Its surprising how much you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit
Watch and see what you think!
Then why haven't we? Try it and see what happens. The only way that might work is if a super majority of states all agreed to do it and do it in the same way at the same time and over the same statutes AND they were willing to begin a revolution if the federal government (which controls the military) didn't roll over. Talk about a dangerous agenda. The last time it was tried (called the Civil War) several million men died and that was with muskets.
Short of that, any such move would be deemed unconstitutional by a single federal judge, backed up by a federal appeals court, finally by the Supreme Court. Now do you want to see who would win between the President who controls the military and can nationalize the National Guard or the governor of the state who decides to see if the National Guard would side with the state. There is no constitutional provision for nullification, there is for an Article V convention.
Re the Civil War, 600,000+ deaths, not "several millions". It, however, was more than have been killed in all wars since.
Thank you, I stand corrected. If I could redeem my point I might be correct in saying that 600,000 was a larger percentage of the US population at that time than "several millions" would be today. What I intended to communicate is that a peaceful, legitimate, and constitutional method of possibly "righting the ship" is available, namely Article V and is to me a much more attractive solution if it works. I am working to give it a chance. One amendment that has been discussed would allow a super majority of the states to overrule any law, regulation, or Supreme Court decision. If that were to become a part of the constitution, it would be consistent with the philosophy that the founders built into the constitution namely checks and balances and it would provide the "nullification" option par excellence. All of the amendments that have been discussed by Levin and Convention of States are honest attempts to correct for situations unforeseen by the founders that have now been experienced. This is precisely the purpose that an Article V convention to propose amendments was intended to serve and the reason that it was approved unanimously by the delegates to the convention.
If you really want to know what the founders and other men we respect thought about an Article V Convention, watch this video. https://www.conventionofstates.com/what_the_founders_said_about_art...
I will watch the video later today but every video, written opinion is just that - an opinion. They are scattered across the landscape. Some of it has to be fake news bc they conflict with someone else's "research" We need to keep that in mind. This is an endlless debate that will never be settled until and unless a Convention of States is held and the outcome put into practice. It is no simple question like the national popular vote. on that, we have evidence that for nearly a century now, the dems have garnered more popular vote than the republicans bc republicans don't register illegal and dead people to vote, hold ballot parties and all the rest.
That seems to tell us in the words of the FF just what they put ART V into the Constitution for in the first place, which is what I always heard until this debate flared up. Wouldn't this be the perfect way to eliminate the 17th amendment and to impose term limits on Congress? My problem is whether those going as delegates to the convention will be more interested in the will of the people (yes, I know the people can't always be trusted, but neither can Congress) and the Constitutional principles instead of their personal agendas.
imposing term limits we'd be eliminating the incentive for good people to continue serving the public to the end. In their last term they'd be free to do as they will, rather than try to remain in office by doing the right thing.
You are exactly right on this Marc, I have seen what you are saying going on in California for years and is happening here in Arizona now also. They talk a good conservative story and get elected. Usually the vote at about 50% with conservative issues in the first term and when elected to the second and last term the vote is more like 70% or more with the libs what ever deals are made I can only guess but I have seen it in both places I have lived in that have term limits. In many cases it is just to abstain from the vote or an absence on the crucial day but they manage to engineer the outcome.
Keep on returning to office attempting to do the right thing? How is that working out?
The 16th and 17th were never properly ratified and we can't get anything done about that even though the evidence is clear. We don't hold our elected to their oaths and every new guy we send in prevented from leadership until he or she is proven to be a "team player". Look what has been done to our guys and gals who are members of the House Freedom Caucus. They should be the leaders and running things but they are marginalized and put down by the Speaker, even campaigned against by their own party in the primary for being loyal to our Constitution. We need to remove all the McCain and Flake like people from Office and put in nothing but Constitutionally minded replacements.
It would indeed were it not for the wording of the applications for an Article V convention by the 12 states that have passed it so far. I'm not sure that repeal of the 17th amendment would fall under the scope of these application since the wording is "to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, impose fiscal restraints, and impose term limits on federal officials". I believe it would be an appropriate amendment but might be deemed to be outside the scope of the applications and for each states application to count towards the 34 required by Article V they must be identical.
the scope does not matter as once convened it will do whatever it wants, just like last time.