May be the best time to get support.

Convention of States

There's nothing wrong with the Constitution as written. It just isn't being followed. A COS won't change that and could even backfire if CA and NY propose some changes.

Putting the cart before the horse...

I was in favor of COS before Trump was elected but seeing the lengths they will go to oust a president has changed my mind on it.

A revolutionary event would have to happen before COS could bear any fruit.

They don't want to limit their power.

They want more of it.

Well that will do away with the 2A, severely curtail the 1A. Create open borders for everyone. Etc etc.

You seem to have a lot of faith in politicians...

Nope.

They don't follow the constitution now.

This carries nothing to gain and everything to lose since they don't follow what we've already got.

There is no way our present Congress would honor a new Constitutional Convention being called anyway.

You think you're going to show up, and say, "Hey, well all got together, like the last time, back in 1787, and have written a new Constitution, we're about to hold a vote on whether to ratify it or not," and you think, you aren't going to be arrested and thrown in jail for sedition?

The people who got us into this mess will surely rescue us! Politicians are the best.

Nope. The insanity is to high right now. That’d be like letting an opiate addict into a pharmacy and not expect some pills to be stolen.

The constitution didn't prevent us from getting the largest federal government in history, so that's one glaring problem with it.  I for one support full succession of all the states.

I am gonna go out on a limb here and say that I dont think term limits are a good idea.  I used to, but thought about it some more.  1. It gets rid of the few good people we have in congress. 2. People do crazy shit when the know they cant be reelected.

I think we need an amendment where a senator can be recalled if and 2/3 or 3/4 majority of the state's legislature votes for it.  And the governor cant override it.  Knowing they can be fired may shake things up a bit.

If the Constitution were open to revision the left would take over the convention and WE would lose the Second Amendment and face vile restrictions on the others they don't like.

NEVER underestimate the leftists ability to cheat, lie and steal to achieve their agenda.

If they have a convention of States, you can kiss the Constitution and this great country goodbye forever.
It will be taken over by communists, and every right will be removed.

I like the attempt and in reality, this is how the states can supersede corrupt representatives and complicit courts.  "IF" (big if), the CoS  could convene and pass their recommended changes to the constitution (can't access them at work), one being term limits, I think another is to abolish the IRS, there is nothing the POTUS, Congress, or the Courts can do; the Constitution gives the ultimate authority to the States in this case.  

The biggest challenge is the number of state legislatures that are required to support, and I think would be a tall task give the current split.  A massive number of states have approved their Constitutional changes, but getting them all together to vote will be a whole other challenge considering the dox-cancel culture we currently have.

While I wouldn't rely on the CoS, I wouldn't ignore it and if you can support it, do so.  Taking back the Republic is going to take more than one attack vector and CoS is one to encourage.

ROCK6

That's the other big issue.  In this day and age, who thinks it would end up representing the will of the people rather than the will of the special interests.

Maybe not in my lifetime, but eventually, we're going to have to seriously consider dividing this country into two red and blue countries.

The problem is, the blue states don't want the red states to have their own country.     Since they hate us, and don't like us, there must be something they want from us.  Gee, I wonder what it is.

 
THIS!!!!!!!!

Be careful what you wish for....

If the left can manipulate elections and control the media to the degree they do/have, why would one assume that a COS would be a good thing?

FAQ

No.

The last time they had a convention for Amendments (to the articles of confed), the participants walked out the room with a brand new constitution that disregarded the unanimous consent of the prior document and rammed it down the throat of the states that were depending on the amendment rules from the prior document.

Translation:  You call a convention of the states, and out will pop the new commie constitution.

One thing you convention of the states advocates ALWAYS get wrong is you NEGLECT to consider that all the structural issues that have us in the problem now, will factor into a convention of the states:

 -  Tech censorship / control of the means of communication and messaging.
 -  News media bias and propagandizing.
 -  A culture of dependence and the ability of people to move most of the sheep by promising them bribes from the treasury.
 -  General civics ignorance by most of the population.
 -  The generations of hard core leftist believers generated by decades of university indoctrination.
 -  ETA:   And lets not forget an election/voter fraud infrastructure the left has spun up to great effect so that you would not just need to resist all the above, but would have  to overcome some unspecified margin of fraud to prevent  complete fuckery.  

None of that shit is off the playing field if you spin up a convention.  In fact, the obvious result is the convention gets just as fucked up as every other aspect of things.

Not no. But hell no. Yes, amendments have to be ratified by the states. But with the rampant voting fraud that has happened and will continue to happen.  There is no way in hell I would trust elections anymore. Especially when it pertains to changing the Constitution.  
No telling what the fuck we would end up with

This.

Getting rid of trumpism is the only thing that will save us.

It could just as easily seal our fate.

You expect the current group of ‘leaders’ to unfuck all of this?!?!  

I wouldnt trust most of them to watch my dogs while gone for a day!

It doesn't work that way, read Article 5 of the Constitution



There's been a lot of progress on ironing out the exact amendments.  The "balanced budget" one has the most support, but the last I heard there were a couple other topics:

- Limiting federal government powers
- Restricting fiscal spending
- Term limits for congress and other federal elected officials [/li]

I can see the resistance for all three of those, especially for from the party in power.  Additionally, while there only needs 34 states to call a convention, it still takes 38 of the 50 states (3/4) to pass the amendments.  As if right now, while some of the blue state legislatures are actually on board, how many would actually attend the convention and vote (especially in the current, polarized climate).  Republicans have 29 state legislatures, Democrats have 20 (includes DC).  MN is split (leans left?), and NE is "non-partisan", but leans right.  The Convention would have to persuade 8-9 other states, but it would be hard sell in this environment.  
As it reads, if the States do call a convention and can get 38 states to approve of the Amendments, "in theory", Congress, POTUS, SCOTUS have zero say (not that they wouldn't try to stop it).  I would honestly love to see it happen, even if it's just for term limits, but it's a looooonnnngggg stretch and quite unlikely.  Still, I like to see various vectors of pressure put on restraining federal government powers.

ROCK6

And any revolutionary event could also backfire severely.

Good options don't seem to be an option.

There is zero chance that a new convention of the states would result in something better than our current Constitution. Anything that could be ratified would be far worse.

No. The only thing that will save this country would involve something like the Infinity Stones.

Great way to get a carbon copy of the Chinese Constitution.

Our side barely had a toe hold on the internet, it is risky to voice our opinion in public, the vote is lost and the pols on our side are quislings.

Somehow, you expect a Constitutional Convention to be a heroic stand against the Left and succeed?

the USA cannot be saved. if the national government continues to exist, it'll be controlled by lefty and the ballgame is over.

the only hope for free people is to dissolve the union so we can separate ourselves from the coastal communists

You are SO right.... We need to be more like John McCain and Lindsay Graham. Reach across the aisle.  Bipartisan. Compromise.

Way of the fucking future. Certain to save America.



I don't give a fuck about Trump (ETA: at this point, I voted for him twice and think he did the best he could under the circumstances) or whatever the fuck you fucking define as Trumpism.

I am an anti-communist and basically the only politician that stood against it's utter onslaught was Trump and look what he got for it and the level the communist side went to stop it.

Some post 1776 there...

Exactly. It would be a fucking disaster.

When asked about a new constitutional convention historian Forrest McDonald said "No, there aren't enough intelligent people in the country to hold a convention today.".

Look who's running the country now and think what kind of constitution those people would write.

^^ Yeah, that.

Besides, no one is actually enforcing anything in the existing Constitution, so how would changing/adding things make any difference?

Sure there's always a risk.

This is a very rational argument which I support.

OP answer WHO WILL ENFORCE THE WONDERFUL NEW CHANGES?
They don't abide by the current Constitution.  You act as if the commies won't want to implement changes also.  

Even stupider idea after a Trump administration.

If you can't get people in congress now that will follow the law, how would you get the right people to alter said law.


Select the absolute best people you know that would uphold the law and not sell out for few million bucks and get them elected to congress.  You would have much better outcome and lot easier to do.

If you can't get right people in congress you sure as shit won't get them in a con con.

The level of constitutional ignorance displayed by the typical American, as evidenced by most of the comments in this thread so far, is tragic.  You would think after seeing the tyranny on display in DC last year and at the present, anger and fear over what's already happening and what's coming in the immediate future would be more than enough to overcome all the conspiracy/2A-will-be-gone wet dreams.  I've been involved with COS for 7 years in a state with a legislature that used the PA and US Constitutions for toilet paper in 2019 and 2020.  A steady march to a convention for proposing amendments would be the best thing that could happen to the country right now, particularly from an educational/awareness perspective.  Fifteen have states have signed on to the COS application, including some of the strongest 2A sanctuaries:  AZ, AK, AL, AR, TX, GA, MS, LA, OK, ND, IN, TN, UT, MO, FL.  And 28 or so states have applied for a convention for a balanced budget amendment.  We need 34 states to get a convention called.

If following the rule of law led us to this, of what use was the rule of law?

Just say what you really mean. Conservatism/Republicanism

You wasted post 1776 from a 2001 account on that.. ?  

No f'ing way.

Opening up that can of worms makes the Constitution vulnerable to a lot of changes we DO NOT WANT. Imagine the SJW amendments that people would try.  So, no.

A better idea is just to make the federal and state governments actually conform to, and operate by the requirements of, the Constitution as it is written.

1.  In a country of 320 million, we don't have enough "good people" to replace them with?  2.  They do "crazy shit" and still get re-elected.  In addition, there are tons of jobs in the Government which aren't elected.  Just look at those Biden is putting in his Cabinet.

No way.

They're already ignoring any Constitutional limits, and a convention will let the enemy explicitly strip out the Bill of Rights, explicitly give the government absolute power, and inject a whole bunch of Woke nonsense.

Also, how many times are people going to argue for term limits, after ignoring the arguments against them a thousand times over?  To recap the biggest ones:
1. Term limits increase corruption, because legislators in their final term don't need to care about voters anymore.  Instead, they can just spend their whole last term courting their next employer with largesse.  Corrupt politicians already have that option today, but they restrain themselves just enough not to anger their voters, because they're narcissistic enough by temperament to prefer the government title over a corporate one.  If you take that away from them, their legislative positions will just become job interviews for "set for life" positions at mega-corporations afterwards.
2. Term limits ensure that elected officials have less experience than unelected bureaucrats.  This gives the unelected bureaucrats greater control, because they're the ones "guiding" the inexperienced legislators and showing them the ropes in a system they helped make too complicated to learn within the timespan of the term limits.  At that point, Nancy Pelosi wouldn't need to be elected or campaign for votes.  She'd just have a permanent bureaucratic position manipulating the inexperienced legislators who cycle in and out, and she'd still be government royalty.  As an analogy, look at how much power the unelected bureaucrats in the federal government had to undermine an inexperienced President they didn't like.  You might think legislators are different, but most depend on their staff for virtually everything.  You want the legislators to have the real power in that relationship, because they're the only ones even ostensibly accountable to the people.
3. The kind of people who want to become politicians are usually narcissistic.  Honest ones are so rare that you want to keep them when you're lucky enough to get one.  Exactly how many Ron Pauls have you seen in politics in your lifetime?

I’ve supported the COS before but now am not so sure it will work.

Yes republican controlled states are in the majority but how many of them are actually simps?

Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia all have republican majority legislatures with Georgia even having a republican governor and SOS and they all played Sergeant Shultz (I see nothing!).  Will they suddenly become hard core small government conservatives?

Do we expect all these wishy washy republicans to suddenly become Thomas Jefferson or will they cave to extortion, media pressure and bribes just like they always do?  A pattern of behavior is a pattern and tells the future.

Yes. Let's give these fuckers the chance to mandate and prohibit a bunch of shit.

Holy shit you guys.   I can't figure out if its naïve stupidity or if you're being intentionally obtuse.

Let me walk you though it.    

The Articles of Confederation were adopted as the law of the land.   They said that to amend or change the articles, it required unanimity.    All the states had to agree to the change or it would not be adopted.    

So then they decided they need to consider some amendments to the Articles.    And called a convention.    Instead of proposing amendments, the Constitutional Convention presented a brand new Constitution.  

And that brand new constitution completely disregarded the rule requiring unanimous agreement to amend the Articles.    They fucked over the people who agreed to the convention relying on the rules that supposedly applied to changing the already existing governing document.  

See, the brand new Constitution said IT would become effective on ratification of 9 out of the 13 states.     Delaware, PA, and New Jersey ratified the new document before the end of 1787.  Georgia, Connecticut and Mass joined them in the first months of 1788.

But some of the 13 states were all "HEY WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK!?   It supposed to be unanimous approval of all the states to change or alter the Articles.  You're not following the amendment provisions of the Articles."

The response was "Yeah, but we're following the amendment provisions of the NEW document."  

The citizens of Rhode Island voted overwhelmingly in a referendum to reject the new constitution in March of 1788.    A group of big with New York politicians circulated an objection in April saying that the new Constitution was more despotic than the rule of Great Britton!    There were wide objections to the disregard of the Unanimity provisions.  

But things marched on.   Maryland and South Carolina ratified by the spring of 1788.  

Then in June 1788, New Hampshire became the 9th state.   So under ITS terms the new constitution became "effective."    Of course, it was still patently illegal under the document that already existed before their convention, since the rules that applied and which all the states had agreed to under the Articles required unanimous consent.

But they didn't give a fuck.    

*The Congress of the Confederation (i.e., the Congress elected under the Articles) deemed the new constitution in effect, organized the new federal government and SCHEDULED ELECTIONS under the new constitution.   By that point (fall of 1788), two more states had ratified, sort of.    VA ratified but requested a couple dozen changes; and New York sent the famous recursive/circular letter -- I.e., we ratify but only if the new document is amended by adoption of a bill of rights etc.    

*In December 1888 and January 1789 they held a presidential election.   In February, the electors met and George Washington and John Adams were seated by electors representing 10 of the 13 states.    New York didn't get its electors in on time.   Rhode Island and North Carolina were still all like "hey, you know the Articles amendment provisions still have not yet been satisfied" and hadn't ratified.

*By March, Congress under the new constitution convenes.   The amendment provisions of the Articles of the Confed. still had not been satisfied, but in April a Joint Session certifies the electoral votes"

*In August and September they put together a package of amendments under the new constitution which were formally proposed and would become the bill of rights.


Finally in November, North Carolina says "fuck it, I guess since ya'll are going forward without us" that they would ratify and did so.

Rhode Island was the sole holdout.  

*Even so the Bill of Rights went out for ratification.    Also early the next year, 1790, the US Supreme Court under the newly "adopted" Constitution was convened.  

Rhode Island convened a convention to reconsider ratification in March of 1790.    They didn't get a ratification.      They convened a second session in late May of 1790, and by just two votes of the state legislature did go ahead and ratify on May 29, 1790.

So what's the point of my reciting all that history?    Everything marked with a * occurred before the amendment provisions of the articles were complied with.

Its to show you that it matters FUCK-ALL what Article V says or how much you THINK you can restrict the scope of a convention of the states or prevent things from getting carried away and pooping out the US Constitution, Part III, Communism  With a Vengeance.    Your convention of the states will in all probability come out with a new constitution, with no free speech, no second amendment, all the lefty shit you could imagine and say that IT comes into effect upon the "majority popular vote of an election conducted by mail and supervised by Dominion Systems" and you would be powerless to stop it.

It goes back to what I said above.   None of the ROT that has the current system all fucked up would be absent from your convention of the states.   The news media will continue to be propaganda, and the internet will still be filtered and the sheep will still be lied to.   It would be the end of the United States of America, because no doubt one of the core provisions of the new commie constitution (and not doubt justification for a popular vote ratification) would be elimination of the states altogether.  

That's like saying a 55mph limit doesn't prevent someone from driving 65mph.  If you simply ignore the rules and no one stops you it isn't the rule's fault.

A COS would be used to re-write the Constitution to the standards that the Left wants.  They would go to any lengths to force their agenda on the delegates.  Imagine a 24/7 riot surrounding whatever venue is used, with leftist idiots throwing themselves in front of vehicles to prevent traffic in & out, etc., anything to force the changes they want.

Having a Bill of Rights that starts with the right to force every child to undergo Transgender evaluation (where everyone is trans!!) and other such loony bin crap.

Bad Idea.

Apple, Twitter, Facebook would all love to have a new Constitution.  One where they get input on what our 'rights' are.

Hillary would like be one of the delegates.  Obama would definitely be one.  Warren.

You get the idea.

oh yeah lets let modern politicians remodel the constitution.

there wouldn't be enough data storage on the planet for the monstrosity that would be created.