Did not read the article. Posting from having read the headline. Wondering why anyone would think the original Constitution could be improved upon? Maybe there should be an amendment here or there, every once in a great while, but why scrap the original and expect a new and improved document? (imho) it would not be possible (a new and improved document) and any ConCon would be just as a ConCon implies, a ConCon.
Elena Kagan (then Harvard Law School Dean, now U.S. Supreme Court Justice) once said, “Larry Lessig is one of the most brilliant and important legal scholars of our time…. His work has recast the very terms of discussion and debate in multiple areas of law, ranging from intellectual property to constitutional theory. His new focus on questions of governance and corruption will be similarly transformative.”
The Liberals are trying to control the masses through propaganda and staged "bipartisanship."
A TRUE TEA Party Conservative would eschew the idea of a ConCon. Enforce it the way it is, and a lot of our problems go away overnight.
There have been threads on this subject in the past and my quarrel with the idea of a convention is that we don’t abide by what we have now so why write something which will almost certainly not be as good as what we have and which won’t be followed anyway. Most of the proposed amendments amount to writing more constitutional law requiring that the existing constitution should be followed. It is like a physician writing a prescription calling for the patient to take the same medicine he has already prescribed but the patient refused to take it.
In my opinion the original constitution was imperfect as are all human efforts but it was written by some of the greatest thinkers of all time and there is little or no chance that we will improve on it greatly.