[xzins]

Every day more people are coming to the judgment that a carefully organized effort to repair the constitution via the States’ power to propose and ratify amendments has less risk to our liberty and prosperity than the present trajectory of the federal government and especially the federal bureaucracy.

I disagree. I think the powers that be are not worthy to carry the shoes of the original framers. I'd rather have a worthy Constitution not followed, than an unworthy one that is followed.

A constitutional convention is a terrible error.

[PapaNew]

A constitutional convention is a terrible error.

If it's anything like the Convention of States proposed by the Citizens for Self-Governance, it will not be a "Constitution Convention" but an Article V Convention of States with an agenda LIMITED to proposing amendments that cuts the size of government and limits taxes. It's a very hopeful effort.

An actual "Constitutional Convention" is itself illegal and unconstitutional.

[Larry Lucido]

Hmmmmmm. I’ll be watching this with a wary eye.

[theBuckwheat]

” I’d rather have a worthy Constitution not followed, than an unworthy one that is followed.”

It is my position that the risks posed by the current trajectory of the government under the Constitution, as the three branches allow it to be interpreted, is now clearly more dangerous to liberty taken as a whole, than the risks that the States will propose something that erodes or destroys our rights and that the supermajority of States will ratify any such changes.

[SC_Pete]

You need to get up to speed.

http://conventionofstates.com/welcome/