It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Article Five of the United States Constitution provides an option to assemble a national Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution as an alternative to the process of securing two-thirds approval in both houses of Congress.
When two-thirds of the state legislatures shall apply - in the same procedure as they would follow for passing a law - then Article V of the Constitution requires the Congress to "call a convention for proposing amendments."
Originally posted by Naturally Smooth
Anyway, all amendments to the Constitution must be ratified by 3/4 of states. So, don't panic.
Originally posted by SpencerJ
Hardly constitutional. The very nature of this topic is changing what we define as constitutional per amendment, so you cannot argue what is and is not a "constitutional thought" except that which is currently accepted as such. Otherwise, it's ex-post facto. But of course, logical fallacies don't occur to you, do they?
How is it you can still argue for popular electoral representation but allow the Senate to stand?
Also, how is catering to 3-4 population centers not a substantial grounds for abuse versus electoral voting. If people from New York get a bigger say than people from Wyoming, what are the implications of that? Screw rural voters?
When in reality, the previous system was much better and more prestigious.
Originally posted by BornPatriot
well this is what happens when a government betrays the people... or all out civil war... I say we have the convention -- and see what the result changes will before we start blasting caps. Due process folks...
Originally posted by titorite
I can debate constitutional thought sir. I seem to have a better understanding of the US constitution and US politics than you do. For example there is no such things as a Limited constitutional convention. Also when you bemoan adding new amendments but support this balanced budget amendment you contradict yourself.
Maybe you do not understand how the big three work. New York does get a bigger say than Wyoming. You have New York, California, and Texas. If you win two out of three of those states electoral votes you will win the race. Three states currently make up half the electoral votes needed to win the presidency. This is not quite fair to the other 47 states.
If you think politics are about "prestige" then you are truly of the good ol' boy fold that has created the majority of Americas political problems today.
SpencerJ, for better or worse you are entitled to your opinions. But your attempts to create fear mongering over my constitutional ideas are shallow and easily seen for what they are. The mere fact that you have contradicted yourself in your first reply shows your lack of thought you have invested into your ideas. You do not come off anything like an anti-federalist. No, you come off a bit more like a political troll.
That said I bid you Adieu
Originally posted by titorite
I can debate constitutional thought sir. I seem to have a better understanding of the US constitution and US politics than you do. For example there is no such things as a Limited constitutional convention. Also when you bemoan adding new amendments but support this balanced budget amendment you contradict yourself.
Truth is, we need this amendment. We NEED to cripple the federal government, not strengthen it.
In fact, if there were any shot at it, I'd say the 14th, 16th, 17th amendments should all be purged.
Now, you have people trying to tell you that more of this tripe is a good thing.
A constitutional convention is a gathering for the purpose of writing a new constitution or revising an existing constitution. A general constitutional convention is called to create the first constitution of a political unit or to entirely replace an existing constitution. An unlimited constitutional convention is called to revise an existing constitution to the extent that it deems to be proper, whereas a limited constitutional convention is restricted to revising only the areas of the current constitution named in the convention's call, the legal mandate establishing the convention. In the case of the Philadelphia Convention, delegates met for the "sole purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation."
This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (February 2008)
Well SpencerJ how do you really feel? It is hard to tell when you contradict yourself?
Do you think adding new amendments is "Tripe" or do we really need a new balanced budget amendment?
You SpencerJ are brand new to this board and already you have been up to no good as evidenced by your points.
Take a moment to gather all your thoughts into logical order then get back to us.
Originally posted by titorite
reply to post by redhatty
From your wiki link.
This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (February 2008)
And the Philadelphia convention was not limited by any means considering that is where the constitution was established in the first place to replace the articles of confederation.
[edit on 12-12-2008 by titorite]
Um, yes there is. It was the same procedure borrowed from the Articles of Confederation, and if you did your history, then you would know how they cheated in that situation, scholar.
Originally posted by grimreaper797
reply to post by titorite
The convention of 1787, the philadelphia convention, was initially intended to be a LIMITED constitutional convention. When they finally had the convention though, they decided to have a full blown general constitutional convention.