Comments for Ohio Constitutional Convention Resolution Killed by Grassroots Pressure at http://www.thenewamerican.com , comment 1 to 4 out of 4 comments http://www.thenewamerican.com Fri, 19 Mar 2010 06:36:45 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/603#comment-24 Let's get the facts straight about an Article V Convention and then decide about it. The only fact stated correctly in the above story is that if 34 states apply for a convention, Congress must call one. The author seems to think the efforts of ten people stopped an Article V Convention call. He is incorrect. Not because Ohio might again bring up the issue, but because he doesn't tell his readers the basic facts about a convention and misstates those he does make. This is a very important issue and should not be decided because ten people show up at a meeting in Ohio. It certainly should not be decided because people don't have the real facts about an Article V Convention. The public record shows the following: All 50 states have submitted more than 650 applications for an Article V Convention. As to the issue of a balanced budget, the public record shows 37 states have applied for a convention. Therefore as even admitted by this author, Congress must call a convention. In short the protest at Ohio or anywhere else is presently meaningless. As to rescinding applications, there is no provision in Article V to allow the states to do so and the Supreme Court has already affirmed [i]twice[/i]that if there is no such language in the Constitution, it can't be done. In short, the courts have said Article V is literally, what you see is what you get. If you are interested in reading the texts of the actual applications, you can do so at www.foavc.org. This is the only place where the texts can be read. We invite everyone to do so. As to the embedded video we suggest you also view the video cited below before making up your mind. Thank you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-R-2tZBE1Q - Bill Walker Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:09:38 +0100 http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/603#comment-20 1st: We have to try a Con-Con for change as there is no way around the Imperial Congress. 2nd: The whole process is out in the open so corruption should be at a minimum. 3rd: If they manage to corrupt the process then the states do not have to ratify what comes out. 4th: I think that our country is lost to socialism without some radical attempt to solve its problems and I want to go down fighting. I do fear a balanced budget amendment at this time as it would cause turmoil in government spending but it would be good for the country in the long run unless there are too many exceptions in it. - James361 Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:15:02 +0100 http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/603#comment-11 Sorry, the above should read,"...without expiration". - BobbyXD9 Sun, 04 Jan 2009 11:36:36 +0100 http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/603#comment-10 Wow, where does one begin to clear up the wealth of misinformation contained above? I'm not a Republican,I'm a conservative & as such, am horrified by the spectre of a con-con. If Osama Barak & his socialist comrades in the legislature ever got the opportunity to eliminate the freedoms of religion, self protection, property, security in one's person & papers etc, America would be gone forever. It is a shame that such a thing could be startd with expiration just waiting for enough signatures to destroy our founding documents. Rest assured that I would fight to the death before I'd allow elected Marxist lawyers to rewrite our Constitution, even if it means fighting alongside liberals. - BobbyXD9 Sun, 04 Jan 2009 11:34:28 +0100