[precisionshootist]

For the record. I favor a Constitutional Convention to reestablish limited Government. This can be done without the breakup of the Republic. A CC is really just a way for the states to amend the constitution and limit the federal government when the federal government refuses to do it themselves. This is the very day the framers had in mind when the option to amend the Constitution by convention was added.

[UnwashedPeasant]

Wouldn’t a Constitutional Convention be an opportunity for people like Obama and Soros to replace what is left of the original Constitution?

[OldPossum]

Thanks for your thoughts in posts 36 and 37.

Your view of the Hispanics in Texas is along the lines that I, a non-Texan, see them, pretty much a passive section of the population not prone to do anything along the lines of really activating what our Founders had in mind when they inserted the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

It’s just that I see them as an impediment to those in Texas who believe in States rights, which I agree with you can now only come about by a Constitutional Convention. I see Texas as leading the way with such a convention.

Like you, I hope that we can settle this situation by the democratic process, i.e., vote out the Democrats and vote in activist Republicans who can restore the kind of government we once enjoyed.

Yes, I know that “activist” and “Republican” is a strange combination of words in the same sentence but miracles do happen.

[RKBA Democrat]

I would prefer to see a CC as well and think that’s a strategy that should be concurrently pursued. The problem, though, is getting enough states to call for one. The plain truth is that several states are pleased as can be to see aca upheld and have no problem with increased taxes or governmental control. So NY, IL, CA, etc are going to call for a CC? Really?

Another possibility is having a state or states negotiate to remain within the Federal construct but with a different or more autonomous status such as Puerto Rico or Guam.