Discussion about this post

User's avatar
GEORGE MOORMAN's avatar

It is sad how some people attempt to display their knowledge of something yet fail to do so. But also trip over themselves in the process.

• True, “Article V, there is no such thing as a "limited" national convention”. Nor does it say they could take a break and have some burgers.

• You stated, “A Convention of States—also called a Constitutional Convention”. Calling something by a name does not make it so. If you will research, The Constitutional Convention was the result of an attempt to amend the Articles of Confederation. There was only one. Which were so inadequate and deemed needed to be replaced. Even then, the proposals were voted on BEFORE becoming our Constitution.

• “To date, all 27 Constitutional amendments have been proposed using the first method—by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress.” One path travelled does not negate the second. “The second way is for the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to apply to Congress to call a convention for the purpose of “proposing amendments.”” Did you notice the part about proposing amendments? By the way, that is exactly what the first path does too.

• “That method has never been used since the Constitution was adopted 237 years ago.” Meaning it should never be used? What else do you propose we disregard?

• “A "runaway" convention”. You mean like a truck down a hill? The runaway is the bovine biomass spewed in this article. Fear mongering can be another runaway. You are perpetuating a 237-year-old fear. What other boogie men are in your closet?

Here are some facts for you to consider. The States created the Federal government via the Constitution. The grassroots (We The People) that you appear to be trying to belittle are very interested in using the second path since the Congress of the first path are the runaway. Leave fear in the shadows and lets wear in the second path so it can never again be said that it has never been used!

Expand full comment
Ginnie Morgan's avatar

Mr. McEntee,

I have read the other comments and there is no use to repeat them as I agree with all who have posted ahead of me. I also appreciate that you responded courteously. I have 2 pressing concerns as I react to your article, where I take exception on numerous points:

First, nearly all liberty-loving people must certainly agree that our federal government is a mess. We want to fix the most egregious problems permanently via the States proposing amendments under Article V (as congress will not do it); we simply cannot run the country with executive orders. The second method of Article V has not been done, but 38 states must ratify anything that is proposed at the convention. Only death is certain, but I am more willing to risk the Article V constitutional method where I can hold my state legislators accountable than any other solution I have heard anyone propose - are we so gripped by fear that we are impotent to do anything?

Secondly, you appear to be citizen who is willing to spend your valuable time getting involved in government problem-solving. I ask you to please be proud of your own scholarship/research and stop propagating the Justice Scalia lie. It is totally taken out of context and, as such, is just wrong. You will be doing yourself justice and speaking the truth to, at the very least, remove the Justice Scalia example from your thinking, even if you will not change your opinion on any of the other statements you make on this subject. Respectfully, Virginia L Morgan

Expand full comment
20 more comments...

No posts