Polls

The movement for a Convention of States under Article V of the United States Constitutionu2013 specifically for the purpose of imposing fiscal and other restraints on the federal government and its members u2013 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
guest
1.4K Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Chuck McGlothlin
Chuck McGlothlin
2 years 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
Raenelle Stockmeier
2 years 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
Max
2 years 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..

David
David
2 years 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.

Don G
Don G
2 years 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
Dudley Gray
2 years 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.
Joanna Martin, J.D.
2 years 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.

Jared
Jared
2 years 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
Joe
2 years 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.

JOSEPH SEARING
JOSEPH SEARING
2 years 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.

Stephen P Rogerson
Stephen P Rogerson
2 years 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.

Stephen P Rogerson
Stephen P Rogerson
2 years 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.]

John B Gardner
John B Gardner
2 years 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
Kathryn Beeler
2 years 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!

VERONICA
VERONICA
2 years ago

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

Joseph
Joseph
2 years 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
Steve
2 years 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.

Roxanne
Roxanne
2 years 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.

Bill
Bill
2 years 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
Russell
2 years 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.

Bill Scharnweber
Bill Scharnweber
2 years ago

I’ll wait for NESARA & QFS thank you

David Millikan
David Millikan
2 years ago

This is OUR COUNTRY. It does NOT belong to DICTATOR Beijing biden and his COMMUNIST Party.
We MUST take back OUR Government against the FASCIST Party and RESTORE AMERICA the BEAUTIFUL and FIGHT FOR OUR FREEDOMS under the UNITED STATES of AMERICA CONSTITUTION.
The U.S. CONSTITUTION supersedes DICTATOR Beijing biden and his COMMUNIST Party.
GOD BLESS the USA.

Jeanette
Jeanette
2 years ago

Our so-called “representatives” fir one thing are earning an over the top salary; that by the way is not the way it was supposed to be. That aside, certain members of Government have become too powerful over the years and put themselves on pedestals that need to be shook. It is time they are reminded of who they really work for any why. Term limits are also needed.

Fr. James Carellas
Fr. James Carellas
2 years ago

I should have read the question more carefully! Please change my vote to Strongly Support from Strongly Oppose. Fr. James Carellas

Liam
Liam
2 years ago

All you folks who are working and praying for a COS better be aware of what you are working and praying for. I have addressed this topic in other of my comments so I won’t elaborated any further here, but just know that if you get what you pray for, you may be opening a Pandora’s Box, and the the consequences could be very grave.

Marilyn
Marilyn
2 years ago

It’s clear what this group thinking is.I’m afraid for all of us. The direction of this country now is scary!

Norma
Norma
2 years ago

I strongly agree the States need to stand together and regain control of our Federal Government. They have our Country in Danger of being taken over and destroying our Freedom.

Gwen Kelley
Gwen Kelley
2 years ago

I am completely opposed to calling a new Constitutional convention, which is what Article V requires if we were to use it to propose amendments not coming from Congress. Congress is certainly broken. This is not the fix for that.
Consider that using Article V of the Constitution, CONGRESS writes the call, that is who can come and what the purpose is. That is the only Constitutional way a new convention would happen, if enough states would PETITION Congress to call a new convention. Would Pelosi insist on being a delegate? Would Schumer? How do you stop them? They have to call a convention in this case, and they won’t call a convention that takes away their power, since they get to write the terms (which is what a call does – check GOP and DNC conventions as reference). Don’t mess with the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln said. If there is no other way, perhaps. Not now. Now we still have to do the grunt work to elect better members of Congress, and we still have that right and ability – IF, as Benjamin Franklin said, a Republic, if we keep it.

Debra Negron
Debra Negron
2 years ago

I am a part of COS,go to meetings and am waiting to volunteer for them. I met Mark Meckler at a meeting in New Egypt NJ. Please sign and join.

Elanor Griffin
Elanor Griffin
2 years ago

We the People must take action in order to stop our out of control Government over reach.

Linda Summers
Linda Summers
2 years ago

Sad that those we trust to represent us only seem to enrich themselves, protect themselves from our laws and exempt themselves from our burdens. Thank the Lord for the foresight of the founders who seen the evil with such power and gave the people an avenue to seek justice.

Kim Rutledge
Kim Rutledge
2 years ago

Our current Administration has proven that we need restrictions on our government.

Joseph LHeeney
Joseph LHeeney
2 years ago

Please CONTINUE this topic of having another Convention of States !

Ron J Rods
Ron J Rods
2 years ago

Article V of the Constitution of the United States was put into the document for such as a time as this. The framers new that a growing government would become tyrannical and gave a way out of losing the country. Most people that argues against a COS have never read article V or do not understand the process. A runaway convention is prohibited by the structure. The idea is not to strip the Constitution of rights but to bring the government under control preventing the loss of rights, as we are experiencing now. The information is out there for everyone to read and understand.

Dan McKenzie
Dan McKenzie
2 years ago

Such a convention could throw open the gates for all sorts of mischief. Existing amendments could be nullified. I don’t believe a constitutional convention can be called and limited to a single issue.

Rany Staubyn
Rany Staubyn
2 years ago

We have a problem getting worse by the year. Of course let’s meet to discuss and fix as needed

Mark L
Mark L
2 years ago

Oh now DemocRATS are crying foul! Screw them, DemocRATS are destroying OUR Country and need to go!
Pelosi and her goon squad are going to pay for their stupid agenda.

Karol
Karol
2 years ago

The government is for the people not controlling/mandating the people.

Gail Soncrant
Gail Soncrant
2 years ago

Each time I start to commentt, I find that someone else has already said what I was going to say. So I will reiterate: Article 5 is set up so that only those items approved by the ratifying states may be considered. It requires 34 states rattifying to call the convention and all 34 states must ratify the same issues. When all 50 states get together and hammer out amendments on each issue, it will take 75 percent, or 38, of the states to pass an amendment. This is how our previous amendments were passed, with the exception that they were initiated by Congress rather than the people. By clarifying these issues some of the bad decisions of the past can be reversed.

David Andrews
David Andrews
2 years ago

Our Constitution is designed as a method of controlling the Government. The greedy Legislators etc. have reached the point that nowadays, they are doing their dead level best to ignore the Constitution, cover up the Constitution and it is NOW time to allow he Citizens to speak their minds and put some force behind their opinions. The Convention of States will allow the citizens to participate in tightening up and polishing up our Constitution so that it can, again, be an effective control of government!

Dragline
Dragline
2 years ago

We do not have and over abundance of honest people in D. C. or any capital of the U. S. I agree we need some oversight of our elected leaders. We do not have 50 honest delegates from 50 states that can inform D. C. of our problems with them. A convention may sound out some of our problems but they will be sweep under the preverbial rug. A congressman told me give me an honest just elected congressman and in 3 weeks I will have him thinking just like me, money first-constituent last. The money that is given to them is to pay the lobbist and lawyers to push their agenda.

Ray Sikes
Ray Sikes
2 years ago

I have held a belief for many years that when a person with medical insurance enters a doctor’s office or hospital, their insurance card or it’s information is copied and laid in a central area, with a sign reading, “Need a house or car payment, file on this!” and a copy of the insurance card is available to them. Now, I feel the same way about contributing to political candidates, because I contributed to one or two state/national representatives, and I get requests for contributions from people running for office in other cities/states. What a racket!!

John Garrison
John Garrison
2 years ago

So a convention of the states imposes fiscal restraint…does anyone think Washington will give a hoot?

Ray Sikes
Ray Sikes
2 years ago

I am having a major issue at this time, because I get 10 to fifteen texts/emails daily from representatives in government saying they are filing bills with Congress to change the direction our government is moving; in the same message they request a contribution to finance the bill they filed. I thought these representatives are paid to file and pursue action on bills, not to pad their campaign funds.

Mark L
Mark L
2 years ago

It’s about time We the People stand up to all the Government corruption and blatant disregard for what the people of OUR great Country want,time to take a stand and vote for accountability!
I’ve said it b4 if you don’t like OUR Country leave!

wade c mackey
wade c mackey
2 years ago

Lots of moneyed opposition…long legal arguments…low chances of success….but then again who would have believed the 13 colonies would have won, but they did..

Jack Thomas
Jack Thomas
2 years ago

A COS — Convention of States — is a prescription for political mischief. It opens the door for
tinkering with existing constitutional protections to fit an ideological agenda which, not unlike
radical leftist initiatives now floating in Congress, may not serve the best interests of Americans but instead will work to the advantage of a political party. In today’s polarized, volatile political climate
I cannot put any trust or faith in the idea that a Convention of States is a viable option. We need to get back to applying the original principles of “limited government” that are already the core foundation of Lincoln’s Republican Party platform. A COS isn’t necessary to make this happen; it only requires political candidates whose beliefs are constitutionally sound, who are willing to put “America First,” not last as the current Biden Administration has done.

WILLIAM BAMLER
WILLIAM BAMLER
2 years ago

I’d like to see term limits, balanced budget, no exemptions from laws for Congress. Base citizenship on parents only and end dual-citizenship. You’re either an American, or you’re something else! Do away with graduated taxation. Everyone pays the same percentage. i.e. 10%. Everyone has skin in the game. Maybe exempt the first $15-20K for all. No loopholes whatsoever. Or replace the income tax with a national sales tax. Those who buy the most, pay the most.

Timothy M Murphy
Timothy M Murphy
2 years ago

Once a constitutional convention is convened the entire document is open for modification from politicians . The left wing would like nothing better than a chance to destroy the second amendment .

Gloria
Gloria
2 years ago

I think the biggest priority is to limit the terms of our representatives in Congress. As soon as they get into office they start thinking about re-election, so they never really work for “we the people.” All most of them care about is keeping their high paying jobs and perks. There are a few good ones (Rand Paul for one), but most of them only think of themselves. The next priority should be to have a balanced budget. The debt is out of control right now and so many in Congress think that’s OK since all we have to do is print more money. Well, if the dollar ever loses its place a the world currency our whole country will go bankrupt and not only will we be suffering, but our children and their children and their children’s children will suffer. We also need to limit the power of the federal government to prevent it from dictating what the states can do. There is a need for the federal government, but it should NOT be trying to control the states.

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