There is a discussion going on regarding this topic.  We have moved that discussion to this Discussion collumn where discussions are supposed to be.  It will make this discussion easier to find when it eventually lands in the Archives.  We are posting first entry from our Comments Home page for this topic first.  From here, post your comments and replies in the Comment section below.

Opening post on March 5, 2019:

Susan Ellsworth 22 hours ago

An Article V Conventions is dangerous. I must open this discussion up for I believe it will have irreversible consequences. The communists have been placing there evil people amongst us to trick us into voting them in as delegates. Once the door is close they themselves can change the rules. The US will be destroyed from within. Our founding fathers knew this sad fact. 

Comment by Joshua W. Carden 20 hours ago

Susan, an unchecked congress and Supreme Court are also dangerous. The framers knew that the states needed to retain the ability to propose amendments and that’s why we have Article V. Don’t forget an article V convention cannot by itself change the constitution: it can only PROPOSE amendments that must still be then ratified by three-fourths of the states. EVEN IF every state ONLY sent “communists and socialists” to an Article V Amendments Convention, the states would still have the opportunity to ratify (or not) any proposed amendments. In that sense, it is no different than Congress proposing amendments (the way previous amendments have come about). The states get the final word. The important difference is that Washington has not proposed ANY amendments to limit the federal government’s overreaching. The states will have to step up and do that to rebalance the federal/state system - or nobody will.

Comment by Mike White 19 hours ago

It appears that Susan does not understand the difference between a Convention of States and a Constitutional Convention.  I wouldn't want the neo-Marxists and embedded Communists anywhere near the latter, but the former can be set up within constraints.  And we desperately need it to get our Constitutional system back; the federal government is out of control with no end in sight, even with our outsider President.

Editor: see all other comments in the appropriate box below.

Views: 103

Replies to This Discussion

I know little about this topic and am learning from everything I read.  Here is a link, NOT from the Convention of States website as that could seem partisan:

This is from Wall Builders Live

That's an excellent discussion, Pat... it covers virtually every pro and con argument I've ever heard advanced on the subject! I'd suggest that it's much easier to listen to the discussion than it is to read the transcript. Here's a direct link to the audio ==>

While we slept...

Twenty more opens the door! Get involved. Make a difference. Sign the petition ==> #COSProject


Of interest to this discussion, this came out this morning:

Last night, something incredible happened.

With a swift vote at a late hour, the Utah House passed the Convention of States resolution with a final vote of 42-32!

This victory makes Utah the 14th state to officially call for a Convention of States to propose amendments that limit the power of the federal government, impose term limits, and set fiscal restraints on federal officials.

Momentum is building. Right now, West Virginia is preparing for the next vote on our resolution.

We need to know where you stand on this issue. Your opinion will give us leverage with legislators who will be voting on Convention of States in a matter of days.

Poll: How urgently do you feel our nation needs a Convention of States to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government?/span>>

Yours in the fight,

Mark Meckler

Two orgs have consistently been against CoS from the start: Eagle Forum and John Birch Society.  I saw a presentation by the JBS a few years ago.  There were contradictions in the presentation and even then, I already knew there was a difference between CoS and ConCon, hence the two different names.  There was another guy presenting on the other side who made a more rational argument.  I didn't read the whole article posted above because it started out snarky and mean spirited.  A serious argument should have a serious message.

Susan... While Jaspersgoat cuts right to the heart of the matter, identifying (for you) Eagle Forum and the John Birch Society, two groups who we've all known for years to be the most vocal (and most dishonest) constitutional antagonists, all you really need to know is that the author of this screed identifies herself as the president of a group called "Citizens Against an Article V Convention."

Now, think about that... an Article V Convention is part of our constitution. This woman - and others like her in Eagle Forum and the John Birch Society - are flat-out telling you that they DO NOT SUPPORT the Constitution as written by the Founders of this nations, but only support those portions of it with which they agree.

So, are you aligning yourself with these people, or did you you just post that link as an example of their character assassination and disinformation campaign?





NOTE:  Blog posts cannot be blasted to the membership.  Post in Opinions if you want your post to be blasted out.

Post on the correct tab that matches your topic.

Keep it brief and to the point.

Use the proper spelling and punctuation.

Please include the link to your source for the information you post.

Do not attack your fellow conservatives.

If you wouldn't say it to your mother, think twice before saying it here.

Follow these rules!


Suppose the earth and its inhabitants exist in order to identify just what causes mankind continually to suffer so many troublesome problems and afflictions.



© 2023   Created by Arizona Freedom Alliance.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service