A constitutional convention (article V convention) a real possibility now?

So over the last few years we have seen some states calling for a constitutional convention in order to make changes to the US Constitution. Some have called this a pipe-dream however that dream may have become reality after the Nov 8th elections.

An overview -
Constitutional convention

Source

A Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution', also called an Article V Convention, or Amendments Convention, called for by two-thirds (currently 34) of the state legislatures, is one of two processes authorized by Article Five of the United States Constitution whereby the Constitution, the nation's frame of government, may be altered. Amendments may also be proposed by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.[1]

2016 election results at the state level
source
Republicans have won enough Governorship's to realistically affect that possibility.

State by state breakdown
www.washingtonpost.com...
Republicans now control 33 governorship's.
Republicans also control the House and Senate in 20 of those states.
The remaining 13 states have a split legislature (Democrats control one of the houses / senate and the Republicans control the other half.

It takes 34 states to call for a convention and to ratify the changes.

So a real possibility? What do you guys think?

a reply to: Xcathdra

What would they change?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Do We Need a New Constitutional Convention?

No really, the reason for my answer is that congress can still amend the constitution without actually calling for a convention.

Over 10,000 amendments have been introduced into Congress since 1789. Only 33 have been approved. Of these, 27 have been ratified and added to the Constitution.

Now that is amazing, why? because obviously our Constitution works just fine the way it is.

Since the Constitution went into effect, there have been about 400 petitions from state legislatures calling for a convention to consider one thing or another. None of these efforts ever succeeded, but some came close. For years Congress ignored requests to pass an amendment allowing for the direct election of U.S. senators. Finally, in 1912, Congress passed the 17th Amendment, but only after supporters of the amendment were just one state short of triggering a constitutional convention.

I guess is always ways to get around the issues without getting a convention.

It seems that our government is a bit apprehensive when it comes to amending the constitution and that is the reason why calls for Conventions are actually ignored for the last 200 years.

Many people have voiced concern over the convention method of amending the Constitution. Our only experience with a national constitutional convention took place 200 years ago. At that time the delegates took it upon themselves to ignore the reason for calling the convention, which was merely to improve the Articles of Confederation. The Founding Fathers also violated the procedure for changing the Articles of Confederation. Instead of requiring approval of all the state legislatures, the signers of the Constitution called for ratification by elected state conventions in only nine of the 13 states.

200 years is a long time, but we need to understand that the will of the states that calls for a constitutional convention is relegated to a group of delegates, they have a mind of their own too

Howard Jarvis, the late leader of the conservative tax revolt in California during the 1970s, opposed a convention. He stated that a convention "would put the Constitution back on the drawing board, where every radical crackpot or special interest group would have the chance to write the supreme law of the land."

Rewriting the constitution will only weakens US as a nation and that is my opinion.

www.crf-usa.org...

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Xcathdra

What would they change?

Money in politics.
Blocking lobbyists.
Blocking corporations from being viewed as a person.

etc

a reply to: marg6043

A worthy counter argument.

Nicely done.

a reply to: Xcathdra

*nods*

That sounds good.

But. . .

I have a strong distrust in government.

What if they wanted to ban gay marriage?

a reply to: DBCowboy

A possibility.. The people would need to make sure they are following amendment ideas while being vocal on the ones they have issues with.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Those issues fall within congress, now only one was interpreted by the supreme court, corporations as persons.

Congress can not change the outcome of the supreme court decisions, but they can enact laws to get round it.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Thanks, I believe we had a discussion of this same issue many years ago here in ATS, it was very interesting.

a reply to: marg6043

Once the Supreme court rules on something a law cannot be created to bypass it. The law would have to be fundamentally different from the one rejected.

A constitutional amendment can in fact validate supreme court decisions.

Money in politics was also decided by the Supreme court when they ruled money = free speech.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes they did, now before the supreme court interpreting the rights to abortion, it was also an effort for a constitutional convention, but that failed, during the 60s, once the Supreme court make their decision it was over.

I don't agree with many of the Supreme court interpretations but some are needed.

I hate the corporations personhood and will love to see a limitation to foreign money into our politics, I believe is been talks about making laws about the national budget with a covention.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Sometimes it's not always about change proper (like adding new amendments or repealing one or more), but changes such as elaborating on existing parts of the constitution and its amendments.

Take the second amendment, for example: It would be nice if they would ratify something into the constitution that better spelled out the reality and intent that it exists as a guarantee that private citizens have the right to own and carry privately owned weapons.

Something like that, I could get behind, and, IMO, is something that is necessary to quell ongoing, divisive debate in our country.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes, a REAL possibility. Opponents should research a little.

www.conventionofstates.com...

Congress can propose amendments and so can the states. Either way any proposed amendment must be approved by 2/3 of the states. We are not a democracy, we are a republic of democratic states bound together by the Constitution.

We need a Convention of States (COS) because the swamp inhabitants will never propose amendments that limit their power. So, if you want to fix Washington we need a COS to PROPOSE amendments such as term limits, balanced budget, restrictions on former politicians becoming lobbyists, etc...

And NO, it can not become a runaway convention since 2/3rds of the states must ratify any amendments.

originally posted by: DrChandra
And NO, it can not become a runaway convention since 2/3rds of the states must ratify any amendments.

There are 33 Republican governors, it takes 34 to make 2/3.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You're right, I just don't trust congress, government.

a reply to: DrChandra

3/4 of the states are required to ratify an amendment no matter how the amendment is proposed

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You're right, I just don't trust congress, government.

A convention of states would completely sidestep congress.

Personally, I have an easier time trusting Congress, with all the federal oversight groups out there than I have trusting the states who largely operate in the shadows.

I suppose the idea of a state convention was designed for just such a situation though, where Congress is hopelessly deadlocked and the executive branch has basically failed us. The federal government works if 2 branches are functional, but right now only the Judicial branch is functional so it goes down to the states to try and fix things.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Neither do I--well, to a massive extent, anyway. I still retain a tiny romanticized notion that the government can still do right some of the time.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Xcathdra

What would they change?

The main one that immediately comes to mind would be Congressional term limits. I would also expect an attempt to clarify that the 2nd Amendment includes a guarantee of an individual right, thereby slamming the door shut on the liberals' idea that the Heller decision was wrong in that regard and to prevent Heller from being reversed by a future Supreme Court decision.