I will have to look into it.

I am very sympathetic to your arguments. I like the idea of correcting things that need correcting, I just don't trust any person to go do it. I think it would be subject to special interest money.

But your missing the fact that the state government is no less corrupt. And given individual power. They will be more able to move freely with the power of corruption over smaller groups of people! We will not longer be united under individual laws of each state!

@Gerri4321 corruption at a local level is more easily fought then going up against a behemoth like the Federal Government; with all its unknown, unelected, and unaccountable departments.
We started with 13 pretty independent states. Things have constantly gone down hill as power has migrated to DC's central grasp. IMHO.

@JAMK not if the country is devided. If one state passes a law and other don't then this will it be legal for people of one state to help the other? No because if one state passes sharia law it will be illegal for someone to enter that state till the convert. If another state passes say a cults like law then then your subject to the law's if the land (the state) so thr only people able to fight the corruption if the handful in the state.

Good point. However, my concern is that the convention that the "constitutional convention" was actually just supposed to fix the articles of confederation, not do away with them entirely. The Anti-Federalists argued that the constitutional convention was illegal under the articles of confederation. The Federalists seemed to acknowledge that it was illegal (though they did not expressly say so), but it was for the good of the country.

My point is basically that last time our country held a convention of the states, they ended up doing something that, while incredible, was technically illegal under the existing law at that time. My fear is that this would be a repeat but that this time the end product would be a disaster instead of the awesome constitution we have today. But I acknowledge that maybe my fear is more exaggerated than is necessary.

@plebeian_lobster - that is my point. Under the Articles, the Constitutional Convention, while not authorized, was not prohibited. It certainly exceeded the guidance from their States, there was nothing to prohibit it because there was nothing to authorize it, either.

Now that we have a Constitution that specifies how the Convention works and legally limits what it does. The "runway convention" is (best case) a legitimate, but uninformed fear, but more often, (worst case) deliberate fear mongering by those who know how a Convention of the States would break their Progressive stranglehold they have on our Nation right now.

I like the sound of this, but my concern is how do we sift through the delegates and who will do it? How do we keep special interests out of the process?

Also add in an amendment that clarifies the commerce clause.

I agree. If we can't even enforce the Constitution we have, what good will it do to add another few amendments?

@CautiousDreamer But what if a convention just accelerates the damage? How do we keep people like AOC or Pelosi from participating in a convention?

@plebeian_lobster I think we should rework through politics rather than through a convention. But I'm still on the fence.

If there was a convention, we wouldn't keep people from participating, instead we rely on the states to reject amendments which are untenable.

A Convention of States bypasses Congress. The States have the right from Art V of the constitution to call for a meeting to discuss ways to rein in the Federal Government. They can only make suggested amendments, which have to be ratified by 38 States. The same process Congress used 27 times. We need a Convention of States to add amendments for Term limits, budget & spending limits, and restrictions on Federal authority. sign the petition at [conventionofstates.com] Read up on
COS. #cossquad, #cosproject ,#whodecides, #biggovernmentsucks

It sounds like you misunderstand Article V. It is a power wielded by the states, not the federal government.

@ScottThomson I understand it, I just see that it can swing both ways. The "limited scope" of amendments that can be tabled at conventions are not set in stone. A runaway convention while unlikely to successfully ratify anything, is not a risk worth taking IMO.

@JayKane So, you believe that a runaway convention, creating unacceptable new ammendments, would be ratified by the states?

@ScottThomson No, I do not believe that any rogue amendment would have much of a chance at being ratified. At least in the short term here and now. But I do not have faith in governments at any level, and the rate things are changing in America lately I don't like the seven year window that would allow for states to pick up the ratification process. But more importantly than that I'm not on board with any of the proposals being put forth by any of the states calling for a convention.

@JayKane Can you give me an example of a convention or meeting that has gone off the rails. They are always controlled by an agenda, schedule and rules of order. This is a fear tactic espoused by Big government and Globalist agendas. 3.8 million people support our Convention of States Project, 14 States have passed our Resolution, Two more may pass this week. We need 34 states to call the convention.

Are you afraid of a runaway convention? I am not sure how you draw your conclusions.

@MADcHATTER Yes , I know very well what a Convention of States is . I worked in Talk radio where this issue was hotly debated . The unintended consequence is that the entire Constitution is on the table , article by article
The right to armed self protection , freedom of speech and religion , lawful search and seizure , exemption from self incriminating , every protection you gave , could be gone . I've worked on radio interviews with every Constitutional scholar you can think of . I heard what they had to say on the subject .

@ScottThomson Please read my reply to the comment by @MADcHATTER

What astounds me, is that you think that the states would ratify what you fear.

@Georgesblogforum Did you talk to this expert?

@Georgesblogforum the bar to come to agreement is very high with COS, George. As stated above each amendment would need to be approved by a vote of 38 of the 50 state legislatures.

But what is even more significant is what continues to happen if we do nothing. Not only does our Constitution get amended by the Supreme Court by the edicts they submit to us, but it is amended aggressively by lower court orders that aren’t accepted for consideration by the High Court.

In addition much of the “deliberations” on new laws never even make it out of the administrative rooms of our bureaucracy... and citizens become more and more intimidated from execution of their already established Rights under our Current Bill of Rights by the power of the Administrative Star, (not even a Constitutionally codified Branch of government)!!!

Our Constitution IS ALREADY being Amended in all of those ways almost weekly!

@tkrzmarz No , but I was the Board Operator on many interviews with Constitutional scholar Joseph Douglass , among others . People have been trying to sell this pig in a poke excuse for a Constitutional Convention , for 20 years .

If Donald Trump had not been elected, we would have 2 more liberal judges on the Supreme court. Hillary would continue Obama's destruction of the US with wide open borders, millions of Muslim Refugees and we would be on a downhill slide to socialism, which always turns to Communism.
We need a Convention of States to stop Big Government, which is a requirement for Socialism.

@Georgesblogforum [conventionofstates.com]