[RebelTXRose]

with all the nut jobs out there, I don’t think a constitutional convention ANYWHERE would make any of us more free. That’s a real scary thought to me.

[mountn man]

All you need to do is look at the direction of Californicates current political climate, and you’ll realize the direction a new constitution would go.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

A Constitutional Convention in this climate would truly be a nightmare visited upon the American people and the world in fact it would prove to be the total downfall of Freedom loving people everywhere !

[Westbrook]

Too dangerous.

I submit that the majority of people in this country do not even know what a “delegated powers instrument” is.

Even worse, if you explained to them, and they were actually able to understand it, they would probably think it’s a bad idea. Most people think that government doesn’t “do enough” as it is.

[Huck]

the best and brightest minds in the nation coming together to create the foundation of a new country and fundamentally change the role of government in the lives of the people.

Yeah, for the worse! They took a functioning confederacy and turned it into a national monstrosity.

[cripplecreek]

I don’t want the DC mafia anywhere near the constitution.

[Dick Bachert]

NO CONCON!

With the current ILLITERACY rate and the corrupt “leaders” now infesting America, a CONCON WOULD NOT END WELL!!!!

[dynachrome]

People would do well to read Matthew Bracken’s take on a CONCON in his novels.

[vigilence]

This idea of a Constitutional Convention is nothing more than an end run around the current Constitution requiring a super majority to increase taxes. The libs that run this state want it to be a simple majority. If they get their way I’m moving out.

[Errant]

"Many people are worried about the convention running wild and overstepping its own authority, but this proposal is extremely limiting in what can be discussed. It limits reform to four areas: the budget process, the election and initiative process, restoring the balance of power between local and state governments and creating new systems to improve government effectiveness. More important than what it says you are supposed to discuss is what it says cannot be reformed; the proposal specifically prohibits tax increases and social reforms such as marriage, abortion, gambling or casinos of any type, affirmative action, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, immigration or the death penalty. All of the deliberations would also be made public, not like the original Constitutional Convention where everything was kept secret."

A convention running wild is the least of our worries and the fear thereof just goes to show how cowardly we've become.

It would be a means of repealing the one amendment that put us in this mess in the first place. This being the 16th created in 1913 that gave the federal government powers to tax the income of individuals and businesses to redistribute this wealth to others as the government sees fit and to bring the full weight of the federal government down on anyone who doesn't comply.

Far worse would be a second civil war, collapse or revolution as some have called for.

[MediaMole]

With the people running California, you'll get this... if you're lucky.

[americanophile]

Oh my God yes, we should fear this! Can you imagine what a mess they would make of it? For once I agree with Poizner.

[Publius6961]

"Should We Fear a Constitutional Convention?"

Most rational people used to and with very good solid reasons: the opening of the door to every nutcase which has the support of equally ignorant national legislators and judges could turn the Constitution into a bad dream.

Used to.

But where's the harm if the present Neo-fascist administration seems to be doing precisely that, destroying the Constitution, without going through the bother of meeting the Constitutional requirements for amending the Constitution?

[OldPossum]

Yes! That’s the short answer.

We do want to keep the Second Amendment, don’t we? Just think of what the delegates from the blue states would do to that! For goodness sakes, it’s not worth any debate.

[2nd Bn, 11th Mar]

The only change we need to the Constitution is an amendment to limit the 44th president’s term to 12 months.

[OneWingedShark]

Given how the prohibition against bills of attainder and ex post facto laws is utterly ignored, how would it be of any use... even assuming the new document was at all coherent?

[traditional1]

With ACORN and the Dem fraud in voting, PLUS the history of electing a Constitutionally-unqualified token black to the Presidency, risking a "politically correct" Constituiton do-over is to much of a crapshoot.

It will be decades before we get back to the plain-common-sense reading of the Constitution and what its INTENT was meant to be....which will be much to late to restore what used to be "America".