[templar]

I could imagine the state's attorneys general could coordinate such a thing. Hell, we have the internet.

You might want to see what's been waiting in the wings for an opportunity like this to come along. Major changes to our government need to be approached very. very cautiously, the enemy is hihtly organized and has plans for every contingency. One mistake and we have a new government.

[Mo1]

Good Grief .. what is that?

[longtermmemmory]

this is not a constitutional convention is is how a single ammendment is added to the constitution.

Right now we have momentum and protecting children from homosexual is a real strong cause.

[Antoninus]

I see your point. I am totally against anything like a new constitutional convention. I'm happy with what we have now--if only it were strictly interpreted instead of made "living" to the point of irrelevancy.

The judiciary needs to be reigned in. We have a tool, within the framework of the Constitution to do that. Checks and balances work. Let's have at it!

[AntiGuv]

Umm.. That proposed Constitution is inherently invalid. Article V of the U.S. Constitution expressly states that no State shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate [two Senators each] without its consent. That cannot be amended.

Aside from that trivial matter, that monstrosity is an abomination!!

[envision]

I agree:

"Major changes to our government need to be approached very. very cautiously, the enemy is hihtly organized and has plans for every contingency. One mistake and we have a new government." -- #50, templar

The Constitution is not an appropriate bulletin board for expressing outrage, especially these days. No matter how outrageous the thing you are steamed about.

We see the huge amount of nonsense loose all over the place. Court decisions, Federal government legislation and executive actions, bloated government, wacked-out people doing nutty things, etc.

What restrains (or used to restrain) these justices, congressmen, executives, lawyers? Things weren't this crazy, even 30 years ago. Tradition, fear of peer's disapproval, perhaps here and there wisdom and good sense were the restraints.

When those restraints begin to crumble, we loose a ring of defense around our liberties.

Marriage didn't need special constitutional protections 30 years ago, it was fine then. And: our Constitution hasn't changed. So something else must be wrong.

Therefore, devising shrewd "improvements," "reforms" to tack on to the Constitution is the wrong approach.

The only hands we could even begin to entrust to review and alter the Constitution must only be individuals as wise as those who debated and prepared the document originally.

The sorry bunch of officials and high political operators on the public scene today don't measure up. They can't even keep the country running as sanely as when they received it from yesteryear's leaders. They couldn't be trusted to "fix" the Constitution, they would damage it accidentally or by design, instead.

Were there some serious flaw in the Constitution, it likely would have turned up long before now, after 200 years of operating experience. Even if there were a serious flaw, we're safer to limp along with the Constitution we have than to trust the current crop of "leaders" to fiddle around with it.

It would be better to wait (a generation, if ever) until a new group of genuinely capable statesmen arrive before we dare to tamper with the Constitution.