Do we need an Article V Convention so the states can take their rights back?
- 10 years agoFavorite Answer
The question is a loaded question. It presumes the states have had their rights removed which in fact they have not. What has actually happened is the states have allowed their rights to be compromised. There is a difference. If a right is removed it longer belongs to its original possessor and thus cannot be taken back without consent of the new possessor. If a right is compromised it can be reasserted at any time.
Does we need an Article V Convention? This also is a loaded question. The Constitution specifies if the states so apply in sufficient number Congress shall call a convention to propose amendments. It is the right of the states to apply; Congress has no right to refuse. It is the right of the convention to propose amendments Congress might not agree with but cannot prevent should the states so ratify them. Hence, there is no question of "need." The states have applied in sufficient number to cause a convention call. See www.foavc.org to read the over 700 citations in government records. Thus, Congress must call a convention.
The question is actually this: do we need Congress to obey the Constitution or shall we permit that the government may do any act it wishes whether authorized by the Constitution or not? If you say no, then as the Constitution demands a convention, there must be one. If you say yes, only then can you say "no, we don't "need" a convention."Source(s): www.foavc.org
- 10 years ago