The effort to call an Article V Convention of States should not be wasted on one item. Multiple items can and should be on the agenda, including Supreme Court term limits and restrictions. See Mark Levin’s book on this for a good start on what must be there. Also the gold standard should be reaffirmed — it’s already in the Constitution, just not in strong or specific enough terms.
Personally I think of Term Limits as being the "bait". It's the one thing you can easily convince people to get behind, regardless of party, and stands as a civics lesson for the normies. Things like repealing the direct elections of senators or whatnot can come in future conventions once precedent is set and people have a better idea of how and why this works.
Also, a convention like this has never been successful in the past, precisely because congress would step in, do the amendment themselves, and take all the credit. But we would not expect them to do this for term limits. So it makes a good "demo" for the process to play out.
And yes, I definitely recommend Mark Levin's book. It's an excellent primer for somebody just getting into this.
The problem with a Convention of the States is that we don't trust ANY of the current people that would go. We would likely come out with a 2A that specified hunting equipment and a 1A that specified "except Christianity and other hate speech."
As far as I am remember the process, the terms to decide on are clearly defined first, then voted on at the Convention — essentially preventing what you described. This misconception is a huge roadblock to the process actually occurring because people are afraid of a “runway” Convention, a scenario that is actually not possible. Also Congress has no say.
Edit: Also you MUST define all items to decide on FIRST, it is not possible to “bait” people into multiple items if you go into the Convention with only one item,
If you think 38 states are going to ratify a removal of the second amendment, you're wrong.
That's what makes this safe. Term limits are one of those things that is both useful and appealing to normies on both sides of the fence. It would never pass congress on its own because they would never vote themselves out of power. However, disgruntled state legislatures might...
Sure...And all of the people who will take advantage of this Convention to sabotage our Constitution, will ignore that rule. Just like they ignore the law!
The effort to call an Article V Convention of States should not be wasted on one item. Multiple items can and should be on the agenda, including Supreme Court term limits and restrictions. See Mark Levin’s book on this for a good start on what must be there. Also the gold standard should be reaffirmed — it’s already in the Constitution, just not in strong or specific enough terms.
Personally I think of Term Limits as being the "bait". It's the one thing you can easily convince people to get behind, regardless of party, and stands as a civics lesson for the normies. Things like repealing the direct elections of senators or whatnot can come in future conventions once precedent is set and people have a better idea of how and why this works.
Also, a convention like this has never been successful in the past, precisely because congress would step in, do the amendment themselves, and take all the credit. But we would not expect them to do this for term limits. So it makes a good "demo" for the process to play out.
And yes, I definitely recommend Mark Levin's book. It's an excellent primer for somebody just getting into this.
The problem with a Convention of the States is that we don't trust ANY of the current people that would go. We would likely come out with a 2A that specified hunting equipment and a 1A that specified "except Christianity and other hate speech."
As far as I am remember the process, the terms to decide on are clearly defined first, then voted on at the Convention — essentially preventing what you described. This misconception is a huge roadblock to the process actually occurring because people are afraid of a “runway” Convention, a scenario that is actually not possible. Also Congress has no say.
Edit: Also you MUST define all items to decide on FIRST, it is not possible to “bait” people into multiple items if you go into the Convention with only one item,
"he terms to decide on are clearly defined first, then voted on at the Convention"
this is the part where I think it can go awry. I could be wrong, but I think they can redefine and vote on new terms once they are there.
If you think 38 states are going to ratify a removal of the second amendment, you're wrong.
That's what makes this safe. Term limits are one of those things that is both useful and appealing to normies on both sides of the fence. It would never pass congress on its own because they would never vote themselves out of power. However, disgruntled state legislatures might...
Sure...And all of the people who will take advantage of this Convention to sabotage our Constitution, will ignore that rule. Just like they ignore the law!
You tell me how we insure that al of the people attending such a Convention will be people of goodwill! Fat chance!!!!