WHY WE NEED AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION OF STATES AND WHAT IT COULD ACCOMPLISH Part 1

[M]

Oren Long has asked me if I could transfer his PDF to the site.I'll try

WHY WE NEED AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION OF STATES AND WHAT IT COULD ACCOMPLISH

We all know something must be done to save the America we love.   But what?   We have basically three options:   1) Keep working within the current, corrupt system, 2)  Armed rebellion, or 3) An Article V Convention of States (COS).  

It has been over 200 years since the Constitution and Bill of Rights went into effect.   In that time  history has seen the Original Intent of the Constitution slowly whittled away and changed until we now live under an increasingly oppressive Federal Government, a government moving relentlessly towards Authoritarianism.

Happily, the Founders wisely gave us a remedy – a COS.   The Founders knew that times and circumstances would dictate that the Constitution be amended to accommodate them.   Therefore, they wrote Article V, allowing Congress to propose necessary changes.   But, Colonel George Mason, in Convention, noted that he could foresee a time when the Federal Government, itself, would become so onerous and corrupt that IT would be the enemy of the People and the States.   He therefore proposed that Article V be modified so that, if and when the Federal Government became the enemy, the States themselves could convene a Convention to propose amendments designed to bring the Federal Government back under control.   His impassioned plea resulted in the addition of a mechanism where the States could convene their own Convention and go around an intransigent Federal Government.  

There currently exists a Movement to gather the necessary 34 State Legislature Applications for a COS.   Twelve States have signed up so far.   We need another 22 States.   Government being what it is, it will take the PEOPLE DEMANDING it to make it happen.   This is where YOU come in.   ONLY when We The People FORCE our State Legislators to act will it happen!

But, this begs the questions, “What could we expect from a COS?  What would come out of Convention?   Could a Convention get out of control?   Could they throw the Constitution away?   Could they act on their own without any recourse by We The People or the States that convened them?   And a thousand other concerns?

To answer all the above questions would take far to much time and space for a single Discussion Topic.   Therefore, I want to start with what we could hopefully expect from a COS.

To that end, I am posting for your perusal, input, and discussion a series of proposed amendments that I have been working on for over NINE YEARS.   At the risk of sounding arrogant, I think they are very good.   I have repeatedly revised and refined them to their current form and format.   It is my hope that they will stimulate a vigorous debate and, hopefully, stimulate people to get on board with the COS Movement.  

Following each of my proposed amendments is an explanation of my thinking.   Yes, they are long and many will not read them (TLDR, I suppose), but there is simply too much at stake.   Those who will not even read them will almost certainly not bother to actively support the Movement.   That is their choice.

They are as follows: 

>

NUMBER ONE:

The Fourteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States are hereby repealed.   All Federal Laws, Agencies, Programs, Rules, Regulations, and/or Orders created, passed, or handed down as a direct or indirect result of the Fourteenth, Sixteenth, and/or Seventeenth Amendments are hereby stricken from Law, declared null and void, and without force of effect.

 

EXPLANATION:   Some say that past laws, rulings, etc. cannot be undone in one stroke under the “no ex post facto law” clause of the Constitution.   I beg to differ.   The “no ex post facto” clause deals with LAWS, not the Constitution.   The Constitution can do whatever three fourths of the States want it to do.

Others say that repealing all past laws, rulings, etc. would be too disruptive and possibly create chaos.   But, repealing the 14^th, 16th, and 17^th Amendments will do that, anyway.   We are talking about [legal] major surgery.   An Article V Convention of States may be the ONLY chance we get to save the country as envisioned and founded, so let’s just do it.   If we don’t do it while we can it WOULD take 20 to 50 years to undo the damage, and with no guarantee of success.

 

NUMBER TWO:

Section One: The Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land, shall not be subservient to or subjugated to any Foreign Law, International Treaty, or International Agreement, and shall be read, interpreted, applied, and adhered to literally.   No words or phrases shall be changed or substituted and no part of the Constitution shall be used to expand or increase Federal Power or Authority beyond that EXPRESSLY granted and enumerated in the Constitution.   The language of the Constitution shall be interpreted according to the definition of words at the time of their inclusion in the Constitution.  

Section Two:   The words “and general Welfare” are hereby stricken from the Constitution of the United States.   All Laws, Rules, Regulations, Orders, and/or Court Rulings based upon or reliant upon “and general Welfare” are hereby stricken from Law, declared null and void, and without force of effect.

Section Three:    This Amendment shall be retro-active upon its ratification.   Any and all Laws, Rules, Regulations, Orders, Treaties, and Agreements that directly or indirectly suborn or subjugate the Constitution of the United States as the Supreme Law of the Land, as read and interpreted literally, are hereby stricken from Law, declared null and void, and without force of effect.

 

EXPLANATION:   The Founders considered adding “expressly” into the Constitution, but decided that it was unnecessary.   The Founders were men of honor and could not imagine anyone even wanting to suborn the Constitution to political or ideological precepts.   They were wrong.   They grossly underestimated the creativity and lust for power of corrupt lawyers, judges, and politicians. 

Words change over time.   “And general Welfare” has been intentionally redefined from its original meaning until it now means something entirely different.

“Section Three” is added for the express purpose of preventing the Executive, Legislative, and/or Judicial Branches from declaring that previous Laws, Treaties, etc. are “Established Law” that should not be violated.

>

NUMBER THREE:

Section One:   No person shall be nominated for or appointed to the Federal Bench who is not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, who has not attained the age of thirty five years, who is not a member of the Bar in good standing, who has not been a member of the Bar in good standing for a minimum of ten years, who is not law-abiding and without criminal conviction, who is not confirmed by a two thirds vote of the Senate of the United States, and who has not demonstrated a clear and consistent adherence to Constitutional Principles as envisioned by the Founders.

Section Two:   The Power and Authority of the Federal Judiciary shall be strictly limited to only those powers EXPRESSLY enumerated in Article III of the Constitution of the United States.    No Federal Judicial Ruling shall insert Legislative, Executive, or Judicial Power, Authority or Interpretation, direct or indirect, into the Constitution of the United States that is not EXPRESSLY enumerated in the Constitution of the United States.

Section Three:   Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States and Judges of inferior Federal Courts shall stand for reconfirmation by the Senate of the United States every six years.   Justices of the Supreme Court and Judges of inferior Federal Courts, ensconced on the Bench before the ratification of this amendment, shall also stand for reconfirmation by the Senate of the United States every six years.

Section Four:   Congress shall have, by two thirds vote of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, the power to override individual rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States and/or inferior Federal Courts.   The President shall not have veto authority over Congressional overrides of Federal Court decisions.

EXPLANATION:   Article III is badly flawed.   The Founders spent much time and energy on Articles One and Two, but precious little time and energy on Article III.   In my view this was an error.   The Founders did not view the Federal Judiciary as a serious threat to Freedom or the Constitution.   History has proven them wrong.  

Neither did the Founders bother to lay out specific qualifications for the Federal Bench.   A careful reading of Article III reveals that there are NO qualifications for the Bench.   It is not even necessary for a Federal Judge to be a Citizen, let alone a Natural Born Citizen.   There is no requirement that a Federal Judge or Justice be a lawyer, let alone 'learned' or 'in good standing'.   The Village Idiot (think Joe Biden) could be nominated and would probably be confirmed.   A convicted felon could be nominated, confirmed, and serve as long as he/she committed no further offenses while on the Bench.   Technically, it is not even necessary for a person nominated to the Bench be a resident of the United States.

Nor are there ANY restrictions on Federal Judicial Power or Authority – NONE!   Article III lays out what the Judiciary CAN do, but does not say what it CANNOT do!   Any “limitations” on Judicial Authority are implied and assumed.   Lawyers and Judges often assume that if there is no SPECIFIC restriction on their power or rulings, said rulings must be Constitutional.   The courts have used this oversight to gradually increase their power to the current, overarching level.   This must stop!

Finally, there is NO "Check" on Federal Judicial Power.   The President can overrule Congress via Veto.   Congress can overrule the President via Veto Override.   Judges/Justices can overrule both Congress and the President.   But, NO ONE can overrule the Court!    The ONLY "Check" on the Court(s) at this time is Impeachment.   But, even if a Judge or Justice is impeached and removed from the Bench his/her decisions still stand.   We simply MUST implement some form of "Check" on the Court(s) and their rulings.    

Some have proposed term limits for the Judiciary.   This is a bad idea.   Term limits get rid of good Judges/Justices along with the bad.    My proposed amendment resolves ALL the issues surrounding the Judiciary.        

I firmly believe that the ratification of this proposed amendment would go a long way towards bringing the Judiciary back within its Constitutional Limits as envisioned by the Founders.

>

NUMBER FOUR:

Section One: No person shall be elected to Congress more than once unless serving in Congress at the time of the ratification of this amendment, in which case sitting Members of Congress shall be eligible for re-election to their respective seats one time.

Section Two: In the event the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed Senators shall be selected according to the rules laid out in Article One of the Constitution of the United States, including service in the Senate as long as their respective State Legislature deems it appropriate.  

Section Three:  Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected for a term of six years, with one third of House Members elected every two years.

Section Four:   Members of Congress shall be subject to Popular Recall by their constituents.   Within 90 calendar days of the ratification of this Amendment the Legislatures of the several States shall pass Legislation governing the recall of their respective Members of Congress.   In the event a State fails to pass Legislation governing the Recall of its Members of Congress within the required 90 calendar days, that State’s Members of Congress shall have been recalled and new elections held within 60 calendar days.

Section Five:   In the event the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed, Section Four shall not apply to Members of the Senate of the United States.

Section Six:   The President and Vice-President of the United States shall be subject to Popular Recall by their constituents.   Within 90 calendar days of the ratification of this Amendment the Congress shall pass Legislation governing the Recall of the President and Vice-President of the United States.   The President shall not have Veto Authority over Legislation governing the Recall of the President and Vice-President.   In the event the Congress fails to pass the required Legislation within the required 90 calendar days, the President and Vice-President shall have been Recalled and a new election held within 60 calendar days.   In the event the President and Vice-President are Recalled, the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall serve as the President Pro Tempore pending the results of the aforementioned election, whereupon the newly elected President and Vice-President shall be sworn in immediately upon the certification of election results.   

Section Seven:  Neither Congress, the President, nor any Federal Court shall make any law, rule, regulation, or order that does not apply equally to themselves and all Citizens of the United States.   Nor shall Congress, the President, nor any Federal Court cause or allow any law, rule, regulation, or order to be made by any agent or agency of the Federal Government that does not apply equally to themselves, all Federal employees,  and all Citizens of the United States.

Section Eight: Neither Congress, the President, nor the Vice-President shall receive any publicly funded retirement or benefit, beyond appropriate pay, not available to all Citizens of the United States.

Section Nine: Section Eight shall not apply to Members of Congress, Presidents, or Vice-Presidents, serving or retired, at the time of the ratification of this Amendment.

Section Ten:   No former Member of Congress, former President or Vice-President, or former Federal employee shall advocate for or against Legislation or Policy for a period of ten years after leaving public service or employment.

 

EXPLANATION:   The problem with the term limits concept is that we have never had REAL term limits, except for the President and Vice-President, even on the State level.   Several States have imposed term limits, but some States have repealed them.   This is because, as tried, they are not actual ‘term limits’, but are just shortened career paths with retirement and other special benefits.  

WHENEVER a politician is able to run for re-election, that politician is subject to the influence of lobbyists, big donors, and Party Leadership.   In fact, studies show that Members of Congress generally spend half their day seeking money and support for re-election instead of doing the Peoples’ business.   Then, after leaving office they move to a lobbying firm where they make millions of dollars a year.   I see a one-term limit and the repeal of the 17^th Amendment as the ONLY way to return Congress to a Peoples’ and States’ Congress.   In short, what would be the point of lobbyists and big donors throwing money at someone who won’t be there next term?  

Some say that a one-term limit is a bad idea.   They say that seating an entirely new and inexperienced Congress each election eliminates experienced Members and puts new and inexperienced Members of Congress at the mercy of lobbyists and bureaucrats who could easily manipulate them.   My proposal to elect members of the House of Representatives for a term of six years,  with one-third of the House elected every two years, along with the repeal of the 17^th Amendment accomplishes four goals simultaneously.   It returns the House to a Peoples’ House; eliminates or seriously reduces the influence of  lobbyists, big donors, and Party Leadership; provides for stability in the House; and returns the Senate to a States’ Senate as envisioned by the Founders.      

The Sections governing ‘recall’ would serve to keep elected officials true to their campaign promises and the Will of the People and States.   Further, repealing the 17^th Amendment would automatically implement a form of recall on the Senate.   Under the rules laid out in Article I, a State can Recall and replace a Senator at will.   Shouldn’t the People have that same power over the House and the President?

>

See Part 2 at; http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/profiles/blogs/why-we-need-an-articl...

[Oren Long]

Tom,

Thank you for responding.   I found your post easy to read and follow.   I happily accept your olive branch so that we can debate civilly.   

I understand where you are coming from and what you are saying.   Intellectually and historically, I agree.   BUT, as M pointed out, the 14th, for example, has been in place so long AND has been so long ensconced in jurisprudence that it would be impossible to excoriate it under the current [corrupt] legal system.   Theoretically, it would be possible to file suit to have it removed, but I think we all know that such a suit is doomed to fail.   There is no way the judicial system will ever correct itself.   That would be to admit that the system, itself, is a failure, something they will never do.  

Plus, if we can successfully remove something we disagree with from the Constitution, why couldn't the opposition do the same, even if it had to use spurious and fallacious 'arguments' brought before a leftist court?   That is not a chance I want to take, primarily because we all know the day WILL come that the Left is, once again, in charge of the Supreme Court.

That forces us to seek another remedy.   What could that be?   We COS advocates see the remedy to be in the same Constitution that has been so long attacked and undermined -- Article V and a COS.   

Basically, we have but few options.   We can suffer under the status quo and try to change the current corrupt system from within, go to war, or use a COS.   At this time, I choose a COS.   I believe it is our last, best, peaceful option.  If it fails, either in implementation or in delivery of product, we may be forced to opt for a 'last stand'.

You have never said what your opinion is of my series of proposed amendments (and explanations) that M so kindly posted for discussion and that started this debate.   These are not something I dashed out "over a beer and a pool game" as it were.   I have been working on them for over nine years, continually revising and refining them to their current form and format.   In the event we achieve a COS I hope to have them introduced into Convention. Due to length, M posted them in two parts.   Did you see both parts?   I would be interested in your feedback.   Perhaps I am naïve, but I feel I have addressed all the issues that plague us at the present time, starting with the repeal of the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments, then moving on to other issues such as term limits, the budget, imposing a check on the courts, citizenship rights, cleaning up flaws in the Constitution (yes, it has flaws), and the First and Second Amendments.   

I think (perhaps "feel" is a better word) we are essentially on the same page, just singing in different keys.   I would much rather be an ally than an enemy.   I think we both bring something of value to the table.   

I look forward to your response.

Oren

[M]

TLS,Then you know what Pro Forma means in this context about repealing an amendment. Nothing else will suffice because of the length of time it has held sway.

[Tom Lacovara Stewart]

Question: How can you repeal something that was never lawful? And if you fail, how is it you do not risk validating it by recognizing it to be "law" that therefore must be repealed?

Now I'm no expert, but my father was a Judge and I worked for him for years.

this I can tell you sets a dangerous environment to move forward and one of the single most Grand concerns I have. I do not believe this concern to be unreasonable considering the overthrow of the Republic that took place from 1868 to this very day.        "This will create a defacto government and make the law itself unlawful"

said President Andrew Johnson.

[Tom Lacovara Stewart]

- NOTE :   NOT DIRECTED TOWARD ANY ONE INDIVIDUAL SPECIFICALLY:

Again a strawman argument has been made below and attributed to me. I do not somehow believe or disbelieve anything but FACTS. This is my prima facie argument against those who apply such emotional desire to "do something" that they can refuse to ignore plain truth and fact.  To "do something" just to try and effect change would NOT be honoring the Constitution or its original and true intent. If you are not going to do that then why bother with a convention at all? 

I will say again.... I am not close minded. But until everyone is fully informed, aware of and ready to stand upon the facts, a convention would be dangerous. I do not expect people to "think like me". They are entitled to their own opinions and personalities. But they are not entitled to their own facts that are not based in actual reality. 

There is a process to amend the Constitution.     It was not lawfully excersised and our research and the Congressional and state records PROVE THIS. 

The anology I made about plumbers not doing brain surgery includes myself as one of the plumbers, albeit perhaps a journeyman,        As a plumber I can tell you what the symptoms and problems are, but it would take surgeons armed with the knowledge and ability to repair it to do so.    I could see how you might have felt some kind of way about that analogy. I merely used it to make a point. 

As for my typing skills. I am using an iPhone and in email mode it is the desktop version of this site and I can hardly see it.   Again a critical and irrelevant jibe at something not actually related to any of the information I have shared. 

And Im the one being notified about community guidelines ? Nice touch. 

I believe as our founders did in candid and challenging debate. I have used no profanity, and have used the English language to express my thoughts freely. When someone commits to a solution that does not truly completely and totally answer the facts as they stand, they operate in the sphere of belief and not knowledge. This is my assessment based upon my study of history and it is what has gotten us right where we are.

Not much different than those who believe we have a 2nd Amendment Right.

we do not

it is an inherent right that restricts government as to where they may not tread. This pre existed the Constitution and has many of its origins defined in the Magna Carta. These beliefs, what we were propagandized to believe. Once you realize the size and scope of the deception really only one major thing can come to fix it TRUTH 

and they are treading UPON OUR UNALIENABLE inherent rights? how?    14th Amendment jurisdiction. 

Which again, if we acknowledge is lawful - and move to set aside or abolish, and fail, we have all consented to it being lawful in the first place which leads me back to square one. If I thought there were an ethical way forward with an Article V that could identify this adequately without risking what I see to be a great risk, I would support it. 

My position can and is always subject to change if an argumet argument based on facts and evidence with applied logic can be presented in a way that seems reasonable. 

Allow me to extend an an olive branch here. While reminding all of you all I did was comment to begin with and was somewhat insulted by the response that if I did not share the hive mind I wasn't worth discussing it with. Considering someone got their knickers in a twist with my defense upon myself and my position, I am perfectly willing to debate. But if those here believe they can continue to subsceibe me to strawman arguments I have not made and continue to put words thoughts and beliefs in my mouth, I will respond accordingly. Anyone wanting to engage in debate based upon facts and evidence - I am open to do so here on on my live radio broadcast. You are all hereby invited. 

Regards,

Tom

[Oren Long]

Tom's position regarding the 14th Amendment appears to be that we can somehow force Congress and the courts to magically declare the 14th invalid, even though we all know they never would.   Really?!

The entire thrust of the Article V COS Movement is that the Federal Government, TOP TO BOTTOM, is hopelessly corrupt, cannot, and will not reform itself.   Ergo, a COS is the only peaceful option.

Tom says he is not against a COS despite previously saying he was.   He appears to believe that only he and people like him (those he personally approves of) should be involved in and run a COS Convention.   He essentially compared us to plumbers trying to do brain surgery.   Apparently, Tom believes he is smart and we are either stupid, uninformed, or both.

Sorry, Tom, your bias is on full display.

Oh, and BTW, when you type out your posts you might want to set your anger aside, slow down, and check your spelling and punctuation before you hit "Add Comment".

Oren

[M]

Tom,

I could come up with counter arguments to yours, but I see we will have to agree to disagree on some but not all points. My point of GAR troops being in the Southern States plus the condition of forced ratification to regain seats in Congress in my mind did make the 14th Unconstitutional. I do disagree with the premise that repealing an Amendment means it was unconstitutional to begin with and cite Prohibition. Answer this as it can be verified on the web; The original 13th amendment was never repealed but it is not listed anywhere except in archival libraries of the States when it was passed. For information on this look on the web for "The Original 13th Amendment." The way it was written I believe it would have prevented any Lawyers from serving in Congress, because of conflict of interest working for another part of the Federal Government (Separation of Powers) plus the Title granted Lawyers (Titles of Nobility clause).

[Tom Lacovara Stewart]

And M - the cut and paste below has in it disinformation claiming states that I can prove NEVER RATIFIED the 14th are listed as having done so. This is the problem. Read the historical documents within our thesis and you will learn how badly generations of people have seeded the public square with repeated misinformation - many not in any way with ill intent.

[Tom Lacovara Stewart]

In response to Oren. 

My comment about Saul Alinsky style arguments of name calling can not be in any way used as a counter to said critical analysis used to discredit my position. Allow me to be specific on my views as to the Artcle V

- In many comments I have seen versions of the same argument - "A ratified Constitutional amendment can not be UnConstitutional. 

        Response:     According to the historical record, which I have given links to CRS reports as well as many proofs that states that were alleged to have ratified the 14th Amendment absolutely did not lawfully do so and in many cases rescinded their intention to ratify once they learned what the amendment was "in actuality" going to be used for. Many of those states were Northern states. This occurred after the Civil wWar and AFTER the 11 States were accepted back into the union. And AFTER they had been purged of and had replaced representatives that were a part of the rebellion "so called".     This by definition was unConstitutional in and of itself and was only accomplished by MArtial Law power which can in no way be construed to be in accordance with the Constitution. 

-  Our founders, the wise men that they were KNEW that there would be subversion to the Constitution and declared that any law that was repugnant to the Constitution (including the lawful process of the adoption of amendments) was and is to be considered NULL AND VOID. Marbury V. Madison 

This is evidence that they KNEW there would be those who achieved the "appearance of passing" laws that were not at all lawful. Otherwise their argument would be invalid in its face. 

- Some have stated that "the Article V process would attempt to nullify said Reconstruction Amendments". At law, when you recognize that something needs to be nullified, by proxy you legitimize this give consent to said amendments as being valid as currently they stand. If unsuccessful you by not meaning to, have just stamped it with your tacit approval. 

- Copy and pasting from Wikipedia is not research, nor does it ewuate to a valid argument in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER.    I can PROVE within a shadow of a doubt for any open minded person who will take the time to read the research that the UNITED STATES Federal Government, is, has been, and continues to be lying to the public thus creating an environmental of subversion and indoctrination. BELIEF that these Reconstruction Amendments were done lawfully are at the core of that, the very beginning of that. And unless or until those who would deny these facts without taking the time to read and adequately disprove our thesis on the subject, they themselves are not acting in fact but beLIEf - 

- My argument is not an argument, but a presentation of facts more accurately... AND IN NO WAY "CENTERS" around Marx and Lincolns letters..... it was merely an interesting footnote on how Marx was so enamoured with the actions of Lincoln. To attempt to make that a CENTER of my position isn't being lazy and factually inaccurate. 

- If you want to assign an "argument" with me, then that would be the presentation of facts I have found by thousand stars of hours of documented research presented in our thesis on the Reconstruction Replacement Government and that of the Communist subversion that the 14th an duchess 16th Amendments have seriously opened the door for. 

- As for Oren's analysis of my position. Why I call IT ignorant is because he is cherry picking peices of my comment and creating so many strawman fallacies that it numbs my brain to have to actually have to respond to it. "Marxism did not yet exist"?  ----- really? I wonder if he even knows that Marx himself is largely a plagiarist who merely made his specific applied theories more widely known. You may call Marxism by many names. Varieties of it have existed presaging Marx. And this is why I use the term IGNOR-ANT - as it requires you to IGNORE historical fact and history and then apply argument with belief that ignores other factors. 

- In closing - It is not an Article V that I oppose to be honest. It is an article V that is driven by those who do not know the full and accurate history of what the problem is. EDUCATION is paramount. And saying that I do not have a solution as a point of attacking my position is also a false argument. I don't  have a solution to cure cancerous either - but I can tell you that because I don't does not mean I should let a bunch of plumbers engage in surgery to remove it. I can have learned enough about said cancer to know that requires people withbinformed MSN very special skills to engage it. I have not seen people who know the history well enough AN said who can truly keep us from making critical mistakes such as repealing something that is unlawful to begin with. Condemn it for being unlawful.... that would be a start. Educate people involved as to how, and we have a good start. But this comment thread in and of itself show some me we are nowhere near to ready to assume that task as a group.

Oren - M - and others. I know what I say comes across brash, harsh... but it is the love of my Republic, the love of God, and the love of my fellow countrymen that I stand. I reacted to comments that were disparaging - I did not start that way.    But when inaccurate assessments, and smearing come from folks who have not apparently taken the time to read the thesis, or the Congressional Research Service REPORTS, or the countless reps and Senators who tried to tell us these things and then seek to advocate for something to the point of offensive attacks at those who might intelligently challenge their beliefs, I react the way I do. 

READ THE RESEARCH I PROVIDED - AND USE MORE THAN WIKIPEDIA to RESPOND

[M]

Source Wikipedia

To clarify Article V and the term Convention of States;

Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution, the nation's frame of government, may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a convention of states called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures.^[1] To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be ratified by either—as determined by Congress—the legislatures of three-quarters of the states or state ratifying conventions in three-quarters of the states.^[2] The vote of each state (to either ratify or reject a proposed amendment) carries equal weight, regardless of a state's population or length of time in the Union.

A Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution, also called an Article V Convention, or Amendments Convention, called for by two-thirds (currently 34) of the state legislatures, is one of two processes authorized by Article Five of the United States Constitution whereby the Constitution, the nation's frame of government, may be altered. Amendments may also be proposed by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.^[1]

To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be ratified by either—as determined by Congress—the legislatures of three-fourths (presently 38) of the states or State ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states. Thirty-three amendments to the United States Constitution have been approved by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. Twenty-seven of these amendments have been ratified and are now part of the Constitution. As of 2018, the convention process has never been used for proposing constitutional amendments.

***********************************************************************************************

  Therefore, the same safeguards are in place for a states petition for Convention as are in place for a Congressional called convention. The same protocols that were initiated at the first amendment convention and have held through all the Congressional conventions will be in place for a States petition for convention. As I see it the States Convention that cuts out Congress from proposing amendments will be safer because Congress can propose amendments from a Quorum of members instead of from the entire body of members. In both cases the exact wording of an amendment must be agreed on by the Delegates/Congress before it is sent to the States to be Ratified. It still takes 3/4 (38 presently) of the States to ratify a proposed amendment.

Amendments by their very nature, as proven by the Repeal of Prohibition, are temporary and subject to change through the amendment process. The process could be hijacked by a unified Congress but amendments would still be subject to Ratification processes. The main body of the Constitution can not be changed, and amendments only determine how that main body is interpreted as law. Therefore I feel safer when the citizens speak together on amendment proposals than when Congress speaks on them. To me this means anything can be proposed as long as the delegates agree on it's intent and wording, but it still has to be ratified to become law.

[Oren Long]

M,

Tom is obviously well read in many Constitutional areas yet seems to cherry-pick his arguments to reinforce his set-in-stone position that an Article V COS is bad, but without stating exactly why.   His arguments appear to center around his contention that the 14th Amendments is unconstitutional and that Marx and Lincoln exchanged letters.   

Well, I didn't know the Constitution could be unconstitutional.   It's a bad amendment, I'll give him that.   But, the Constitution cannot be "unconstitutional".   The Constitution can do whatever 3/4 of the States want it to do.

As far as the Marx/Lincoln letter exchange, so what?   "Marxism" did not yet exist.   So, Lincoln was just replying to communication from another person who wrote to him.   Again, so what?   

Then Tom complains that we are name-calling while calling anyone who opposes his pre-conceived notions "Alinskyites".  

  

He then touts his own self-education and intimates that we are essentially ignorant.   

Finally, he opposes a COS, but offers no alternative solution.   As Ross Perot famously said, "If you've got a better idea, I'm all ears".   Just saying that we need to observe the [original] Constitution is not a solution.   Knowing where you want to be is not a solution.   One must have a plan to get there.   We have a plan; Tom does not.  

Essentially, Tom reminds me of Publius Huldah who loves to slam a COS but offers no solution, essentially making money by attacking a clearly Constitutional option.

There is no point in debating naysayers like Tom.   Their minds are made up, don't confuse them with the facts.  "I hear a thousand reasons why something cannot be done, but never one why it can" comes to mind.

Oren