| Conservatives and many Libertarians agree on many of the goals of limiting the federal government, and there are many varieties of proposed amendments out there to do such. They do not agree however on if a convention of the state (COS) is the best way to accomplish this goal. Some very smart people have legitimate concerns and other very smart people recognize the concerns, however believe the laws are on their side and that the benefits outweigh the risk. |  Read the Haley2024 proposed amendments |
 | I believe this fight on the ‘right’ between people with mostly the same goals is harming the conservative/liberty movement. I believe the pro-COS people need to appreciate the concerns, put in safe guards and speak to those issues as to bring in the anti-COS people. Having only half of the ‘Right’ will not achieve the goal of reining in the federal government. |
| Let’s address the concerns about a ‘runaway convention’. Although, I believe the law is on the side limiting the ability of a ‘runaway convention’, we see many lawless things happening now so, yes, that is always a concern. However, the left could propose a COS and it could ‘runaway’ with them in the driver’s seat. Also, every time congress meets, they could propose ANY amendment to the Constitution. |  |
 | The amendment process is protected by a two-step process. First, the congress or the states (COS) propose an amendment, either way is a difficult process. Second, 3/4 for the states need to adopt the amendment which is even a larger hurdle. A COS is just one method of achieving the first step. Legislations from the states calling for an Article Five Convention should come with exact wording of the proposed amendment with strict rules to only entertain and only vote for the amendment proposed. |
| While I agree with the direction compared to the current status-quo, this gives power to regulate where the original Constitution did not. I agree with Randy E. Barnett in THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. We, the states, need to go much further in limiting federal control. I propose stronger language: |  |
| |
 | I am not opposed to this; however, I do not think it will have great effect. We need to limit government control over so many areas. I do not have a current proposal for this, however, I believe this Commonwealth and nation needs to start talking about proportional representation. |
| I like this one proposed amendment a lot. I would lower the percentage from 60% to 50%. I would also like to see language that allows clear rules for state nullification of federal law for just their state. If there is state nullification, that state will receive either an exemption of taxes or a block grant for all funding related to that nullified law or program. I proposed a similar amendment called Governor’s Repeal: |  |
 | While Fiscal Restraints Proposal 2 is better than the current system, and I do not want the good to be the enemy of the best. I believe if we are going to go through with an amendment, we should go all the way and take the federal government’s taxing authority away and allow the states to take over. |
| While I agree with the direction compared to the current status-quo, this gives power to regulate where the original Constitution did not. I agree with Randy E. Barnett in THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. We, the states, need to go much further in limiting federal control. I propose stronger language: |  |
 | Definitely in the right direction. I think they need to go further. This amendment ‘effectively justifies’ their current involvement in too many aspects of the economy and our lives. Haley2024 propose the following: Congress will be limited to collecting 6% percent of GDP. |
