I disagree with your initial premise.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That isn't a part of The Ten Commandments.
What does he propose?
This is from the wiki on the book: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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?