Convention of the States?
In the the realm of things politicians do not want you to discuss is a little-known article in the constitution called Article V. This has been suggested by a growing number of people, now including the current governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, as well as presidential candidate Marco Rubio. With two high-profile politicians suggesting it, is it worth looking into?
To answer this is to put something subjective in my mind and supplant it with another. Since you are reading this though, I will take that as a sign that you would like to know what I think. I am open to an Article V convention. I think it will be a way to air out grievances, a way to propose amendments that would otherwise not get passed, and could show Congress and the Executive that the power to make law does not strictly sit with them. However, I do have some reservations. I worry about the dreadful amendments that could and would be proposed. I also think that it would be very difficult to get anything passed this way as well, since you would need three-fourths of the States to ratify any amendment proposed. Yet, this gives me hope that the amendments that could do horrible damage would not be passed (imagine amendments offered up by the likes of Bernie Sanders!).
How to have one.
So what does it take to have an Article V convention? You need two-thirds of the States to call for one, then after this the convention would take place. This is where specifics get difficult since this is not laid out by the constitution. I would think that the States, much like they did when ratifying the constitution, would elect delegates and send them to the convention to propose amendments to be offered to the States to ratify. I am sure there could be another way, but this is simply the American way the people speak through the States. After the convention the amendments would be sent to each State’s legislative body and be voted on to either be accepted or rejected.
After the Convention.
After the convention and where the States reject some amendments while accepting others, those accepted would be part of the constitution as the amendments are already attached. Some might nullify others while some could define or clarify portions, such as the interstate commerce clause. One would hope that this would allow liberty to push back the abyss which has been marching steadily forward.
Would it work?
Honestly, there is absolutely no way of knowing whether this would work or not. It could set this country back on the path to liberty and prosperity that we haven’t seen in quite some time or, if it goes horribly wrong, set us back farther than we can imagine. Like anything in life, it is a calculated risk and a decision should not be made lightly. I would hope that it would move us forward, however, I don’t deal in hope.
For more information, See Compactforamercica.com