a new Constitutional Convention

I would opine, without having any evidence, that it would be conservatives who would wish to have a new constitutional convention--there is much in the current document and its amendments which frustrates the agendae of the right.

An opinion offered here, not a statement of what i know to be fact.

Not THIS conservative, my friend.

By the way, dov, I would disagree on the supreme court. My feeling is that a constitutional convention could write the supreme court out of existance, if it so chose.

I'd have to agree with Roger on that one, the Supremes would have no authority over a convention . . . Article V reads, in part:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; . . .

The authority of the Supremes to pass on the constitutionality of statute is based upon Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison, and not written into the Constitution. The Supremes hold their individual tenures for life, but se bene geserit, and an attempt to interfer with a legally constituted convention could be construed as unacceptable conduct on their part.

I would guess that people could file suits challenging the method a Constitutional convention was organized, etc.. but there is no mechanisim for the Supreme Court to overrule any decisions of a valid convention and there aren't many ground-rules for how one would be conducted so filing a suit could be a tough proposition to begin with.

Any proposed changes from a convention would be sent to the states for ratification and once ratified they'd be the Constitution. The USSC can't rule the Constitution unconstitutional.

I agree with you all. I just remember hearing, from someone unremembered, that during the fight for the Equal Right's Amendment, that the Supreme Court, as I said, would have attemptted to define the scope of the Convention. I don't see how it is possible, but with a mountain of money on one side and the Convention on the other, there might just be a fight.

In the event of a convention, the Supremes would have no authority whatever, unless someone were to bring legal action to the effect that Congress or the several states had unconstitutionally proceeded. The Supremes are always powerless until such time as an action if brought before them.