The movement for a Convention of States under Article V of the United States Constitution– specifically for the purpose of imposing fiscal and other restraints on the federal government and its members – continues to gain traction. Where do YOU stand on the issue?

Sponsored by:

If You Enjoy Polls Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Sign Up Today
Subscribe
Notify of
1.4K Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Chuck McGlothlin
5 months ago

We Have 250 years of hacks and hack lawyers plus the profiteers not to mention the enemies of democracy chopping, dicing and eroding away at out rights on which this country was founded. The framers couldn’t imagine the changes in culture, technology and that of our enemies. Its time for some Spring cleaning, refreshed ink and a new frame for our constitution.

Raenelle Stockmeier
5 months ago

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.

Max
6 months ago

I am in agreement with those comments which appose this convention procedure. there is not enough protections from abuse built into the convention process. As others have said or implied in their comments, the convention process is a dangerous and risky process..

Conservative Supporter
5 months ago
Reply to  Max

There are 300+ years of protections, over 4 dozens rulings of the courts, legal and historical precedent, Common Law, General Agency Law and ratification protection on this process. If you don’t know history then you won’t know that. No one ever worries when Congress proposes an amendment and thes same laws and recedents and ratification all exixt for them as well. People need to know how this works and has for centuries and stop saying it is dangerous – It is not.

David
6 months ago

I oppose any attempt at an Article Five Convention. History shows us the original 1775 convention was for the sole purpose of strengthening the Articles of Confederation and yet went off the rails entirely giving us the current US Constitution and Bill of Rights. This at a time when patriotism was strong and cherished. Now we have corrupt politicians of both sides of the aisles who can’t be counted on to keep their word on anything. Check the John Birch Society on the dangers of this action and please refrain from such irresponsible and dangerous action.

Conservative Supporter
6 months ago
Reply to  David

David, History does not show that at all. You have not done your proper research as show by your post-first it was the convention of 1787 and you need to read the commissions the state legislatures passed to know that 10 states did not say for the sole and express purose of revising the Articles of Confederation. This is a lie of the far left and you have fallen for it by not knowing American History and that is precisely why the John Birch Society is worthless in this matter-They will not read the original documents of history because they don’t want to admit they are lying. Not only are these founding documents in the Library of Congress and the National Archives, but you can also access them here for the proof
<"teachingamericanhistory.org/resources/ratification/elliot/vol1/annapolis/" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">Teaching American History
<"avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/annapoli.asp" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">Avalon Project

Don G
6 months ago

I am oppossed to open up the constituation In a lawless nation the rules laws are not enforced but broken. Now we want to open up an already broken system that is vile and allow the magians access to more control. No, enforce the rights we have now. We can’t even say no to a mask. People enforce their beliefs by action, not hide behind pens and pencils. A.ericans are lazy immoral and want an easy way out. The ideals desired are good,but as Christ gave his servant all money to invest, what did they do with what they had? America buried its treasures and did nothing, and now they want more for not enforcing the rights we had. You want to radically change America repent change your own life live it!

Dudley Gray
6 months ago

Be careful what you wish for. A CC could result in changes to the Constitution that would be disastrous, such as elimination of the Electoral College.

Joanna Martin, J.D.
6 months ago

Shame on AMAC for your censorship of the Truth!

Your censors refused to permit my posts of substance where I made specific responses to the false statements made by pro convention posters.

You permit nasty and false slander against me to remain on YOUR site; and you do not permit me to respond to it.

This push for an Article V Convention is the most vicious bait and switch of all time – and you forbid me (a legal expert on this issue) to present the Truth on this site.

Editor
Alyssa Burke
6 months ago

Dear Reader,

We regret that your comment was temporarily placed in pending status. This was due to a software malfunction and was not intentional.

AMAC is a firm defender of our First Amendment rights, which are increasingly under fire from those aiming to prevent, cancel, punish, and intimidate the individual American from exercising freedoms of speech, assembly, and worship. AMAC works tirelessly to defend these foundational rights – on which so much else depends.

Again, our sincere apologies. We and appreciate your understanding as we work to improve our software systems.

Keith
6 months ago

I dunno about AMAC but I’ve supported a CoS for years… So in the Words of Stephen Crowder “Change my Mind” Since you’re such an Expert

Conservative Supporter
6 months ago

A law degree does not make you an expert on the Constitution or American History. If you were truthful and honest you would not take a single word from a 7 page historical document to convey your theory as accurante when the writer wrote a whole paragraph you ignored that says the opposite of what you claim. An expert always uses context unlike you.

Jared
6 months ago

The Swamp has gone completely off the deep end: interfering with State Elections, misuse of Medicare payment authority to coerce Health Care Workers who were exposed to the Communist Chinese Virus & are now being pressured to participate in the Jab experiment on threat of losing their jobs. On top of this, Billions of our tax dollars are being horribly misused to subsidise this Evil Medical Experiment which has already cost so many lives. Appointed beaurocrats are overriding the lawful motions of our elected officials to the detriment of the entire Nation. T h e y m u s t b e
s t o p p e d.

Joe
6 months ago

Liberals love to control everything and everybody. If they gain control of the Convention (and you know that they will do everything they can to do so), they will enshrine their liberal agenda into a modified Constitution which would make how life is right now in 2021 mere child’s play. We would all be living in a Marxist, Socialist, Communist country. Is that what we want? Don’t wish too hard for what you want, or you may get it.

Conservative Supporter
6 months ago
Reply to  Joe

I want to make sure you understand the process . First no policy will be set as this is not about what is decided Joe it is about “Who decides” so most of the possible amendments will be about sending issues that the federal government is not supposed to be doing back to the states which also means the federal government could no longer tax for it or spend on it. There is also a process in the law here and upheld by the courts that what is in the application that the states pass as the subjec matter for a convention is all that can be discussed. Since the states’ applications have to be for the same subject and that has been set there is nothing the far left can do to insert their agenda into a convention. The subjects that can be discussed are limited to term limits on federal officials and members of Congress-imposing fiscal restraints on the federal government-reducing the power and scope of jurisdiction ofthe federal goverment. All amendments by law must be germane to only those subjects. And since states vote as states it takes 26 votes to pass the amendment. But again that is only a proposal the states then must ratify the amendment proposed to be added to the Constitution. It takes 3/4 of the states for ratification which is 38 states. This is not a way for the left to take over.

JOSEPH SEARING
7 months ago

ARTICLE V IS TO GET RID OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND FOR THE USSR – UNITES STATES OF THE SOCIAL REPUBLIC. THERE IS ALREADY A NEW CONSTITUTION WRITTEN BY THE RADICAL LEFTISTS, THE COMMUNIST PARTY, THE LIBERTARIAN, AND THE WEAK REPUBLICANS. SEE rumble.com/vp3ltn-joanna-martin-article-v.html?mref=numcv&mrefc=2

ARTICLE VI IS THE ANSWER — NULLIFY ALL UNCONSTITUTIONAL EDICTS.

IF 80% OF GOVERNMENT IS ALREADY UNCONSTITUTIONAL WHAT MAKES ANYONE THINK THEY WOULD FOLLOW WHATEVER CAME OUT OF AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION.

Conservative Supporter
7 months ago
Reply to  JOSEPH SEARING

One should be careful about referenceing a self-proclaimed “Constitutional scholar” Ms. Martin not only was a banruptcy attorney in FL and not a scholar-look into her background as she has a checkered past at best //ballotpedia.org/Publius_Huldah_(Joanna_Martin) Her practice is avoid all context-example Federalist 85 where she lifts one word from the very last sentence to convey the context in the way she needs of a 7 page essay-forgetting that 2 paragraphs above is directily the oppositeof what she states the essay says-Do the research first.

Conservative Supporter
6 months ago
Reply to  JOSEPH SEARING

Joseph-stop telling people it will replace the Constitution that is a flat out lie. Article V does not allow for a new constitution to be written. Joanna Martin is a far right wing nut who is aligned with the John Birch Society-she never practiced constitutional law and is not a constitutional scholar either-she had a fairly short career in FL as a banruptcy lawyer. She omits the facts and all context of every quote she makes to mislead people and you should know just who she really is- ballotpedia.org/Publius_Huldah_(Joanna_Martin)

Stephen P Rogerson
7 months ago

True constitutionalists understand that the Constitution is not flawed, our enforcement of its provisions is, however.

The Constitution is our most valuable heirloom, and we can’t afford to expose it to the quick-fix repairs being offered in the name of “reining in the federal government.”

Instead, those of us committed to preserving, protecting, and defending our Constitution should begin devoting the time and attention necessary to the restoration of the powerful term limit control mechanisms included in the original design of the Constitution.

Make no mistake, if the Constitution is opened up to the tinkering of these tinhorns, the moneyed interests will be present and their irresistible influence will shape the product of the Article V process.
Take a look around the country; one can see what a new constitution would look like. With the Supreme Court’s ruling forcing states to recognize gay “marriage” and another upholding the constitutionality of the legal plunder that is ObamaCare, there is no limit to the panoply of “rights” that would be pursued by the con-con 2.0 delegates.

Furthermore, balanced budget amendments (which overlook the fact that most of the spending is unconstitutional), term limit amendments, and the various “power to the people” amendments backed by the socialist wing of the Article V movement are all, in one way or another, contrary to the intent of the Founders and to the principles of liberty they enshrined in the Constitution.

Remember, no matter how “conservative” or “constitutional” a group or individual claims to be, if their proposed amendments change the basic structure of the Constitution or alter the delicate balance of power created by the Constitution, then you should realize that although their lips draw near to the Founders, their hearts are far from them.

JOSEPH SEARING
7 months ago

SEE REPLACEMENT CONSTITUTIONS amac.us/poll/convention-states-constitution-federal-government/#comment-829981

Stephen P Rogerson
7 months ago

In contrast to the state nullification path, attempting to rein in the federal government by revising the Constitution through a new constitutional convention convened according to Article V is inherently very, very risky.

The major risks are:

• Once called, a Constitutional Convention becomes its own authority and cannot be limited;

• A corollary to the point above is that a Con-Con may become a “runaway convention” that drastically alters our form of government, or throws out the Constitution altogether and establishes an entirely new system of governance.

• It is absurd to believe that a majority (or even a sizable minority) of the individuals likely to be delegates to a Con-Con today would compare favorably with our nation’s Founders or share their commitment to liberty and limited government.

• The general public’s understanding of our Constitution has deteriorated greatly, while dependence on government programs has dramatically escalated since our founding, with both of these factors militating for bigger and bigger government.

Nevertheless, a number of organizations are lobbying furiously for a Con-Con, so we will spend most of the rest of this article detailing why convening one is inherently dangerous, focusing on the four points mentioned above. Con-Con advocates appeal to various constituencies with proposed amendments to require a balanced federal budget, term limits for Congress, a presidential line-item veto, as well as a number of other proposals. Article V of our Constitution, they point out, provides for calling a Con-Con upon “the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States.” This means that once 34 states apply for a Con-Con, Congress must initiate a convention.

Con-Con proponents argue that worries over whether the convention may exceed its mandate are unfounded since the state legislatures can limit the Con-Con to consideration of a single issue, such as a Balanced Budget Amendment. However, against these unsupported assurances, we respond with the learned opinions of jurists and constitutional experts from the Founding era to the present, as well as with the unanswerable argument of experience.

James Madison himself, the father of the Constitution, warned against convening a second constitutional convention. When he learned that New York and Virginia were actively calling for an Article V convention in 1788, just months since the ratification of the Constitution, he was horrified. He counseled:

If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than Congress…. It would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides … [and] would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who, under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts … might have the dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric…. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a second, meeting in the present temper in America. [From a letter by James Madison to G.L. Turberville, November 2, 1788.]

JOSEPH SEARING
7 months ago

SEE REPLACEMENT CONSTITUTIONS: amac.us/poll/convention-states-constitution-federal-government/#comment-829981

Conservative Supporter
7 months ago

First this is not a constitional convention and if you use the phrase “con-con” you are pulling something the far left invented. A constitutional convention requires all 50 states to agree to and you would have to accept the entire document in its entirety, not to mention the Constitution does not authorize that. Article V is an interstate convention and by the Constitution itself is limited to “propsing amendments….to this Constitution” so your premise is inaccurate. And it takes 38 states not 50 to ratify all amendments that are only proposed by a convention of states. The founders knew the difference The letter to Turberville was about a general convention, and Madison was talking of the dificulties of writing the Constitution and the second convention was not pursuant to Article V since it had not yet been ratified. His fear was a General Convention, not an interstate one would not yeild as good an outcome. In your own quote it says “the first convention” but it was talking about an interstate convention, there had benn over 30 of them prior to this letter so they couldn’t have been the same thing. This and most of your arguments point your sources to be very far left propaganda that has been around since the late 1960s and proven with the actual founding documents as a completely false narrative. And in more that 40 rulings of the courts they have upheld the process in disagreement with you and your sources. Dodge v. Woolsey, 59 U.S. 331 (1855) Amendatory conventions can be a single issue. Also In Re Opinion of the Justices, 204 N.C. 306, 172 S.E. 474 (1933) An Article V Convention may be limited in purpose to a single issue or to a fixed set of issues. And this is just on one of the issues you have misrepresented. It might interest readers here to know that Article V was inserted with a unanimous vote and no debate at the Federal Convention of 1787-Unanimous meaning that Madison knew the difference since he voted for it.

John B Gardner
7 months ago

The Federal Gov. should not be allowed to borrow money period. Just like the states can’t – they have to balance there budgets.

Kathryn Beeler
7 months ago

Honestly, I don’t know who I can trust, so perhaps it would be better just to add amendments which require a 2/3 vote for passage of states ( 2/3 needed for passage of the constitutional amendment, I think…it might be 3/4 of the states….I’m not sure) I definitely don’t want to open up a convention for the purpose of rewriting the whole constitution!

Conservative Supporter
7 months ago
Reply to  Kathryn Beeler

Kathryn-trust the founding documents-2/3 of the state legislatures can trigger a convention but the convention only proposes the amendments. The exact same process-called ratification-by at least 3/4 of the states is required to enact the amendments, whether Congress proposed it or a convention does. The states have the final say everytime.

VERONICA
7 months ago

How can we trust state legislaters with the blatant election fraud that has been going on for years.

Joseph
7 months ago

Is this not availed at removing thec2nd amendment while allowing the first amendment to protect social media and its suppression of all opinions not in line with their socialist views

Steve
7 months ago

I’ve been afraid of a constitutional convention since high school (1960s), as even bad things can come of it. But now with the Federal Government seeking such huge control of our personal lives, loss of freedom of speech, and more than a variety of other things. This convention is needed to stop and reduce Federal Government control.

JOSEPH SEARING
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve

SEE REPLACEMENT CONSTITUTIONS: amac.us/poll/convention-states-constitution-federal-government/#comment-829981

Joanna Martin
6 months ago
Reply to  Steve

And please read the links I have posted above. The Federal Government obtained massive powers because the States, local governments, the People, the Hospitals and other businesses WILLINGLY SOLD THE RESERVED POWERS to the federal gov’t.

They did it for federal funds. E.g., that’s how the federal gov’t got control over education. The States willingly took federal funds to implement unconstitutional federal education projects. Fauci controls the hospitals because if they obey him, he gives them money! Local gov’ts are surrendering control over zoning in order to get federal development funds.

Our collapse is caused because we loved money more than Freedom. That is a moral and spiritual problem. Only moral regeneration can fix that.

Watch the video and Exhibit List I linked to above. The globalists and their henchmen and pawns are exploiting the problems caused by our moral (and intellectual) collapse to induce us to clamor for a convention where the globalists can complete their coup against us and get their new Constitution which formally moves us into the New World Order and the hell of the great reset.

Roxanne
7 months ago

Angry, disparaging, condemning rhetoric will not make our America better. Quietly and humbly participating in those organizations of people who have been led to instigate positive change will give back the power to the people. The only action that makes sense to me is to take us back to the intent of the original constitution. Participating in Congress was an honor, not a profession, and only met when there was an emergency that affected all of the states. The honor was not bestowed on the persons with the most money, to buy votes, and the financial ability to disseminate misinformation. The only purpose of the Federal government was to be responsible for the protection of the states under the United States. The genius of our founding fathers is their careful separating and blending of state and national powers but their intent has become convoluted with all of the amendments tacked onto the original constitution publication. Individual states have the responsibility to the citizens of that state guaranteed that the Federal Government could not dictate how the states went about their day-to-day living. The purpose was to protect the states against tyranny, allow for more citizen participation in government, and provide a mechanism for incorporating new policies and programs.

Victoria Johnson
7 months ago
Reply to  Roxanne

That’s why we are called “the United STATES”, not the Federal Republic of America. Each individual state had sovereignty over their own governance within their state just as individual countries had in Europe. The individual states banded together under the banner of “United States” for the specific and enumerated purposes of mutual protection from outside agents, a uniform monetary system and a Federal court system to adjudicate disputes between the separate, sovereign states. The states only agreed to pass the Constitution to form the “United States” under those very explicit criteria. They would NEVER have agreed to surrender their sovereignty to a universal ruling body. We have completely turned the intention of the Founding Fathers on its head. States have been completely subordinated to the will of the Federal govt. I’m afraid we have long since passed the point of no return and a ‘Convention of States’ will do nothing to correct the situation. I don’t have a clue as to how we can put the ‘Genie’ back into the bottle.

Bill
7 months ago

This is probably the ONLY way to rein in the Deep State, Communists, Atheists & Socialists who will ruin our country & the free world. Levin’s proposed ten NEW Amendments will do just those things.

Russell
7 months ago

I am in favor of said convention except, with communist party in control they would never change the fiscal problems but, they would go after the first and second amendments with a vengeance! Biden has already threatened the American people multiple times with the military.

Conservative Supporter
7 months ago
Reply to  Russell

This is the only way we have in the Constitution to fix what the federal government has done and they are neither included in this method nor have a say in any part of the amendments process with a convention of states. And they cannot go after the Bill of Rights unless we sit by and do nothing.

Janet
7 months ago

I agree, but I fear that Democrats from Blue States will try to take advantage of the process and we will lose more than we gain. So few politicians can be trusted anymore and who knows what disaster we will experience.

Joanna Martin
6 months ago

What you say is not true.

And do read the flyer linked to above on Nullification. It explains the origin of the Right of Nullification – it is that natural right of self-defense which pre-exists and pre-dates the Constitution.

Americans can not restore our Constitutional Republic unless we learn the nature of the relationship between the States and the fed gov’t. The States “created” the federal gov’t when they ratified the Constitution. The States are the “Creators” and the federal gov’t is merely the “Creature”. That is why the States are the final authority on whether the acts of their “Creature” violate the constitutional compact the States made with each other when they ratified our Constitution.

1.4K
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x