The Framers of the Constitution foresaw that one day we might reach the point in our Republic where the government was so corrupt as to make fundamental reform politically impossible through normal channels. To circumvent such a system, “we the people” could then elect a “convention for proposing amendments.”

Which do you fear most, DWC? Addressing dangers like same sex marriage through a democratic process, subject to ratification in the States? Or deciding such issues in a de facto permanent convention consisting of nine unelected, irremovable, life-tenured oligarchs?

Which is safer? The closest thing to a national referendum that we possess? Or a usurpatious politburo who can issue Constitutional decrees without regard for the consent of the governed?

The mandatory call by the unanimous-super-majority all fifty states for a Constitutional convention meant to adhere to Article V for tendering amendments is ignored by our oh-too-well ensconced (‘settled in and hiding securely’) representatives.

And, we can expect if a convention is finally called, these folks won’t be the dead-weight dead-wood that they are, elected by a dead-weight, sleepy-headed electorate? Can you see the progresso-pet MSM awakening the heads of said electorate? Can anyone else envision that these self-assigned elitist ‘aristocrats’ would seek to make their incumbency more a Constitutional fact than anything else? Increasing their own power, prerogatives, ‘entitlements’, etc.?

As usual, a fact or three leads to at least as many questions. (And, I’m gettin’ too old for this stuff! The good Madame Kochan would have me reside on her block; where her brood in casual lesson would define ‘inertia’ as ‘Mr. Jewell!’ ([Gales of laughter!] ‘Inertia’ comes from the Latin for ‘lack of skill, slothfulness’, I might add.) She’d have to leave the room to L-A-U-G-H over the truth in that answer.)

1, How do we wake up our electorate to facts about freedom and priority of virtue?
2. How do we get our wake-up call broadcast?
For example, how many others at CE here ever heard of 750 initiatives from all 50 states for convention? Or, in singular, ANY such initiative?
3. How long ago was the simple-majority 34-state-applications demand reached?
Did the fine Mr. Struble himself even know of it?
How did billwalker learn of it? Or, at least, of foavc.org?
Plus, is there anyone in our national capital – indeed, in the capitol building itself – pushing it along?
4. How do we constrain the ‘victims’ in the various branches of government of the self-aggrandizing miasma of Wash.D.C.?

Many of the issues discussed have been already proposed by the states as amendment issues in these texts.

As to a new Constitution. The Constitution provides at least three different means whereby this cannot happen. First Article V mandates an amendment made must be part of the present Constitution that no matter what is submitted it must become part of our already existing Constitution. Second, the Congress could pass a law making it a criminal offense specifically for any delegate to a convention to act in such a manner; meanwhile current federal criminal law clearly could be applied if need to address the matter. Third, the president is authorized by the Constitution already to “preserve” the Constitution. He could, under that authority, as has been done in the past, simply order out federal troops and shoot the delegates should they attempt such an action. See actions of Washington, Jackson, Lincoln for any questions regarding the president cannot do so in face of acts of rebellion.

As to the left high jacking the convention. Very unlikely unless those on the right simply sit on their hands during election of delegates as well as during any ratification action in the states. As with all American politics the victory will belong to those who go out and fight for what they believe.

Here let me briefly refer to Article V itself which describes “a convention for proposing Amendments.” It authorizes the convention to PROPOSE, not enact or decree as the Courts do. Three-fourths of the States (38) would be free to ratify or refuse what the con-con proposes.

Second, only “Amendments” are authorized, not a new Constitution. An Article V Convention is different in this respect than the Convention of 1787. That assembly was called for by the Continental Congress; but it was not mentioned, nor delineated, in the national constitution of that day, the Articles of Confederation.

Thus you have a narrowing of the agenda to Amendments, and practically speaking to Amendments which the delegates are hopeful about submitting to the States for ratification. For other political factors that would help in narrowing the focus of the Convention, click on the indicated link:
http://www.tell-usa.org/totl/04-Insurrection%20of%20Suede.htm#Seven_safeguards

Not sure if you want to answer here or if that should be the subject of another article.

We will be transferring this article to the politics section on Monday and running it there Monday and Wednesday and hopefully get more people to join the discussion. But maybe from this you get an idea of what level of understanding about the process most of us are at and what we need to understand in order to see the possibilities in your idea.

Meanwhile, let me respond briefly to two of your points. First, I am opposed to any movement for a new Constitution. Instead, I propose one arch-amendment to the existing document, which would approximately double its length. The written Constitution as revised would be exponentially shorter than the accumulation of judicially imposed components in the so called “living, breathing constitution.”

Second, I agree that no revised Constitution per se can guarantee, as you put it, “action over inertia” by the Legislative Branch. But, a reformed Congress, as per sections 1-5 of the constellation amendment, promises to reinvigorate the House and Senate — especially the House as the engine of democracy within the Federal system. Would not a revitalized Congress, armed with new tools of oversight over the judiciary and the bureaucracy, be the sort of solution you seek?

The ‘politburo of nine’ (and appellate auxiliaries) need only be crossed by our legislature following the Constitution to be put in their place. “You will NOT take our job. Your imperious finding on Moe v Schmoe is moot for enforcement. Next such attempt to usurp our job will find you held to impeachment considerations.” The two other branches need only invoke their positions from the current ‘unrevised’ Constitution to pinion the judiciary. They simply have chosen not to; yet, it is with, from and of such leadership that we would be trying to reform our governance. A revised Constitution will not guarantee legislative action over inertia.

I am currently anchoring, lest my sails fill again and I set off on my own wind.