through the constitutional convention remedy.
Who will represent us?

My understanding, having just read article 5, is that a convention can be called by 2/3 of the states (or 2/3 of both houses of congress, but that's not going to happen as they are the agents of the corruption) and that the proposed amendment would be enacted with the support of 3/4 of the states.

And perhaps more to your point, we've got to do something, and this is as solid an idea as I've seen.

Do you know a method to limit the convention to just one amendment?
Just because I do not know of a good solution, does not make me want to back what I think is a dangerous attempt.

I don't trust my representatives.

I'm not trying to be a bully, I'm just saying it time to find a path together so we can move forward. I put that question to the marchers who are currently in the home of our own Le Taz Hot. You can see their answer below but they're suggesting the scope of the convention can be controlled by resolutions from the states who are calling for the convention.

I am not a concern troll, that is insulting and let's me know which activists not to affiliate with, thank you.

(Ratification did not work for ERA but is the saffe word for this???)

Sorry if I offended. It was inadvertent. I'll change the post. However, if one inadvertent offending post makes me persona non gratis . . .

...of a convention can be controlled by state resolutions. If half of the states calling have resolutions to limit it, and half do not, then what happens? Remember the 1787 convention was only supposed to "consider amendments" to the Articles of Confederation, and we got a whole new document. So I'm leery of the convention approach.

. . . thanks for posting

I had to get over any reluctance associated with that dysfunction, otherwise I'd be forced to sit silently in the corner and watch the rot progress.

I have to go over and over everything I do (really fast) to make sure I haven't overlooked anything.

Remember, Ted Cruz would make sure he was there.
But the idea of building pressure state by state for the amendment is a good one.

the total opposite? I am not against a convention to get rid of the money in politics but I fear the results of any convention that will discuss other issues.

What would you propose as a path?

would be election a Democrat House and Senate in 2014 and then raising hell. But that is also questionable. Is it possible to have a constitutional convention limited to a specific topic? That would be one answer.

I honestly do not know what would work but I know something has to be done because either way we lose our rights.

Last edited Sun Jun 8, 2014, 10:54 AM - Edit history (1)

as we speak. All 15 of them!

To those with questions -- Adding a Constitutional Amendment is an uphill battle. Even for good, positive causes (the ERA comes to mind), it's difficult, at best. For right-wing whack job causes it's virtually impossible.

If the Congress isn't going to propose it, We the People via the states must. ANYTHING is better than letting Citizen's United and the McCutcheon decision stand as is.

So what do you think of the idea that calling for a constitutional convention is fraught with danger? Can the scope of a constitutional convention be controlled before it is convened?

It' s debated. If it gets that far, the danger is limited by the need to gain ratificatons by 3/4 of the states. I think that is overstating the case. The real safeguard we can rely on is the strength of the movement of our organization. Tluhere could be things that could be harmful, but there is a high bar to cross it would have to be agreed upon by different states with various different viewpoints.

Scope: The resolutions that are passing throughout the states are defined by the states themselves via their individual convention calls.

If congress sees that we have so little faith in their ability to act in our interest, as I think the recent Princeton/Northwestern study clearly shows, and that we're serious enough to come at this through the state level, they just might do something useful.

As antiquie pointed out, the ERA was never ratified by this method but I do remember those days and the issue stayed in the news for years because of that effort. At the very least this action will facilitate a debate on the corrupting influence of money on our elections at every level.

Look around you, people. Do you see a nation where the popular will carries the day? Or even exists?

Way back when, in the days of Barry Goldwater, et al, the real Right discussed this same idea to stop those damn libruls from ruling the roost with their unions and civil rights and things and stuff. Most disagreed with the concept because the fact is that no matter what enlightened legislatures like Kansas might do (yes, that is sarcasm) once the delegates convene with legal authority for a Constitutional Convention all bets are off. You might think that just proposing an amendment to do away with the finance decision would be cool BUT open that door and you will be faced with the prospect of an entirely NEW Constitution being written with a very good chance of being adopted.

This idea plays into the hands (IMHO) of the very people we would like to see hamstrung, even if they themselves don't see it as yet. This is a world of lies, falsehoods and Fox News. How can anyone seriously entertain the prospect of letting the rich and powerful take what they have learned over the last two centuries and use that knowledge, and their vast wealth, and the base of frankly indifferent and/or stupid people eligible to vote in this nation to control the methods and outcome of a Constitutional convention?

All it would take would be erasing a couple of lines and you know where your SCUSA protection would be? Erased.

ANd things would go down from there.

Seriously, folks, better the devil you know than the one you don't.

And we haven't done all that well doing that.

The question then remains, what do we do? What seems very different to me from those times is the level of institutionalized corruption. As I like to say, the way we've dealt with corruption in America is we've made it legal. We now have a federal government which is wholly owned by special interests. What can we do to bring about the necessary changes?