[Repeal The 17th]

here we go again...

[Blood of Tyrants]

I’m not worried. Any amendments proposed must still be approved by 3/4 of the states.

[Da Bilge Troll]

Why don’t people do some research before they write crap like this?

[katwoman5779]

This is just the beginning of the fear mongering. But it’s good in a way. It means that it scares the living daylights out of them. And it should.

[Rob the Ugly Dude]

These conspiracy websites are funny.

They can’t amend the entire Constitution this way, they can only amend the specific parts forwarded by the states voting for this.

[Amendment10]

... Nevertheless, in such a convention, the ENTIRE Constitution is subject to review and can be altered and changed.

The Zero Hedge people are wrong about a constitutional convention for the following reason. The product of a constitutional convention is not a new amendment to the Constitution. If the folks at Zero Hedge would actually read the Constitution's Article V then they would know that product of such a convention is only a proposed amendment to the Constitution. It is then up to the states to ratify the proposed amendment, ratification necessary to officially add it to the Constitution.

Or the states can choose to ignore the proposed amendment which would mean that constitutional convention that produced it was a waste of time.

In fact, although the delegates to the original Constitutional Convention signed the final draft of the Constitution, their signatures did not ratify the proposed Constitution. The delegates actually had to go out and sell the proposed Constitution to their respective states who subsequently ratified it.

[Georgia Girl 2]

“to the dissolution of the federal government”

That I could get behind.

[Billthedrill]

No, no, and again no. That isn't what an Article Five convention is.

If it were, though, I'd have some modest suggestions. Dissolving the federal government would be on the table. I think nitric acid should suffice.