One Rebuttal to the Argument that a Convention of the States is a Constitutional ConventionBy Paul Hodson January 14, 2015
One of the hottest issues being debated around the state legislatures is the push for an Article V “Convention for proposing Amendments”. Even the U.S. Congress is paying attention, as just this last week Rep. Steve Stivers (R-OH) successfully amended House Rules in regards to the system to track, count, and organize Article V applications to Congress. One argument opposing an amending convention is that it is actually a “Constitutional Convention”, and would open up our entire Constitution to replacement. I present one of many rebuttals to this argument. Article V contains 143 words; I suggest opponents who claim it provides for a Constitutional Convention read the Article and apply basic rules we learned to diagram a paragraph. It’s only one paragraph; no sections. There is only one subject, that of amending the Constitution, as has been done 27 times in the document’s 226 years. If the framers had intended this Article to provide for both amending and replacing, they would have constructed this Article to separate the provisions. The subject is amending the Constitution; the agents for amending can be either the U.S. Congress, OR, a Convention of the States when two-thirds apply for such an amending Convention. Please visit (www.conventionofstates.com) for more information. Paul Hodson
Received January 11, 2015 - Published January 15, 2015 Viewpoints - Opinion Letters:
Representations of fact and opinions in letters are solely those of the author. E-mail your letters
& opinions to editor@sitnews.us Published letters become the property of SitNews.
|
||
