Great speech by Joanna Martin "Publius Huldah" on Convention of States Project and why we should never have a COS. She points out that most of what the Federal government is currently doing is unconstitutional and we don't need any amendments to rein them in.
She identifies Mark Levin's amendments and how it would enshrine as law those powers that the government has usurped.
Ok, as I understand it:
Convention of the States IS the common vernacular Constitutional Convention. The Founders specifically enshrined Anything not federal powers is up to the States.
This is WHY local state representatives are important elections.
The state legislature calls for the convention, and may name articles they(the state) are concerned with. Then the governor passes it or not like any other legislation. the legislature or governor elects two people to represent/argue-send to the COS (your state rules may vary)
When 2/3 majority of States call for a convention, then it's called, and has the power of assembly. Huge debate, states submit the articles they want, and the entire body boils it down to articles they can agree upon -Again 2/3 of those state representatives must vote up or down on the articles to become actual articles they present for ratification.
There's a high hurdle, 2/3 is a large majority hurdle, hell, even the location & times will be a brawl. Wako stuff may be presented for consideration, but again 2/3 of the state reps need to agree on the articles & wording, Essentially only one or two or three articles at most will actually be voted to present back to the states -So the scare of bullshit changes to the constitution is largely that a scare or subterfuge, hard to get two people to absolutely agree, much less than 100...
THEN
The articles agreed upon get sent back to the states to ratify. they argue in local legislatures, probably meet with people, maybe even local referendums, eventually the state legislature votes to ratify yea or nay, and present it to the governor, who signs it or rejects it. -Just like any other state legislation.
If the State ratifies it, that is a "vote" that is sent to U.S. CONgress, who's only role at that point is tally-keeper.
If 2/3 of the states "vote" to ratify one, or all the articles, then the amendments are automagically passed, if less than 2/3 they are defeated. There may or not be a symbolic vote in the house, made by the state reps -I am not clear on that formality. but the reps are bound by their state's position. Essentially, like the impeachment vote, congress acts like the tally-keeper and Roberts, they can only say it passed or not by count. NOT inject any other bull----
So, it won't be any radical changes, unless 2/3 of the state legislatures are radical leftists.
At most, it could be articles such as: Balanced budget mandate, Term Limits, maybe NO-Sharia Ever, maybe a reversal of roe v wade, or change to immigration.
There will be many other articles submitted and debated and voted upon, but it really is going to be limited as to what passes by 2/3 of the states AGREEING on an articles.
The Convention of States, is the remedy of States to reign in a rogue CONgress or to get issues raised that CONgress has dropped the ball long enough to piss the states off.
It's the LAST thing CONgress wants to occur, as it renders them impotent. There's also a good incentive for Congress itself to ACT, Because Articles of Constitutional Amendments, can also occur in & BY CONGRESS, as has happened with most of our other amendments...So a COS can be a good incentive for spurring a Do-Nothing Congress, into action.
So really, a COS can submit ANYthing, but the high bar of 2/3 of the states agreeing, curbs the utter nonsense pundits put forth. they could even LIMIT CONgress' Powers, give the president more, End the fed etc. Provided that the majority of the states agree the action is necessary.. it could go on for months, even years, and could be mooted by Congress actually acting before the states ratify their articles.
Bottom Line it's a message to Govt, that the PEOPLE & their state Legislators will have remedy one way or the other....
make sense ?
Did you even watch the video? I don't think so because she negates your argument. She talks of two ways to amend the Constitution. One is the COS where the delegates decide at the COS to do what they want (there are already constitutions in the wings waiting to be voted on (mentioned in the video), or the amendments Mark Levin and others recommend that will just enshrine into law things the government is already doing that are unconstitutional) or the states offer amendments and then 2/3 of the states vote on it. There are two ways. Your argument puts both together so you don't understand the process. Perhaps you should watch the video and get educated.
The convention of States = Constitutional Convention
Constitutional Convention is the common name for it.
You can bet there's all sorts of waky alt-constitutions, and things like eliminating the electoral college , waiting in the wings...
the delegates, are sent by the state Legislatures, they can be anybody, but they probably will be state legislators themselves. Just like in congress, the delegates propose amendments.
Each State gets One Vote, and an amendment must have 2/3 majority to be adopted aka present to congress to enact the ratification process of each state then voting to ratify the amendment(s) that survive the COS adoption process.
An amendment then is ratified if 2/3 majority of states vote to affirm it -again one vote per state.
Either she or you are confused about the two methods.
Levin, wrote a book on the Convention of states. specifically about the constitutional process provided under Article V (five) of the Constitution.
The "second" or actually the more widely known method IS the same process only it is by normal vote of the Congress, incidentally where states can have more than one representative Vote, (aka more reps=more population)
Those are the ONLY Two Methods provided by the Constitution under Article V to amend the constitution.
RE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution
I get the sentiment though, there are a lot of considerations to a Convention of States, not the least the number of waky proposals we may see from say -Blue States, fortunately, they must first be adopted by 2/3 COS majority, THEN Ratified by 2/3 of the states Majority to enact the amendment.
OR a Congressional Vote to adopt an amendment, THEN 2/3 of the state legislatures vote to ratify
it's just that people think a "constitutional convention" is some separate process when it is NOT.
Again, a LOT of people think a Convention of States somehow "turns into" a constitutional Convention, they are one and the SAME.
Lol, I would recommend you do some reading of the Constitution, rather than some internet blog/video
Yes both she and I are quite aware of the two methods. The Convention of States project is what I referred to which is a drive to push for a constitutional convention. What you don't consider is that having a convention could throw out our current Constitution and replace it with something else like they did the first time we had a constitutional convention and they threw out the Articles of Confederation. You obviously didn't watch the video because she quotes the founding fathers and the Federalist papers. Perhaps you need to do more research into the Federalist papers as well.
Did you know that Levin's proposal for an amendment would actually codify into law what our Government is currently doing that is unconstitutional?