Sounds good, kinda

but I gotta say “Un-uh!, shouldn’t happen”.

What’s the kerfuffle over?

Bill n Krew spell it out pretty good, here.

Article V: better read it, and there is always some question about it floating around, but my take is right there with brother Bill on this one; “We already have the laws and the framework, what we need is ENFORCEMENT” What he didn’t say, but shouldn’t need to say, is that WE THE PEOPLE should be the enforcers of the rules, and stop letting the “eeleet” run roughshod over us the way they have.

Yeah, yeah, I know, we have jobs and obligations and, and, and. I hear it often enough,,, “I don’t have time to look up all that stuff”

And believe me on this, The Eeleet COUNT ON THAT attitude to get away with what they do. Maybe they have 15% of the electorate keeping an eye on them and raising a fuss over things (and I think that is a HIGH number, much likely closer to a low single digit in percentage. Like 1%, maybe.)

My biggest problem with any article 5 stuff is how easily it could be commandeered and manipulated. I have zero doubt that there are entire TEAMS of leftist indoctrinated brainwashed legal types just standing by ready to swoop in on Soros’ “GO” command, backed by BLeM/Pantifia to be the ‘brownshirts’ of yore. And I have zero doubt that there is already a “New Constitution” all printed up, thought out and planned by the types like Schwab, Soros, Gates and Bezos. “you will own nothing and be happy” type chicanery, all waiting for ‘that perfect moment’, like a mouse trap loaded with goodies.

Matt Bracken does a hella breakdown of what that particular event could look like.(along with some others, induced and natural occurring events that lead to dissolution of CONUS)

Now, I have thought about this, a lot, even had several in depth conversations over it, including with a lawyer, Legal aid, and some others that are more involved in politics. Some of the preferred articles to suggest: Term limits on all aspects of the political machine, not just the elected, but the appointed types. One of my favorites, Make SCOTUS a 5 seat house, but the judges are NOT appointed for life tenure, and don’t take seat until AFTER the Chief Executive appointing them, leaves office. Said exec would have two alternates in the wings in case of death or inability to perform the duties as described. There is also the Sound Money amendment, but that one should be easy just by doing away with the FEDRES (which isn’t federal nor a reserve). (always easier said than done, but that creature from Jekyll Island is over 100 year old now: what should have never been, desperately needs exorcised.)

Another point I occasionally harp on: Suffrage. That the ‘right’ to vote is NOT secured by birth, (or even in death by the demonrats). Nope, The right to vote has to be earned. color of skin, age and sex have nothing to do with it, but being a property owner of a certain amount, REAL property, not paper assets, would give a voter ONE vote in any election. If some smart 12 year old black lesbian was able to generate enough business to become said type property owner, hey, that person gets a vote! And said ‘right’ would be null and void if said smart 12 year old lost it all in some gamble. You have it or you don’t. But to get that right, you have to prove you have skin in the game. What level of ‘skin’ has always been the hang-up in the discussions around this. Some say being a homeowner is enough, others think that you must be a business owner (I took a stand against that seeing how business has come to dominate politics so completely)_but we all agreed, that having some ‘goal post’ was better than some arbitrary age and will-he-nil-he ‘let em all vote’ approach. Heinlein even confronts the ‘let em all vote’ by suggesting being randomly assigned some formula that needs solved. You solve it, you get a vote, you don’t solve it, get out of the booth and go back to educating yourself.

And I won’t even touch my Grand Pulpit where I don the robes of righteous anger: Education; Not in this post anyways.

Putting all that in perspective to the opening lines, Yes, there are WAYS that the system we have CAN be improved on, but I strongly feel that allowing an Article V Convention to take place is opening Pandoras Box on some seriously crazy stuff. It could be, and has been argued, that the orginal Constitutional Convention was sabotaged from the inside by Hamilton, who was very much a banker. And part of me thinks that just dropping back into the Articles of Confederation that we started this country with (look at the dates, there was a gap between winning the Revolutionary War and the foundation of a Federal Government.) would do more for it, than trying to tack on more laws onto a government such as we have now (that only sees the law one way and it doesn’t apply to them.).

There may be a butchers bill forthcoming, but I think it would treble in cost if there is a CON-CON, especially if it were corrupted by outsiders like Soros and other Oligarchs. Their fingerprints would be all over it for even the blind to see, and there are many many many, just like me, that would see that as ‘reason enough, no more’.

Thoughts please. Am I wrong? Or as Scott Ote said, using the states side of it will keep the lawyers out of it (I almost choked when I heard that, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt, even it I think its wishful thinking )