>Both warned that such a convention could not be controlled once set in motion. They also said that, under Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress, not the states, would be in charge of launching the convention.
>“Things could be worse, believe it or not,” said Judi Caler with the Eagle Forum. “This would make it worse. We could have a tyrannical constitution with new ratification process imposed on us.”
>David Super of Georgetown said that, contrary to supporters’ claims, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that would limit the topics addressed by such a convention and nothing that would allow states to control the outcome. He said the only limit would be what convention delegates set for themselves.
I'm just trying to warn people who have never been on the left before that you could be playing right into their hands. Soros WANTS a convention of states.
except it really isnt though. did you stop for two seconds to ask yourself why you would want something that soros has been dreaming about for well over a decade?
because there was no general majority public support for the idea in the past, and too much republican and moderate-democrat resistance. It's not like super easy to call a convention of states. theres all sorts of shit soros wants and hasn't gotten yet. he isn't God.
youre being tricked by fake-maga globotrash influencers into liking this idea, imo
I lived my entire life as a raging blue haired prog. You don't care. Hopefully others reading this thread will at least see this. Progs were always pushing as hard as they could for a convention of states. As someone who had to scrape the brainwashing out of the inside of my head, ALL my alarm bells go off on this shit.
Here. Everyone can read article V of the constitution and decide for themselves what it means!!
Article V
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.
>Both warned that such a convention could not be controlled once set in motion. They also said that, under Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress, not the states, would be in charge of launching the convention.
>“Things could be worse, believe it or not,” said Judi Caler with the Eagle Forum. “This would make it worse. We could have a tyrannical constitution with new ratification process imposed on us.”
>David Super of Georgetown said that, contrary to supporters’ claims, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that would limit the topics addressed by such a convention and nothing that would allow states to control the outcome. He said the only limit would be what convention delegates set for themselves.
very first article in my ddg search. source: https://omaha.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/experts-warn-about-lack-of-limits-on-proposed-convention-of-states/article_b65d979e-6f30-11ec-b91e-53a23097be8a.html
I'm just trying to warn people who have never been on the left before that you could be playing right into their hands. Soros WANTS a convention of states.
That’s just fear mongering.
Any amendment would require three-quarters of the states to ratify the amendment before it is added to the Constitution.
So Congress cannot just change the constitution.
Don’t be obtuse. What he wrote is spot on - a convention of states could be playing Russian roulette if the DS has deeper infiltration than we know.
except it really isnt though. did you stop for two seconds to ask yourself why you would want something that soros has been dreaming about for well over a decade?
Really. If soros wanted it so bad, have you ever stopped to ask yourself why it hasn’t happened?
because there was no general majority public support for the idea in the past, and too much republican and moderate-democrat resistance. It's not like super easy to call a convention of states. theres all sorts of shit soros wants and hasn't gotten yet. he isn't God.
youre being tricked by fake-maga globotrash influencers into liking this idea, imo
I lived my entire life as a raging blue haired prog. You don't care. Hopefully others reading this thread will at least see this. Progs were always pushing as hard as they could for a convention of states. As someone who had to scrape the brainwashing out of the inside of my head, ALL my alarm bells go off on this shit.
Here. Everyone can read article V of the constitution and decide for themselves what it means!!
Article V
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.
Sauce: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html