[Yashcheritsiy]

IIRC, 34 states are required to make up 2/3 of the states.

A Con-Con is a very bad idea, no matter how bad things seem right now. With a Con-Con, anything would be up for grabs.

Delete the 2nd amendment?

New amendment enshrining socialised medicine as a “right” (or anything else, for that matter)?

4th amendment needs to go?

Abolish the 10th amendment?

All could happen in a Con-Con.

[Dr. Sivana]

A Con-Con is a very bad idea, no matter how bad things seem right now. With a Con-Con, anything would be up for grabs.

Delete the 2nd amendment?

New amendment enshrining socialised medicine as a “right” (or anything else, for that matter)?

4th amendment needs to go?

Abolish the 10th amendment?

All could happen in a Con-Con.

The 2nd Amedment is wounded.
The 4th Amendment only seems to apply to abortion rights.
The 10th Amendment has been turned inside out, as has pretty much the whole Constitution.

I'm far from a southerner, but at this stage, I can only say a right to secession is necessary, because too much of this country is lefty in its orientation.

At some point, the risks of a Con-Con are less than the risk of another generation of lefty worms and termites eating away at the entire fabric of society.

I think we are close enough to that point.

[vg0va3]

@Yashcheritsiy “A Con-Con is a very bad idea, no matter how bad things seem right now. With a Con-Con, anything would be up for grabs.”

I disagree. They can do whatever they wish at the convention. It would need to be then ratified by 2/3 of the the states legislatures to be approved. Also, the state delegations can amend what comes out of the con-con.

Progressives have argued against con-con since 1913 because they realize the garbage Wilson got ratified would be pulled out.

Think about what state would ratify a Constitution without the 2nd Amendment. As the 10th Amendment goes they would strengthen it by repealing the 17th Amendment.

[Hostage]

To achieve 3/4s of states to implement proposals of a Con-Con, that would take 38 states.

Do you think there are 38 states that will delete the 2nd Amendment? Delete the 4th Amendment? Make new socialism amendments?

If you think that could happen, then why has the Left not taken that route before? Seems it would be faster for them to get what they want that way.

I think you are fanning flames of fear towards conservatives when in fact it is Leftists that should fear a Con-Con.

A Con-Con is strict and difficult. Americans can have their Republic back if they use what the Constitution leaves for them to utilize.

[rarestia]

This is not correct. A Con-Con must be called with a specific goal or bill. A Con-Con isn’t called and mustered just to “talk.” A Con-Con is called with specific documents on the table for a vote. They have to get the plurality of governors to vote.

The worst that would happen is that poison pills are placed in the amendments and are thus voted down. No Con-Con would be called to rescind the 2nd Amendment or any of the things you suggest.

[cgbg]

A con-con isn’t just a bad idea.

It is bat-S!@# crazy! (see my tagline)

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Back in 1968 or 69, ESQUIRE magazine had an article on a new proposed constitution. The President would be eliminated and replaced by a “Chairman”.

I don’t remember much more of it except it was said that there would be NO RIGHT for the public to own firearms.

A Con-Con is a bad idea.