Letter: Convention of States threatens U.S. Constitution
U.S. Term Limits, a D.C. based political action committee, recently distributed mailers calling for an Article V Convention of States under the guise of a single issue.
This is a dangerous, vaguely worded, and unprecedented method of amending the U.S. Constitution.
Unfortunately, in 2016, Indiana’s Republican-controlled legislature passed a joint resolution approving such a convention. Groups with deceptive names and representing political extremes, including U.S. Term Limits, ALEC, and Convention of States, want an Article V Convention to implement their radical agendas permanently.
These organizations are pouring money into susceptible statehouse candidates in an effort to rip open the Constitution. Religious liberties, freedom of speech, right to bear arms – the entire Constitution would be exposed.
According to the article, States Likely Could Not Control Constitutional Convention on Balanced Budget Amendment or Other Issues, “a convention could write its own rules, could set its own agenda possibly influenced by powerful interest groups, could choose a new ratification process, and no other body, including the courts, has clear authority over a convention.”
Therefore, a Convention of States should only be pursued in the most dire of circumstances. Not even an attempt to prevent the U.S. Civil War was deemed significant enough to merit such a convention.
If we are to save our Constitution and our freedoms, Indiana must rescind its application.
John Hurley, candidate for State Representative Indiana District 75
How ignorant. Did the author not see the SCOTUS decision last week that declares that surrogates of states CANNOT GO ROGUE!?!?!. There is so much historic precidence for controlling delegates and electors with commissions from state legislatures that result in fines, jail, and removal if they violate their charge. This candidate is chicken little thinking a runaway Congress is better left uncontrolled and the states need to abdicate their authority to balance power of the do nothing (except harm) legislative branch.
Does the author not realize that the founders granted Congress less authority to amend the Constitution than the states FOR A REASON? Does he not realize the “vaguely worded” process for the states is also vaguely worded for Congress? Yet without Article V women and blacks wouldn’t have the right to vote!?!?!
Perhaps candidates should take a civics class before running for office, just sayin’.
Article V is a process within the Constitution. If you believe the Constitution is the proper governing document, how can you pick and choose which section you believe is constitutional? If it’s in the Constitution, it’s constitutional!!! Article V is the means by which the founders recognized the Constitution may need to change. In their wisdom, they knew Congress may not always act in the best interest of those they are supposed to represent. Therefore, they gave the states the final say on any amendments. A proposal convention doesn’t have to produce anything but a PROPOSAL. If you’re not sure what that means, google provides a quick definition:
pro·pos·al /pr??p?z?l/ noun
1. a plan or suggestion, especially a formal or written one, put forward for consideration or discussion by others.
A proposed amendment does not make a law. Only a ratified amendment makes a law. Really wish this publication didn’t propogate mistruths and fake news.
This is a decades old argument that has been thoroughly debunked. The Article V Convention is a non-binding deliberative assembly tasked with proposing ideas for change. When finished, delegates go home, and Congress chooses which mode of ratification. Then the ratification process begins whereby the people discuss amongst themselves which amendments would suit us today. Get the facts at Friends of the Article V Convention. http://www.foavc.org
PS. John Hurley has no business discussing policy if he can’t comprehend how idiotic his arguments against the of the gifts of Constitution are.
That a COS threatens the constitution is nonsensical, the author needs to read and actually understand article 5 and perhaps do some critical thinking before parroliberal talking points.
How can what is written within the U.S. Constitution threaten the U.S. Constitution, itself? It cannot. Of course, this is coming from a democrat, who are the *true* threats to the U.S. Constitution.
Indeed, also the “true” racists and sowers/instigators both by actions and inaction of anti-American discord threatening law and order plus our very nation and its freedoms.