Constitutional Convention?

Will we see a Constitutional Convention in our lifetime goys? Since the 70s there has been calls for a convention in order to pass an amendment forcing states to finish each fiscal year with a balanced budget. However, in the years that followed, there have been more calls for differing reasons. I am starting to wonder if this could actually come to fruition, considering the countless calls from the left to abolish the electoral college, make medical care a human right, censor (((hate speech))) etc. What would be the possible ramifications of something like this happening, and if it does happen, what type of changes would pol like to see made?

Attached: constitutionrewrite.jpg (640x360, 197K)

Other urls found in this thread:

economist.com/briefing/2017/09/30/america-might-see-a-new-constitutional-convention-in-a-few-years
washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-surprisingly-close-to-a-new-constitutional-convention-bad-idea/2017/04/06/f6d5b76a-197d-11e7-855e-4824bbb5d748_story.html?utm_term=.a9165d272300
youtu.be/GBSjePLulrA0295
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>only whites can be citizens

I hope so. If Dems try to bring about a constitutional convention to get rid of the electoral college it will be a huge mistake for them. It will be an open for conservatives to enter constitutional amendments banning abortion, transgender bathrooms, etc.

Ultimate pipe dream

an interesting article from (((The Economist)))

economist.com/briefing/2017/09/30/america-might-see-a-new-constitutional-convention-in-a-few-years

>In recent years the Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force has been campaigning with great success for such an “Article V” convention. There are now 27 states in which the legislatures have passed resolutions calling for a convention that would propose a balanced-budget amendment. The two-thirds-of-the-states threshold for calling a convention is 34. And, as it happens, there are seven states which have not yet called for a convention to propose a balanced-budget amendment, but in which Republicans control both houses of the legislature.
>Called the Convention of States (CoS), it promises amendments on three topics: a balanced budget, limiting the federal government’s power and establishing term limits for members of Congress. Led by Mark Meckler, a former Tea Party activist, the CoS got its first resolution passed in 2014. But it has grown fast. It is far better-funded than the BBATF and claims 2.2m volunteers across the country; its advisers include Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, two influential former Republican senators. Its resolution has now passed in 12 states.

Attached: amendments.png (640x317, 196K)

>Mr Meckler, like Mr Fruth, says he aims to have 34 states signed up by the end of 2019. Outside observers take that prediction seriously. Pete Sepp of the National Taxpayers’ Union (NTU), which has long advocated a balanced-budget amendment, puts the probability of an Article V convention being called by 2020 at 50-50. So does Jay Riestenberg of Common Cause, an organisation devoted to government reform which fiercely opposes an Article V convention

>(((Riestenberg)))
>opposed to balanced budget
>opposed to limiting Federal power
>opposed to Congressional term limits
every fucking time

Attached: chekem1.jpg (450x299, 50K)

>Constitutional Convention
Because we have NEVER HAD one it would be an absolute shitshow... I am extremely suspicious of that kike Mark Levin constantly banging on about getting one of these going.

if we did do a Constitutional Convention it would open the door to literally ANYTHING happening... we could just get rid of the 2nd amendment or re write it to say the exact opposite or give illegals the right to vote or just any fucking crazy stupid thing you can think of.

The only reason we should do a Constitutional Convention is after a massive civil war and millions of democrats are dead.

Terrible horrible idea

You do know that conservatives control most of the state legislatures right?

>In the 1970s the NTU began a campaign to pass state resolutions for a convention on a balanced-budget amendment. By 1983 the project was on the brink of success; 32 state legislatures, some of them Democratic, had signed up, and California and Montana were set to hold ballot initiatives that would have forced their legislatures to add to those applications. But state courts ruled the two ballot initiatives unconstitutional, and the effort stalled
>With the amenders’ momentum sapped, their opponents gained the upper hand. Somewhat surprisingly, the most effective response came from the right. The John Birch Society, a far-right fringe group, launched a counter-campaign; the Eagle Forum, a conservative group best known for its fight against an amendment guaranteeing women equal rights to men, led a similar charge
>JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY FAR RIGHT

Attached: states4convention.png (640x654, 375K)

>Since 2010 the BBATF has helped get resolutions passed in 15 states which previously lacked them. But its opponents have swung back into action, too. They fall into two camps: those who fear that an Article V convention will do what its advocates want it to, and those who fear that it will not.
>The first cohort consists primarily of liberals, who see a balanced-budget amendment as a vehicle for right-wing dreams of rolling back America’s welfare state. “The right is very frustrated with Congress’s inability to cut these social-safety-net programmes, and this is their backdoor way to do it,” says Chris Taylor, a Democratic assemblywoman in Wisconsin
>A larger group of critics, whose strange bedfellows include the Birchers, the American Civil Liberties Union and Common Cause, has focused on the risk of a runaway convention veering off into non-budgetary topics. The opportunity to propose amendments without the normal hurdle of getting them past two-thirds majorities in both the House and Senate might prove hard for ideologues to resist. Would conservative delegates really vote against, say, a separate amendment asserting that the protections of citizenship start at conception?
>Virginia’s House of Delegates approved an Article V application in 2016, but Richard Black, a Republican state senator, has helped stymie the resolution’s progress with warnings of devious Democrats hijacking a convention. “They could change freedom of religion to say certain teachings from the Bible are hate speech,” he told supporters by e-mail in 2015. “They could take away our right to own a gun.”

Attached: amendment2017.png (640x529, 320K)