NOTE: Much of what I have to say here was inspired by Mark Levin’s latest book: The Liberty Amendments which I highly recommend (along with everything he has previously written).
Article V of our Constitution provides two official ways by which it may be modified. To that end, here is Article V in its entirety (with emphasis added by me):
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
I have advocated a Constitution Convention several times in other articles and all have been met with the expressed fear that such a Convention would, in essence, open the entire Constitution to a re-write and thus to much mischief. Please note that this is not what Article V expressly states. Such a Convention can only be used to propose amendments which, like those proposed by the Congress, shall each, individually be subject to ratification by three fourths of the States. Ergo, I fail to appreciate the danger expressed by others.
Two facts should be abundantly clear at this point in time:
First is that it is totally unrealistic to expect the current members of the Federal Government to seriously propose amendments that would in any way curb their power and influence (yes, I know that such things as a balanced budget amendment are proposed from time-to-time but always in the secure knowledge that it will not gain congressional approval).
Second, that doing nothing, by the States and the People (ergo, allowing things to proceed on their present course), will result in the destruction of our Republic.
For my own part, I doubt that three fourths of our States, as currently composed, would be willing to ratify amendments that would further destroy our Constitution. Instead, I would hope, most of them would see this as the opportunity to recover much of their lost sovereignty.
I do, however, expect problems attending a Constitution Convention and that is that those presently mismanaging our Federal Government would do everything in their collective power to:
1) prevent such a Convention occurring, and
2) to not acknowledge/obey such amendments that might result.
However, should either of these problems occur, at least it would serve to make abundantly clear what manner of tyrants run this nation as well as the extent to which our Constitution has become virtually void with the consequent loss of liberty and property.
I sincerely hope and trust that the outcome of such a blatant rejection of the People’s will would result in a significant backlash against our rulers, possibly even a civil war. As I have opined before, if civil war is our inevitable destiny, I think it far better that it occur now than in the future when the tyrants have had even more time to prepare.
I also sincerely hope and trust that a rejection of new amendments to our Constitution, proposed by the States and the People, would cause much more severe reaction than the ongoing rejection of the Constitution in its historical form because I perceive a much greater sense of ownership, on the part of the People, of modern amendments, occurring within our own lifetimes and at our own urging, than exists for the historical Constitution which, to many, especially the younger set, may seem like a relic of another place and time.
Assuming a reasonable response to this initial proposal, I will follow with more articles, each addressing a specific proposed amendment.
I eagerly await your responses.
Troy L Robinson