Replies

I have heard multiple arguments from proponents of this here of how they would assure that what you fear would not happen, but I am not convinced. Intentions and action are two very different things.

I just don’t see how the proponents could capture, control and keep the ‘narrative’ (and execution) of it all with the huge liberal and MSM influences that could happen. We’ve see shenanigans with McCain in WV, Romney, and in the VA race for governor. There’s just too much opportunity there to just cut to the chase and invalidate the safeguards we still have.

So I’m with you.

Because of the strong majority of States needed to ratify an amendment it is possible that liberals could possibly stop a conservative effort to pass an amendment such as term limits.

But for that same reason it is also dead certain that a liberal take over of the convention or subsequent passage of radical amendments is impossible.

The truth is; most amendments that might be put forth from conservative states would be measured and probably get a lot of independent support. One that I've heard being talked about is that any bills proposed in congress include the names of who actually wrote the bill. Imagine what that would do for legislative transparency ...and imagine the reluctance of liberals to come forth and openly oppose it.

I just don’t see how the proponents could capture, control and keep the ‘narrative’ (and execution) of it all with the huge liberal and MSM influences that could happen.

One approach could be to do what the original constitutional convention did in 1787, and go into executive session.

Granted, with today's MSM, the convention would be under extreme pressure to keep its deliberations open and on C-SPAN, but they should go into executive session and keep detailed daily records, under the threat of expulsion if a delegate were to divulge anything to the media.

Would underminers still be feeding secret transcripts to liberal leaders? Probably.

Would it be possible to sequester the delegates until the convention is completed? Probably not.

But the public-at-large would not be getting their news piecemeal from the biased MSM, with their daily spins on how bad this is. The public would get it all at once, and then the action would move to the individual state ratifying conventions, where their own internal debates would occur. Those state debates would likely be in public.

-PJ

Well. the Philadelphia Convention was called to amend the Articles of Confederation, but ended up replacing them. Everything depends on who is there. If Washington had not gone, the Convention would not have been held. But assuming it had, the something more like the New Jersey Plan would have emerged.