have limited power, reserving the majority of power with the states and the people. The federal government has continuously abused that power with impunity.
Absolutely! It's the electoral college all over again. A minority of voters undercutting the will of the majority. In the case of the election, we ended with a fascist in the White House. In the case of a constitutional convention in the current political climate -- we can't even imagine the nightmare that could result.
Pages