[terycarl]

A Constitutional c onvention is a HORRIBLE idea....with liberalism as rampant as it is in this country, can you imagine what damage they would cause if they could modify the Constitution????? A horrible thought...at best.

[Publius]

Please read Post #12.

[Repeal The 17th]

Who said anything about a constitutional convention?
Are we reading the same thing?

[PapaNew]

That's what I thought until I looked into it and read the premise of the convention. Did you read the premise? It is a Convention of States with a specific, limited subject matter: cutting federal government size and power. It is not open to ANY OTHER amendments. This is EXACTLY what needs to be done or else our country will disappear. The states who sign up under these conditions will not allow a push for some other rogue amendment.

[GraceG]

[ A Constitutional c onvention is a HORRIBLE idea....with liberalism as rampant as it is in this country, can you imagine what damage they would cause if they could modify the Constitution????? A horrible thought...at best. ]

I agree, a Con-Con is a HORRIBLE Idea... Soros WANTS an ILLEGAL Con-Con.

However an Article V Convention to PROPOSE new amendments is a very legal, very much enshrined in the constitution itself. An Article V Convention OF THE STATES is not a RE_writing of the whole constitution, it is merely a process that the State Legislatures can use to BYPASS congress in PROPOSING Amendments.

Congress can ALREADY propose new amendments, it is about the STATES propose some to take their power back after they were Neutered by the Progressive era Amendments and Wickard vs. Fillborn.

It only takes 13 states to Veto any Progressive liberal craptastic proposed amendments in the ratification process. I think we can summon up enough support to easily defeat ANY screwball liberal amendment that is proposed. The States themselves are mostly Conservative so this is a way of Neutering the FedGov complex before they finish killing off the the power that the states hold...