Constitutional Convention?

[white_wolf]

So I was watching C-span the other day and a Republican from TX was talking about calling for a Constitutional Convention as talked about in Article V of the Constitution to repeal the Health Care Bill. The way he described it sounded more like an amendment process than writing a new Constitution but he did say it had never been used before and I know there have been amendments to the Constitution. So my question is is he talking about an actual Constitutional Convention to draft a new Constitution or just an amendment and if so is this something those nutcases in the GOP are really thinking about trying? Also is there even anything in the Constitution about calling for a Convention to draft a new one?

[Birthmark]

1. Here ya go:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Happy researching!

[LiberalFighter]

2. He obviously has no clue on the workings of the Constitution.

[white_wolf]

3. I looked it

up and I think that guy was just an idiot. It seems he was talking about an amendment process which has been used 27 times so ya he doesn't know what he is talking about. If your referring to me well yeah I'll admit I don't know it as well as I should but I'm working on it.

[zipplewrath]

4. Read more carefully

There are 2 ways to pass amendments. You can have congress propose them, or the states can propose and pass amendments on their own:

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.

In the case of the convention, they'd have the power to basically re-write the constitution. The only thing they couldn't do is; "deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate"

[white_wolf]

5. Okay

thanks for clearing that up for me.

[LiberalFighter]

7. Either way very difficult to accomplish.

[status quo buster]

8. Better information sorely needed

Sadly, this discussion illustrates the all too common lack of solid information about the Article V convention option; learn all the real facts at foavc.org and become a member of the nonpartisan Friends of the Article V Convention. There already has been a sufficient number of state applications - over 700 from all 50 states!! Congress refuses to obey the Constitution. What Congress fears WE need!!!!

[H2O Man]

9. Congress

couldn't pick the Constitution out of a police line-up.

[Statistical]

11. LOL. Nice (but sad).

[LiberalFighter]

6. Nope! Referring to the person pushing for it.

[Bill Walker]

10. A couple of corrections

There is nothing "nutcase" about call an Article V Convention. First of all, a convention cannot write a new Constitution. Just read Article V itself. Amendments are to become "part of this Constitution" after ratification which means amendments become part of the present Constitution not the other way around. This is why amendments are separate of the original Constitution instead of their language being inserted into the original Constitution.

Second, all 50 states have already submitted over 700 applications for an Article V Convention call, far more than the 34 applications called for by Article V. Congress has refused to obey the Constitution and call the convention. The applications can be read at www.foavc.org.