I am definitely in favor of the Article V convention of the States to “fix” Congress.
Over the last few months, several people have expressed their doubt that Article V Convention is right thing to do. Even after the Blunderbuss Omnibus waste of tax dollars and the attitude that We the People must do something about Congress is permeating every media outlet. The doubt that several people have expressed is based on what the small group of Article V proponents may come up with that will be directed at the people instead of the government.
So far I believe there are three ways that the Supreme Court can be used to stop the Article V Convention in its tracks. First. Any Amendment must come from a prescribe or defined list of changes that were agreed to before the convention of the chosen Representatives of each State. This must be done so as to avoid the creation of the disaster that Prohibition was. Prohibition had nothing to do with Independence because the Amendment defined how the People should live and not how the government should live. Second. The Constitution is what defines what the government is. Any Amendment must be based on the People’s Independence from Government. The Bill of rights exists to keep and protect Independence from Government. Third. No amendment will pass the Supreme Court if that Amendment takes away any right as defined in the Bill of Rights. Taking away rights can only be in the hands of Congress as the process to take away rights is spelled out in the Constitution.
For the above “First”: The defined list must be in the form of a modern day version of the Declaration of Independence and signed as was the first Declaration of Independence by those who are willing to Represent the State. The one and only difference should be that the signers should not have to risk their lives and fortunes, only their Sacred Honor that they will pursue and create the amendments that will solve the list of problems they sign on to address.
From the above “Second”: The only goal of the Constitution is to support the People’s Independence from government as defined in the Declaration of Independence. The selected Representative for the Convention of the States must be selected from the People of the State and must also sign on to the modern day Declaration of Independence. Anything outside of what the representatives signed on to do could be challenged by the Supreme Court.
From the above “Third”: The definition of the government is the only goal for the Convention of the States. Going outside of that clear definition to take away Rights from the people will be a clear sign that your intentions were not to get government back into the hands of the People and that you violated the trust your State put in you as their representative.
Do not think for even one second that this effort will go unchallenged by any means that the government can come up with. Right now, the government is not of the People because those that we elect and are appointed are compensated far more for their supposed representation of the People should be getting and they are getting that compensation for the rest of their lives. How can you blame any representative for being on the government’s side and not on the People side?