Article V: Convention of States

[Williamsmith]

Yes, but then we had Madison and Monroe available for the project. We had the people who wrote the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. Today we have people who communicate in hashtags and tweets.

Yes, I will allow, you make a good point there. But I will add that both Madison and Monroe for example did not believe the Constitution as it was created to be a faultless document. And so, since we as a Nation are facing such challenges and relying on the same ignoble Congress and a White House of buffoonery.......I would cast my lot with the various states to deliver Madison and Monroe like persons to address one topic per convention. Surely contining the ride on the wild weasel of federal government is not our only choice. As Jefferson said, "We have the wolf by the ears....."

[LDAHL]

Yes, I will allow, you make a good point there. But I will add that both Madison and Monroe for example did not believe the Constitution as it was created to be a faultless document. And so, since we as a Nation are facing such challenges and relying on the same ignoble Congress and a White House of buffoonery.......I would cast my lot with the various states to deliver Madison and Monroe like persons to address one topic per convention. Surely contining the ride on the wild weasel of federal government is not our only choice. As Jefferson said, "We have the wolf by the ears....."

I don't think anyone would regard the Constitution as a faultless document. Even the framers wouldn't sign off without attaching a Bill of Rights.

Is the ignobility and buffoonery the result of a Constitutional design flaw, or of the decisions we make as voters? I don't see how rewriting the rules will do much good there.

Wouldn't the states draw from the same pool in selecting convention delegates that our elected officials come from? Do we really want to trust our constitutional future to Kamala Harris or Mitch McConnel or Bill De Blasio or Chris Christie? The current design may not be our only choice, but I think it's pretty solid. Certainly not worth discarding in its entirety in the hope that our contemporary political class could do better.

[Williamsmith]

I don't think anyone would regard the Constitution as a faultless document. Even the framers wouldn't sign off without attaching a Bill of Rights.

Is the ignobility and buffoonery the result of a Constitutional design flaw, or of the decisions we make as voters? I don't see how rewriting the rules will do much good there.

Wouldn't the states draw from the same pool in selecting convention delegates that our elected officials come from? Do we really want to trust our constitutional future to Kamala Harris or Mitch McConnel or Bill De Blasio or Chris Christie? The current design may not be our only choice, but I think it's pretty solid. Certainly not worth discarding in its entirety in the hope that our contemporary political class could do better.

I suppose I am developing the view that it is not discarding one tested and proven system for a less secure one. I simply see it as another tool...perhaps a phillipshead screwdriver instead of a common flathead. Its use would be to me a very restricted one but an effective way to perhaps install term limits, maybe issue an ultimatum to live within our means and create balanced budgets that our grandchildren will not be asked to sacrifice to pay for our debt or if socialist leaning states perhaps could convince other states to join them.....we might see an amendment that would create a mandate to provide healthcare as a single payer system.

Not that I recommend the last example. Why should I, I like Congress am very happy and satisfied with my healthcare....it costs me next to nothing. So why would those in charge of creating healthcare policy, who do not have to buy healthcare themselves, ever be motivated to strip themselves of it? Isn't this the type of situation the founders envisioned and rightfully provided a mechanism whereby the swamp may be bypassed?

[ToomuchStuff]

My view is that War plunged us into debt...as far back as the Revolutionary War.......and as recently the Gulf Wars which arguably were prosecuted to maintain superpower status through energy independence. Our own resources and technology right here at home make it possible to dominate the world through energy independence....by that's another topic.

Not really, as the linked to article, deals with a balanced budget as a mandate. The ability to take on debt for national defense is something that would be at stake.

[nswef]

I agree with LDAHL here, I cannot see that the pool of "delegates" would be much different from our current crop of Congress people...who seem stuck on their own agendas and refusal to compromise at all.

[Williamsmith]

I believe this article sums up opposition arguements regarding use of the Article V option.

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arch...al-convention/

[Alan]

Unless a Constitutional Convention could further limit the Federal Government's influence or authority over the states and their citizens, I see no value in it.
Those who would propose amendments giving the Federal Government more authority over the individual or to memorialize 'rights' that must be paid for by others would usurp the very conditions which make the Constitution worthwhile.

[LDAHL]

Unless a Constitutional Convention could further limit the Federal Government's influence or authority over the states and their citizens, I see no value in it.

I wouldn't see a libertarian/individualist majority as very likely.

If I'm honest, I'm more willing to trust my liberty and property to those dead white slave-owning patriarchs than to the current crop of pols, pundits and professors. It doesn't say much for the times we live in.