An interesting reading of Article V
The author contends that regardless of the call for a Constitutional Convention, it is not the States that control said Convention. If so, the author points out a rather egregious flaw in the Constitution. Your thoughts?
As far as Congress' involvement in 'calling' the Convention, Article V clearly states that Congress 'shall' (not 'may') call the Convention if 2/3rds of the State legislatures (34) 'apply' for an Article V Convention. These 34 states do not have to tell Congress what individual amendments they want their delegates to propose. The only requirement for an Article V Convention is if 34 states want to have one. Again, there are very low odds that state delegates at the Article V Convention would necessarily reach a consensus agreement on any proposed individual amendment. Dems want restrictions on political free speech. Others want a balanced budget amendment. Some want term limits for members of Congress.
The Article V Convention process and subsequent amendment ratification by 38 states has a very low probability of likely success. However, it is the only peaceful option we have, to attempt to redress these grievances. Our only other options are state secession or civil war, which rational people see only as a last resort...
As for secession, that is highly unlikely. First, there is a portion of the national debt that would need to be compensated, and it's doubtful that the residents of any state would accept that burden. And second, the power hungry brokers would never relinquish their grip over any portion of their kingdom.
As much as it pains me to say, the freedom loving USA of our youth and of previous generations is gone. There are too many moochers, looters, and power hungry socialists now. Our country is in a similar death spiral to that of the Roman Empire in its twilight years. At this stage, in my humble opinion, the only pragmatic solution is to split the country into 2 or more regional nation states. I would hope this can be done amicably, but history tells us that almost never happens. If it is 2 nation states, it could be the RSA (Republican States of America) vs. the USSA (United Socialist States of America). If more than 2 nation states, then various regional alignments may rise to the forefront (Southern, Western, Pacific, and Northern nation states, for one example...). Who knows what the future will hold?
If any realignments like those above eventually occurs, I think it will only occur after the country experiences economic collapse from defaulting on the national debt while the federal reserve continues to grossly devalue the US dollar. Most big shifts and changes in history have a big catalyst, like an invasion or economic collapse. While I don't like the thought of that happening, the current macroeconomic trends, in my opinion, would suggest better than 50% odds of a Greek-style bankruptcy of the federal government. You cannot violate the Laws of Economics in perpetuity and not expect to eventually have a day of financial reckoning. Of course, I cannot predict exactly when such an event may happen. As Washington's continued financial irresponsibility grows the size of our record-setting national debt and other economic distortions, it's hard for me to see us avoiding a serious economic debt deleveraging for much longer... Time will tell...
So, my guess is that we will fracture into several smaller nations - The NE and the west will be the first to go, and they have the resources to do so. The middle will be the more challenging, as the cities with their populace will insist on keeping control of the non-urban areas to keep suckling off the money teat as long as they can. That's where I think the violent clashes will take place. Ground zero is likely to be Chicago/Milwaukee. With the most violent being the far northern suburbs of Chicago which tend to be more right than left and will likely get squashed between the north and south libs.
I don't see Chicago, St. Louis, Denver, Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, etc. acquiescing to their larger state orientation. They will either dominate their surroundings and milk them, or they will create their own little city-states.
Not true. A 2011 Gallup poll found 57% of respondents oppose cutting military spending. That same poll found that only 14% think that the military has too much power, while 53% think it has the "right amount" of power and 28% think it doesn't have enough power.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27286/governm...
This poll tells me that we're a long way from an actual breakup of the U.S. into smaller countries.
consisting of representatives selected by the State
legislatures. . if that were still the method of senator
selection, things would be different. . still, the States
should have the prerogative to call a convention
without the approval of Congress. . this is a good
opportunity for an amendment! -- j
Of course, there's also the way it happened in 1787, and that is for the people ourselves to create so much civil unrest that Congress feels the national government can no longer operate, whereupon they will call one themselves. That is my hope.
Amendments, removing adding changing requires:
1) 2/3 House AND 2/3 Senate to convene Convention for a change, OR;
2) 2/3 of all states to agree, meaning that all 2/3 of the states legislatures MUST be in agreement., then convention is held.
Changes are ONLY approved by the 2/3 SATE majority.
How hard is this to understand. The Founders made changing the constitution hard for a reason. THEY DID NOT WANT IT TO BE EASY, and done willy nilly based on simple majority rule. Keep in mind the majority many times simply means all the fools are on the same side.
The Constitution had been amended 27 times by Congress (the first part of Article V) but I do not understand why people are so hellbent against the Constitution being amended by the second part of Article V.