This has been discussed before but is a very dangerous process.
3/4ths of the states have to agree.
Once convene the amendment process is open. Any amendment can be presented.
All it takes is a simple majority vote to ratify it.
Which means you might get a ton of amendments you don't like.
that is one reason it hasn't been called. There is not a filibuster etc ...
I read that as you are fine if the North had a no slave policy and in the South people were allowed to own slaves. I find that a morally reprehensible and indefensible position. Since you take the position that slavery can be accepted under the premise of "live and let live," perhaps you can convince right-to-lifers to accept abortion under that same tenet.
It says a lot that you "didn't bother to read" the rest of my post, which wasn't that lengthy.
No you are wrong it still takes 3/4's of the states to ratify any amendment. It only takes a majority of states to present an amendment at the convention.
No you are wrong it still takes 3/4's of the states to ratify any amendment. It only takes a majority of states to present an amendment at the convention.
Article V
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.
3/4 not majority.
Is that for presentation of an amendment? Or ratification? Or both?
Read Article V. There is no provision for "presentation of an amendment." The language refers to ratification.
That's my point.It only states for amendment ratification, and calling for a convention. Nothing about once in convention.
Some of you are familiar with this I'm sure.
I've been opposed to it to this point, feeling it was too risky and that we could not be sure what we would get out of such a convention.
I've changed my mind. We're past the point where the system-as-is can be reformed without drastic measures, and the current polarization is severely damaging our sense of self as a nation united. The Fedgov will not reform or reduce its power in and of its own action; may not be capable of it.
The States however, may have the power.
We're at a point where both sides fear the other side holding power in DC to an unprecedented degree, a time when liberties some consider essential can hang in the balance of a single SCOTUS appointment.
The Fedgov was never supposed to be so powerful.
We can continue to live where the 51% dictate to the 49%, who become more miserable, resentful and rebellious as it progresses (and it will get worse, gov's exist to gather more power to themselves) or we can make changes.
If we continue as we are, we're like a pressure cooker with the heat dialing up.
I've decided to support the Article V Convention as an alternative to ongoing disaster.
https://www.conventionofstates.com/
or by conventions in three fourths thereof
3/4 not majority.
So, what are your charges? What is the reason you support a dismantling of our founding documents?
Some of you are familiar with this I'm sure.
I've been opposed to it to this point, feeling it was too risky and that we could not be sure what we would get out of such a convention.
I've changed my mind. We're past the point where the system-as-is can be reformed without drastic measures, and the current polarization is severely damaging our sense of self as a nation united. The Fedgov will not reform or reduce its power in and of its own action; may not be capable of it.
The States however, may have the power.
We're at a point where both sides fear the other side holding power in DC to an unprecedented degree, a time when liberties some consider essential can hang in the balance of a single SCOTUS appointment.
The Fedgov was never supposed to be so powerful.
We can continue to live where the 51% dictate to the 49%, who become more miserable, resentful and rebellious as it progresses (and it will get worse, gov's exist to gather more power to themselves) or we can make changes.
If we continue as we are, we're like a pressure cooker with the heat dialing up.
I've decided to support the Article V Convention as an alternative to ongoing disaster.
https://www.conventionofstates.com/
I don't see anything in what Goshin posted indicating he advocates anything like that.
Please explain yourself, your misrepresentation.
The agenda of a convention is to alter the constitution to fit a far right agenda. All you have to do is listen to what they want government to be and THAT is what they will make. In your post 113 you echo exactly what I'm saying.
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?