Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

A call for action

September 1, 2013

...”To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Sep-02-13 6:38 PM

2/3 of the states to submit it to the states for ratification, 3/4 to ratify. That's from Article 5, Section 2.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-02-13 5:49 PM

How many states would they need to be able to do this?

Still it is a convention. No matter how you describe it.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-01-13 1:43 PM

Any state wishing to introduce, support, oppose, or debate an amendment would attend. State legislatures would (if they wished) debate and decide whether to participate and then appoint delegates to attend the convention.

ALL states would then vote to ratify any proposed amendments agreed to at the convention.

A "Constitutional Convention" is for writing a constitution and is unconstitutional. The proposed convention is for the purposes of amending the current one, not abolishment or replacement.

Levin's amendments, in part, establish term limits, specify recourse for an activist judiciary, and empower states' rights.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-01-13 12:24 PM

And still who gets to participate in the change? It is still a convention.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-01-13 9:59 AM

Yes, Mr. Levin is suggesting the states use the second method, and he offers 11 amendments for consideration.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-01-13 9:49 AM

Mr. Levin is calling for a convention to do so not the federal legislative body.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-01-13 9:20 AM

The Constitution has been "changed" 27 times; they're called amendments, and the Constitution itself offers two ways to amend it.

One is when Congress proposes amendments that are ratified by the states. The other (never used) method is for the states themselves to propose the amendments, then ratify them.

This 2nd method purposely bypasses the federal government specifically to work around an out-of-control federal government which naturally would not propose amendments to its own power.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-01-13 8:25 AM

It isn't a Constitutional Convention, it is a Admendment Convention or Article V Convention. LOL

You can call it anything you like it is still a convention to change the Constitution. What is referred to as a Con-Con.

Just who exactly gets to go to this convention to change the constituion? Only the right wing, how about heavy hitting, money backed special interest groups. Will it be a cross section of America representing all groups or just those groups aligned with one ideology.

There is a lot of cons to the proposed Con-Con by right wingers like Mark Levin.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-01-13 8:12 AM

To be clear, Mr. Levin is not proposing there be another "Constitutional Convention," but rather a "Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution," (also called an "Article V Convention" or "Amendments Convention") requested by at least two-thirds of the state legislatures for the purpose of amending the Constitution, as outlined in Article 5, Section 2 of the Constitution.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-01-13 7:54 AM

For people who say they have great respect for the Constitution they sure do want to change it to suit their own ideology. What a bunch lying hypocritical phonies you are.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-01-13 7:47 AM

Francine, Both of the amendment that you seem to be concerned about are already under attack by a federal government that has already shown that it has no use for the Constitution. This monster needs to be leashed. How do you propose to do it? A constitutional convention may be our last, best hope.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-01-13 7:45 AM

Our only experience with a national constitutional convention took place 200 years ago and the delegates took it upon themselves to ignore the original reason for calling the convention, which was merely to improve the Articles of Confederation not write a whole new Constitution. "A constitutional convention is a crap shoot that could easily backfire on its advocates." If the political will existed to do many of these things, they would get done with out going through this difficult and unrestrainable process. The best way is to force the hands of the elected to return to Constitutional governance, not through a Constitutional convention. Those who desire to control the people at large would love for a Constitutional convention to happen.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-01-13 5:53 AM

"One of the most important sections is a proposed Constitutional amendment setting out term limits for both houses of Congress."

Amen Jon, I have been beating the term limits drum for quite some time now. I'm tired of hearing the excuse that we set term limits with our votes. How's that working out for us? Until you eject these tow the party line politicians from both sides of the aisle that have been sucking off the government teat and lobbyist teat for decades, nothing will ever change on Capitol Hill. They are infecting younger politicians with their uncompromising attitude and doing nothing to move this country forward. Waiting on states to vote them out that feel that their own leaders are not the problem, is never going to work. Many states are now setting term limits for their representatives and it's time we do the same for Capitol Hill. Look at the polls, the majority of Americans now support this initiative.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 13 of 13 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web