Article V effort dies in Pierre

[Remnantrob]

PIERRE, SD (KELO.COM) The South Dakota House of Representatives has voted, 40-28, against calling for an Article V Convention of the States.

An Article V convention would allow the states to offer proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution on balancing the budget and other issues dear to the hearts of some conservative groups.. 

At least 34 states must call for the Article V convention before it can be convened.  

http://ktwb.com/news/articles/2017/feb/13/article-v-effort-dies-in-pierre/

[Running Gator]

If South Dakota is not on board finding 34 states will be very hard

[other one]

an article V could also be very dangerous...   if the 34 states do call an article there is no telling what all of the constitution could be changed.

Just out of curiosity what would you all change..... OotS, I will read your post if you answer.   I would really like to know.

 

[Running Gator]

Thanks for asking.  I am against the idea of having a Constitutional Convention, as I do nto trust the people of today to be level headed or clear minded enough to make changes for the betterment of the whole country. 

If I could change anything I would try to make Article 10 even stronger, or more specific and take away much of the power of the Federal Government.  

[other one]

11 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said:

Thanks for asking.  I am against the idea of having a Constitutional Convention, as I do nto trust the people of today to be level headed or clear minded enough to make changes for the betterment of the whole country. 

If I could change anything I would try to make Article 10 even stronger, or more specific and take away much of the power of the Federal Government.  

we are in total agreement...

I think we should also make it mandatory for any government official or employee to attend a good old fashioned 1965 civics class.

[Remnantrob]

1 hour ago, Out of the Shadows said:

If South Dakota is not on board finding 34 states will be very hard

I had heard a rumor that there are 28 states with a standing call for constitutional convention.  with all that occurs in the news everyday its not hard to see 6 states change their minds and come on board with the premise of doing whats best for the country.  

[Running Gator]

3 minutes ago, Remnantrob said:

I had heard a rumor that there are 28 states with a standing call for constitutional convention.  with all that occurs in the news everyday its not hard to see 6 states change their minds and come on board with the premise of doing whats best for the country.  

I am sure SD was included in that list of 28.

[SavedByGrace1980]

People on the right have been have been of differing opinions about the benefits of an Article V constitutional convention for years.  The majority seemed to think it was a bad idea - it would have unintended results.  I was in that 'camp.'

Recently, former Constitutional Attorney and radio talk show host Mark Levin authored a book titled "The Liberty Amendments".  In it, he presents the case FOR such a convention.  

Levin is a huge critic of the current political system.  He's certainly not a fan of the Ds, but he's critical of the Rs as well.  After supporting Ted Cruz in the primaries, he very reluctantly supported Trump.  But since the election, Levin has certainly not rolled over and played dead for Mr. Trump.  He favors Trump on immigration, but seems to oppose him on trade and some economic policies.

I don't agree with everything Levin says or does, but at least his criticisms - when he offers them - seem to be well thought out and have a constitutional basis.

But back to the Article V convention.  

Levin promoted it as a 'last gasp' to save the republic.  He believes (and I agree) that the system is completely corrupt and broken.

Here's the problem (and question) I have and I would ask Mr. Levin:

The problem is the Constitution is completely ignored by the ruling class Ds and Rs.  They 'trot it out' when it benefits them; and ignore it when it would hinder them.  Look no further than the recent 9th Circuit Court ruling; or before that John Roberts upholding Obamacare.  Constitutional Convention?  That happens in effect every time the Supreme Court hands down a ruling.

My question then to Mr. Levin would be:  If the ruling class is ignoring the present Constitution that we currently have, what makes anyone believe it will 'all of a sudden' follow a newly revised Constitution?

The ruling class is a 'law until itself'.  It is lawless.

Blessings,

-Ed

Edited February 14, 2017 by SavedByGrace1981

[other one]

we don't need to change the constitution, we need to go back to living by it and the reason we don't is because our justice system is corrupt.   That could be fixed by congress, but most of them don't understand that it's there duty to watch over it.....  Congress can over ride supreme court decisions if they would.

[SavedByGrace1980]

2 hours ago, other one said:

we don't need to change the constitution, we need to go back to living by it and the reason we don't is because our justice system is corrupt.   That could be fixed by congress, but most of them don't understand that it's there duty to watch over it.....  Congress can over ride supreme court decisions if they would.

WE aren't the problem, since WE are already abiding by the Constitution.  

Yes, the justice system is corrupt - but what makes anyone think that Congress is interested in fixing it?  Look at it this way - with the courts and the Supreme Court 'legislating' (instead of interpreting), Congress persons and Senators get the best of both worlds:

They can promise the great unwashed anything and even pass laws (like abortion restrictions) they might disagree with.

All the while knowing that the ever more statist courts will knock such laws down.

Blessings,

-Ed