Article Five of the United States Constitution clearly spells out ways to amend the document as so desired by Congress or the States. Regarding this specific topic, there have been recent debates over whether there should be a Constitutional Convention comprised of state legislatures developed for the sole purpose of bypassing congress in amending the Constitution. Before I watched the debate, I decided against this notion as I personally do not have any knowledge, presently, of how to amend the constitution. Therefore, there should not be a convention to do just that. Although the opposing side brought some real issues to light regarding the ideas of “Draining the Swamp”, using “True Democracy” for one person equals one vote/one state equals one vote, and stating that re-electing new congressional officials hasn’t changed anything either. Although, those issues are valid as stated, it simply will not work when put into practice. Therefore, I decided to oppose this convention …show more content…
This is especially true even at the time of the debate as the House Democrats were in strong opposition to the House Republicans and vice versa. Given this deep division within two basic parties at only 435 Congress officials and 100 senators, it will be close to impossible to gather the needed support stated in Article V of 38 votes. Additionally, the 2016 Presidential Election proved the division within the average Americans at almost a 50/50 split for the general population results. Recently, there has also been boycotts by Senate Democrats from the President’s Speaker of the Union Address. This same occurrence occurred with Senate Republicans during Former President Obama’s tenure. With that being said, these basic examples and factors prove the near impossible task of achieving 38