However …

No, I was referring to the right case. The point at issue was states rights versus federal power. As Wikipedia puts it:

The principle of the supremacy of federal powers over those powers held by the states is based on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall asserted that the laws adopted by the federal government, when exercising its constitutional powers, are generally paramount over any conflicting laws adopted by state governments. After McCulloch, the primary legal issues in this area concerned the scope of the Congress’ constitutional powers, and whether the states possess certain powers to the exclusion of the federal government, even if the Constitution does not explicitly limit them to the States.

if research shows less than five out of ten want a radical approach–maybe more like two of ten–then your approach of constitutional shock and awe is bound to fail. either you want a convention held on the authority of the constitution, or you don’t.

if you do, then you’d re-read carefully what i’ve said, and re-read carefully the intial link i provided above. you’d know these concepts forwards and backwards.

It seems to me that attempting to “soft sell” the concept as you seem to want to do is disingenuous at best and self-defeating at worst. I’d rather hit ‘em with the full force of a radical approach.

a CC and an AVC are two different things. i understand the sentiment which equates the two to set to the same work, but if you really want one, i can tell you from experience, to use them interchangebly in speech makes many people envision a destruction of the constitution we have now. in terms of political science it defeats the purpose, if the purpose is to help bring about a national convention.

the proposed amendments awaiting ratification are just that, proposed amendments. just as the 27th was originally proposed by madison himself along with the bill of rights, it awaited ratification for over two hundred years.

while people lament the human condition, its greed, ignorance, etc., one of its pluses is that when people come togehter consensus happens. it’s natural. when those delegates get together, it will be such a momentous and historic moment, their egos will be seeking to craft an amendment which has a decent chance of being ratified.

the convention short circuts nothing really, it simply opens up the alternate route to proposal/ratification and change. the congress does not shut down if we coerce a convention out of it.

the overhaul you speak of would be the overhaul of the current corporate status quo where no amendment proposals make it to the floor. that is something different than an overhaul of the principles written into our high law.

To me, a “Constitutional Convention” is a convention about the Constitution. And “overhaul” means a series of changes, not a fresh version on blank paper.

It seems to me that once we get a “convention” together for the purpose of proposing amendments, an army of the Orcs of Mordor couldn’t stop them from proposing all sorts of changes at once. And your later comments support that (”thousands of proposed amendments today”). Ergo, “Constitutional Convention”.

Checking into these “thousands” however, reveals that you’re using the word “proposed” in its most liberal sense too. ( http://www.usconstitution.net/constamprop.html ). These are “proposed” only in the sense that one of the nut jobs we keep sending back to Washington introduces a bill. They’re not waiting for ratification by the states as the proposals that would emerge from a “Constitutional Convention” would be. The “proposed amendments” which reach this status are few indeed: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/008.pdf .

The “Constitutional Convention” that we both favor would short circuit the Congressional route and could fast-track a series of amendments to the states for ratification in a manner that would be … well … an “overhaul”.

also, the Article V Convention can only propose amendments “to this Constitution….” if you believe we need a wholesale rewrite, you must first propose an amendment allowing that, get it ratified by 3/4 of the states, and then have your new constitution written and ratified. that’s the only legal way to do it.

when you say this is serious stuff, it’s really not–or not in the sense i think you mean: we recently held two conventions in this country, the repub and dem conventions. the delegates to each of those conventions did not mandate who would be president, they simply built consensus about who they thought ought to be.

the convention clause allows for the same kind of convention, the delegates do not create new law, they simply propose it and go home. the Article V Convention is as serious as open discussion can be. and since ratification is set at 3/4 it means whatever is proposed, whether conservative or liberal, the idea proposed must get all of one side signed on, plus at least half of the other. 75% ratification santifies the popular will. in other words, if an idea is even slightly questionable, it will await ratification in vain (as thousands of proposed amendments do today).

the Article V Convention is serious in one regard: breaking the status quo in order for it to be reformed. likely the only amendment to garner the approval by 38 states today would be a 28th Amendment concerned with electoral reform, imo.

We seem to agree on a lot, but not on one thing. I like the phrase, “Constitutional Convention” and it should scare people. This is serious stuff. But a “wholesale rewrite” is actually what we need. And a “Constitutional Convention” is the way to get it.

having been on about this subject for a little while, i would humbly request that the phrase “Constitutional Convention” be removed as it has been used for years to frighten folks away. simply put, it’s the convention clause. the CC term evokes a wholesale re-write of the Constitution in most folks’ minds.

also, there is only one way to “amend the Constitution.” that is ratification by 38 states. there are two ways to Propose amendments, but only one way to amend.

this link is helpful in articulating the legal basis for the Article 5 Convention: http://wiki.lessig.org/Article_V_Convention

this link houses the database of state applications: http://www.foavc.org