Skip to comments.A Question for Article V State Amendment Convention Opponents
Posted on 07/18/2014 12:50:57 PM PDT by Jacquerie
To Free Republic opponents of Article V, I put this question, what infringement of our natural and constitutional rights, or other high crime against our republic, could compel you to support an Article V state amendment convention to propose amendments to our constitution?
Satin Doll; Don Corleone; AuH2ORepublican; Usagi_yo; RipSawyer; entropy12; RKBA Democrat; Georgia Girl 2; ConradofMontferrat; Dead Corpse; tonyinv; onedoug; Dan Miller; gunnyg; Star Traveler; LyinLibs; plain talk; LS; TomGuy; AEMILIUS PAULUS;sickoflibs; familyop; The_Republic_Of_Maine;
The problem is not with the existing document, but rather the refusal of man to adhere to the document. That cannot be changed by altering the document.
Ummm ... probably the complete removal of the US Constitution from being used in courts and in law.
FWIW, I don’t believe we have enough people who are cognizant of the meaning of Liberty to have a Constitutional Convention that would not result in something much worse than what we have now.
Once you start the Convention, nobody can guarantee what will come out of it. There are too many people who are idiots when it comes to political philosophy and history who would be present at this Convention.
Bottom line? I think it is a dumb idea.
The Constitution has become so distorted in interpretation and application that it has become at best ineffective in protecting liberty and at worst an instrument inflicting tyranny.
Nathan Bedford's second Maxim of the American Constitution:
The American Constitution is being amended everyday without the consent of the governed.
In order to believe that a Convention of the States presents a greater threat to liberty than our current state of politics one must believe:
1. The Constitution is not being amended by three women in black robes +1 liberal in black robes +1 swing vote on a case by case basis.
2. The Constitution is not being amended at the caprice of the president by executive order.
3. The Constitution is not being amended at the caprice of the president when he chooses which laws he will "faithfully" execute.
4. The Constitution is not being amended daily by regulation done by an unaccountable bureaucracy.
5. The Constitution is not being amended by simply being ignored.
6. The Constitution is not being amended by international treaty.
7. The Constitution is not being amended by Executive Order creating treaty powers depriving citizens of liberty as codified in the Bill of Rights.
8. The Constitution is not being amended by international bureaucracies such as, UN, GATT, World Bank, etc.
9. The Constitution is not being amended by the Federal Reserve Bank without reference to the will of the people.
10. The federal government under our current "constitutional" regime has suddenly become capable of reforming itself, balancing the budget and containing the debt.
11. The national debt of the United States is sustainable and will not cause the American constitutional system and our economy to crash and with them our representative democracy, the rule of law, and the Constitution, such as it is, itself.
12. The Republican Party, presuming it gains a majority in the House and the Senate and gains the White House, will now do what is failed to do even under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush and balance the budget, reduce the debt, stop regulating, reform the tax system, end crony capitalism, appoint judges who will not betray us and, finally, listen to the people.
13. That a runaway Convention of the States will occur, that it will persuade the delegates from conservative states, that it will be ratified by three quarters of the states' legislatures among whom conservatives control a majority, and the end result will somehow be worse than what we have now.
14. If we do nothing everything will be fine; if we keep doing what we have been doing everything will be fine; we have all the time in the world.
They get away with it by pretending it means something other than what it says. A CoS would define those meanings to be much harder to fudge on. One amendment might state the
Congress shall not delegate the authority to make rules with the power of law to any government agency it creates. I have better wording on my computer at home. Another amendment would clarify and limit that the “interstate commerce” clause as it was NEVER meant to give Congress literally unlimited power over commerce between states. And let’s not forget that repealing the 17th Amendment would help restore states’ rights. And don’t forget that installing term limits on congressmen would keep an individual from accruing too much power.
That's why it would be an Article V convention; that is one for proposing amendments… and those amendments would still have to be approved by 3/4 of the States's legislatures.
Something to keep a eye on.
Given the ignorant and depraved state of the electorate and the body politic, I do not see how a convention could do anything other than make things worse. Making new law is not a cure for lawlessness and anomie.
I am not opposed to Article V. I am opposed to those presently in government who ignore the U.S. Constitution.
And there is no one with the leadership to oppose them.
Well, doing nothing certainly isn’t working. Besides the states must still vote to accept the proposed amendments.
Sure about that? I have my doubts that will happen. Besides, Mark Levin is for it.
If the “old constitution” isn’t being followed, the “new constitution” won’t be followed either ... :-) ...
Constitutional and State conventions are wonderful ideas WHEN A CABAL OF FOREIGN ENEMY COMBATANTS HASN’T OCCUPIED EVERY OFFICE FROM DOG CATCHER UP TO THE U.S. PRESIDENCY.
They didn’t seize our government in a bloodless coup by ‘being shy,’ so I don’t understand why folks thing the NWO cabal would ‘not brother’ rigging the ______ Convention the same way they’ve rigged the White House, Congress, CIA, FBI, IRS, Border Patrol and DHS.
STEP 1 - expose and remove the Regime.
STEP 2 - hold whatever damn Conventions you want.
In other words, you don’t perform open heart surgery on a patient while al-Qaeda stampedes around the operating room shooting machine guns and clobbering people over the head with crobars.
Pretty powerful argument. Good post, I look forward to reading other well thought and considered posts on this thread.
Personally, I’m in the undecided camp. Yours is the best post FOR an Article V Convention I’ve read to date. I’ve also read several excellent posts against.
I think these types of discussions which used to happen all the time here, are the reason FR is on the forefront of online debate.
Thanks for your post.
Is it a dumb idea by itself, or because you believe there are far too many people in this country who really don’t understand what liberty, and their responsibilities to protect and keep it means?
I don’t think it’s a dumb idea. It’s an idea to be debated on its merits.
the feasibility of a successful outcome is a separate debate IMO.
Thomas Jefferson had seen this problem coming as evidenced by the following excerpt from his writings.
Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature. - Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Edward Carrington January 16, 1787)
Since I believe that it would be easier for the states to amend state constitutions instead of trying to amend the federal Constitution, the states need to amend their constitutions to require parents to make sure that their children are taught the federal government's constitutionally limited powers (and limited power to lay taxes) the way that the Founding States had intended for those powers to be understood.
In fact, Justice John Marshall's official clarification of Congress's limited power to lay taxes should be amended into all state constitutions, and also the federal Constitution.
Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States. Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
[ I am not opposed to Article V. I am opposed to those presently in government who ignore the U.S. Constitution.
And there is no one with the leadership to oppose them. ]
Start with amending in Term Limits, It is really hard for them to ignore term limits...
Unless Barry decides to set a precedent and decides to run again in 2016....
[ If the old constitution isnt being followed, the new constitution wont be followed either ... :-) ... ]
A. It would only add amendments.
B. It is really hard to ignore Term Limits.
C. Make the first series of Article V amendments be term limits.
My concern is the same of the founding fathers. They realized that the particulars of any written constitution or law will be set to be subverted or undermined before the ink is dry.
So for this reason they decided to create constitutional bodies with different prerogatives, but all sharing the idea that each would use their power to prevent the others from becoming too powerful.
While this regulated growth of government for quite a long time, the growth continued, until government became unmanageable. Their error was in not including an *ordinary* pruning mechanism to *reduce* the size of government in an equally slow and methodical manner.
The two most commonly suggested ideas for constitutional amendments are oriented for this purpose: a balanced budget amendment, and a presidential line item veto.
The 17th Amendment, the direct election of senators, accelerated the growth of government, in the name of “democracy”, which was a lie, by making senators “free agents” who no longer needed to be responsive to their individual states, but could devote themselves entirely to the growth of the national government. And senators adore this lack of constraint, so would strongly fight efforts to repeal this amendment.
And the same individuals, again in the name of “democracy”, which is again a lie, now seek to undermine the Electoral College, another check against unbridled national government power. To make the president only responsive to the large states, making primaries in the less populated states superfluous, and tilting the balance of power to the progressives.
Yet even in all of this, I do not oppose an Article V convention in any way, but warn that even at its grandest, it will have little change on the way things are done today. This change must happen voluntarily by strong conservatives in the office of the president and congress and the supreme court.
The president must work with congress to substantially *reduce* the power of the office of the president. And the congress, specifically the house and senate judiciary committees, must do a substantial structural and procedural reform to the federal judiciary.
Only when this is done by the government, will the constitutional changes brought about by the Article V convention be enabled, and the system so changed that it will take another hundred years for the progressives to corrupt it again.
[ Is it a dumb idea by itself, or because you believe there are far too many people in this country who really dont understand what liberty, and their responsibilities to protect and keep it means?
I dont think its a dumb idea. Its an idea to be debated on its merits.
the feasibility of a successful outcome is a separate debate IMO. ]
I think an Article V Convention of the states to propose amendments is a Vital test. If we as a people deserve liberty we will pass it, if we don’t deserve liberty anymore we will fail and paint ourselves into the corner of tyranny that our decendants will have to break free of and hopefully learn from the mistakes of the past. The same way the Founders learned from the folly of Rome and Greece.
That's my opinion as well.
Not only would the NEW constitution also be ignored, just as the current one is, but there is also the distinct possibility of provisions which are too "democratic" being introduced. In other words, majority Tyranny.
The problem, as buckalfa stated, is not with the existing Constitution, other than a couple of Amendments like the 16th and 17th.
To me, the best argument for an Article V convention would have to be that the current constitution has been so egregiously altered, that it is no longer a "good" Constitution, and, despite my complaints with the 16th and 17th Amendments, among others, I don't believe that is the case.
IMHO, the dangers outweigh the benefits. We simply need to promulgate Amendments, laws, and policies which restrict the abuse of power and force government to function within its legal and philosophical bounds.
I don't want authoritarians from the left or right to rewrite the Constitution according to their pet whims. I want a country where all can pursue happiness in the way they see fit, as long as they are not violating the rights of others. Liberty and Justice for All is the ideal toward which we should strive, and discarding the greatest governing document ever created on earth is not the best way to do that, IMHO.
I find it funny that people have no issue with the People on the swamp in potomac, ie, The House and Senate can ALREADY propose new amendments, but want to deny their LOCAL State Legislatures the EXACT SAME power.....
Article V is not some imaginary process, it is IN the DAMNED Constiution for crying out loud!
So we trust Harry Reid and the RINOs in the senate not to try to Propose some new Amendment by 2/3 vote more than the State Legislatures of all the Republican majority STATE LEGISLATURES????
I just cannot see why people are so scared shitless over a Article V Convention to PROPOSE Amendments.....
This is no longer the age of enlightenment.
This is the Age of Entitlement.
Better to try to elect leaders who will follow the old Constitution than expect that politicians in this day and age will meet together to create a better one. That ain't gonna happen.
I've been on the fence about the issue for some time. I believe your argument is the simplest, most succinct and common sense argument against an Article V convention I've seen yet. Excellent!
If the Congress of the United States elects to have the ratification procedures conducted by conventions rather than legislatures, the method of selecting the delegates to those conventions would be chosen by the legislatures. If only 13 legislative bodies out of 99 object to the method chosen by the other body because it is considered to favor a leftist amendment, there is no ratification forthcoming from that state.
By either procedure the odds of a liberal amendment getting past so many conservative legislative bodies in so many states is both arithmetically and practically remote.
Finally, this is only the last line of defense, there are innumerable steps along the way which make a "runaway convention" virtually impossible and render the need for the states to fail to ratify very likely superfluous.
Washington has been engaged in an ongoing Consitutional Convention for the past 100 years. I’m in favor of letting the States, thereby the citizenry, to finally have a chance to propose amendments via an Article V process to make a last ditch attempt to rein in this oligarchy before an armed revolution.
Yes. I’m a proponent of this method.
I'm willing to try, though. If they ignore the clearly stated amendments, then we'll try the ammo box.
The "old constitution" was followed for many decades and was only seriously altered 80 years later as a result of the Civil War. Thereafter the amended "old constitution" was followed well into the 20th century even after Wilson until the New Deal. So the old constitution gave us quite a long stretch of service.
We do not know whether the "new constitution" will be followed but we certainly have no historical warrant to foreclose the probability that it will in fact be followed for decades, perhaps even long enough to save the Republic.
Much of what comes out of the Article V process of course depends on the kind of amendments which might be ratified. As one FReeper has already posted on this thread, it will be difficult to fail to follow an amendment which prescribes term limits. Other amendments, carefully drafted, would be equally difficult to evade. In any event, careful drafting will modify the old constitution and bring it back to its original conception and should not therefore simply be dismissed as a "new" Constitution but should be considered the restoration of the old.
Most of the advocates of this process support "process" amendments which change the way we are governed. I for one like an amendment which says that bureaucratic regulations which are not confirmed by a majority vote of both houses of Congress within a specified time limit are automatically repealed. We might not like the results we get in Congress when it comes time to ratify these regulations but at least the new process brings the bureaucracy under scrutiny and democratizes what has become a tyrannical combination in the executive of lawmaking, adjudication, and punishment. It would also return us to a separation of powers in this area.
My point is that process amendments make it more difficult for the establishment powers to play their games.
Finally, I simply cannot accept an argument of despair which says since it might not work we should not bother to try.
To sum it up for me, the problem here has never been the Constitution, but rather the people. If the people cannot vote the right representatives in office, no amount of fiddling with the Constitution is going to make a difference.
My first point of change is with elections and the people in office and not the Constitution, because in reality all the Constitution is, is a piece of paper and nothing else, if the voters don’t have it in their heart. It starts with the voters and elections.
Another way to put it is, if one wanted to prove that a new constitution or an old constitution would be followed, one proves it by the voters and at the ballot box. If one can’t prove it there, they can’t prove it anywhere.
Many state and local governments and their few most influential constituents are violating the Constitution at least as much as their comrades in federal government are doing (see federal funding).
Allowing those same people to subvert the Constitution is not a good answer.
First, the idea that we must find the right people to rule over us was never shared by the framers as an exclusive remedy to tyranny. Although we have Adams' warning that a democracy requires virtuous people, the motivating premise among the framers was that men are inherently not virtuous, indeed, in the 18th century argot they are sinners and prone not only to committing sin but to misfeasance and corruption in office.
Hence the framers spent a whole summer concentrating all their energies and their vast knowledge of political philosophy of Locke and Montesquieu as well as the history of Rome and Greece to devise a system which would protect us from the failings of sinful leaders. That is why we have a Constitution so carefully constructed with separation of powers and checks and balances.
The framers never assumed that we would have good men governing over us or that the electorate would be wise enough to find them. They turned to the Constitution.
The impetus for the Article V movement is not so much that the voters at the ballot box have failed the government but that the government has failed the voters. In other words, our problem is not that majority will is being done but that an elite minority is frustrating the majority will.
This is done in innumerable ways. One need only look at the accretion of rulings from either the Supreme Court or from administrative agencies to recognize that an elite of very few, unelected judges and bureaucrats are ruling against the will of the majority.
One can hardly review the history of Obamacare, either by its cynical and corrupt method of passage or by way of its extraconstitutional implementation by the Obama administration and conclude that it represents the will of the people.
The examples are being made every day and the conclusion becomes more and more apparent that the elites have taken control, that they are immune from the will of the majority expressed at the ballot box, that the Constitution which was designed to prevent the state of affairs has been finally subverted.
For the very reasons I expressed in my first post on this thread, to believe that the ballot box will save the Republic is illusory.
My point is this. The founders were geniuses who had a very good grasp of human nature and history. They put together a very good system, and all subsequent attempts to "improve" it have been utter bollocks.
The people of today are idiots. I suspect that they will not propose ANYTHING which might actually improve our situation, but even if they do, I have little hope that anything truly beneficial could win the approval of 3/4ths of the states.
However, I am fully confident that ridiculous and freedom robbing measures can get proposed AND ratified with little trouble.
If proponents are successful at achieving an Article V convention, I will be more afraid of it than any folly of congress. If we had the votes to get 3/4ths of the states to ratify an amendment, we would not now be having the utter clusterf*** going on in Washington today. We would be able to solve the problems directly.
The belief that an Article V convention will improve our lot is just an irrational fantasy in my opinion.
And do you honestly think that anything sensible will be proposed? If we had 3/4ths of the states, we could elect sensible people to congress and solve the problem directly.
It is insane to think that a constituency which gave us Democrat control of the Senate and the Presidency could possibly give us a convention which would do anything beneficial.
You have voiced my exact sentiment in far fewer words. Thank you for that.
I, for one, shall not be surprised if they make "Gay Marriage" a constitutional amendment. Same thing with Abortion.
What will shock me beyond belief is that they do anything beneficial to the well being of the nation. The electorate of today are idiots.
If that sentiment is correct, then it follows logically that America is no longer capable of self-government. If this is true, then what are the alternatives? Military dictatorship? Theocracy? The sundering of the Union?
Agreed - great post!!
Until those are published so WE can see them, I don't trust them.
Supposedly, the legislators in various states that are considering the A-5 are proposing their own lists of amendments.
Only state legislatures can determine selectors to attend the A-5.
The ‘people’ have no input into the content or A-5 selectors, except in electing their state legislators.
Don't you get it? It has already happened!
An amendment requiring that Congress pass appropriations for the expenses of states in complying with Congressional legislation. This would exempt state expenses in complying with the U.S. Constitution, and so apply only to acts of Congress. Plus the amendment should allow state governments to ignore Congressional legislation that Congress does not appropriate funds to reimburse state compliance expenses.
This would free up hundreds of billions of dollars in existing state taxes which presently pay for unfunded federal mandates (such as MedicAid), and let state legislatures instead boondoggle it all to people who will generously share with deserving state legislators.
Ya gotta set a thief to catch a thief.
You are assuming there would be integrity in the voting and legislative processes. I no longer think this can be assumed as a matter of course. Look at how Obama won his primaries in 2008, how he won the election in 2012, how Cochran won his primary this year.
The following is an excerpt from the HISTORICAL EXHIBITION PRESENTED BY THE GERMAN BUNDESTAG
The Enabling Act of 23 March 1933
The political situation in the final stages of the Weimar Republic was confusing and unstable. Changing cabinets and coalitions and political, social and economic crises were the order of the day. . . .
The next step towards the Führer state was the abolition of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law. Although the NSDAP-led government had a stable working majority in the Reichstag, the National Socialists aspired to formalise their absolute de facto political power by means of an amendment to the Weimar Constitution. Through the Act for the Removal of the Distress of the People and the Reich of 24 March 1933, more commonly known as the Enabling Act (Ermächtigungsgesetz), which consisted of only five articles, the government of the Reich was to be vested with almost unlimited powers to enact laws, even in cases where the legislation encroached on core provisions of the Constitution.
Since the Act entailed an amendment to the Weimar Constitution, its adoption required both a two-thirds majority in Parliament and the presence in the Reichstag of at least two thirds of all its members. The prospects of achieving the requisite number of votes were good, since the mandates of the 81 deputies from the Communist Party of Germany had been rescinded under the Reichstag Fire Decree. Moreover, many Members of the Reichstag had already fled or been imprisoned or murdered. . . .
Only the deputies from the Social Democratic Party of Germany voted en bloc against the bill, in spite of the massive intimidation by the SA and SS, whose troops had moved in to surround the Kroll Opera House, where the Reichstag was now meeting. . . .
Excerpts from a WND article:
Michele Thomas, a professional photographer in Hollywood, told WND in an exclusive interview that her resistance to the Obama campaign made her a target of intimidation. I have received death threats from Obamas people, she said. I think I was called a racist a thousand times. If you didnt stand for Obama, you were a racist. It was a way to intimidate you.
. . .
Thomas charges were affirmed by a Hollywood producer who spoke to WND, Bettina Viviano, . . ..
. . .
What [Thomas] witnessed while volunteering for Hillary in the Nevada Democratic Party caucuses eventually turned her into an activist.
The Obama campaign people were stealing the caucuses throwing away votes, intimidating people from entering the caucus locations, she said. It was very systematic. The Obama supporters got control over the caucus packages and they manipulated the vote.
Moreover, even assuming integrity in the process, the 13% argument cuts both ways. It would be just as easy for leftists to defeat any useful amendment as it would be for conservatives to defeat leftist amendments.
Therefore, a convention has no chance of doing any good, and a non-trivial chance of doing great harm.
There could be a big political landmine if, say, there's an amendment which would eliminate anything like a domestic surveillance/espionage program like NSA's PRISM.
Here's four that I've thought of:
|Tax Reform Amendment||Fiscal Responsibility Amendment|
No tax, federal or state, shall ever be withheld from the wages of a worker of any citizen of either.
No property shall be seized for failure to pay taxes until after conviction in a jury trial; the right of the jury to nullify (and thereby forgive) this debt shall never be questioned or denied.
The second amendment is hereby recognized as restricting the power of taxation, both federal and state, therefore no tax (or fine) shall be laid upon munitions or the sale thereof.
The seventh amendment is also hereby recognized, and nothing in this amendment shall restrict the right of a citizen to seek civil redress.
No income tax levied by the federal government, the several States, or any subdivision of either shall ever exceed 10%.
No income tax levied by the federal government, the several States, or any subdivision of either shall ever apply varying rates to those in its jurisdiction.
No retroactive or ex post facto tax (or fee) shall ever be valid.
The congress may not delegate the creation of any tax or fine in any way.
No federal employee, representative, senator, judge, justice or agent shall ever be exempt from any tax, fine, or fee by virtue of their position.
Any federal employee, representative, senator, judge, justice or agent applying, attempting to apply, or otherwise causing the application of an ex post facto, retrospective, or retroactive law shall, upon conviction, be evicted from office and all retirement benefits forfeit.
| Section I
The power of Congress to regulate the value of the dollar is hereby repealed.
The value of the Dollar shall be one fifteen-hundredth avoirdupois ounce of gold of which impurities do not exceed one part per thousand.
To guard against Congress using its authority over weights and measures to bypass Section I, the ounce in Section II is approximately 28.3495 grams (SI).
The Secretary of the Treasury shall annually report the gold physically in its possession; this report shall be publicly available.
The power of the Congress to assume debt is hereby restricted: the congress shall assume no debt that shall cause the total obligations of the United States to exceed one hundred ten percent of the amount last reported by the Secretary of the Treasury.
Any government agent, officer, judge, justice, employee, representative, or congressman causing gold to be confiscated from a private citizen shall be tried for theft and upon conviction shall:
a. be removed from office (and fired, if an employee),
b. forfeit all pension and retirement benefits,
c. pay all legal costs, and
d. restore to the bereaved twice the amount in controversy.
The federal government shall assume no obligation lacking funding, neither shall it lay such obligation on any of the several States, any subdivision thereof, or any place under the jurisdiction of the United States. All unfunded liabilities heretofore assumed by the United States are void.
The federal government shall make all payments to its employees or the several states in physical gold. Misappropriation, malfeasance and/or misfeasance of funds shall be considered confiscation.
|Commerce Clause Amendment||Senate Reform Amendment|
The federal government shall directly subsidize no product or industry whatsoever, saving the promotion the progress of Science and useful Arts.
The federal government shall never prescribe nor proscribe what the several states teach. Neither the federal government nor the several states shall ever deny the right of parents to teach and instruct their children as they see fit.
The congress may impose tariffs, excise taxes, and customs duties on anything imported or exported, provided that they are applied uniformly and in no manner restrict, subvert, or circumvent the second amendment.
No law may impose prohibitions of any sort on the commerce between the several states due to the item itself.
The seventeenth amendment is hereby repealed.
The several states may provide by law the means by which their senators may be removed or replaced.
I don’t buy the underlying premise. The existing Constitution is just fine. But if the people who are charged with obeying and enforcing it refuse to do so, then coming up with a new and improved Constitution isn’t going to much matter.
I view the article V efforts as being a generally harmless waste of time. Sort of like watching football. If it makes the folks who support it happy, then that’s just fine with me. They may even start some good conversations that make a few people think about the Constitution.
I’d rather work on my garden.
The question I would have is are these Republican majorities TEA majorities or GOPe majorities?
It makes a HUGE difference.
“... presidential line item veto ...”
An absolutely TERRIBLE idea.
The Comcon is a tyrant's dream. I've been re-reading our "Patriot's History of the United States" and noted how extremely easy it was for the Founders to simply ignore the instructions from the states when they attended the Articles convention---and their charge was ONLY to revise the Articles.
The very first thing they did was agree to meet in secret. The second thing they did was to completely scrap the articles.
It baffles me why conservatives---who so far can't control the electoral system enough to control the House, Senate, and White House and ensure that a substantial majority of the USSC justices are conservatives---think that magically they will be able to control such conventions.
Who names the delegates to the Comcon? The state legislatures? Oh, that makes me feel safe. Governors? Strike two. Special Comcon nominating conventions? And so if, in OH or FL, we can't control the political apparatus to keep from electing Obama, somehow magically we'll control a Comcon nominating convention?
I know EXACTLY in OH who would be at such a convention: the DeWines, Tafts, Kasich, plus some of the old line Dem families for "fairness" and maybe 2-3 Tea Partiers.
A very good fictional book by a Freeper you might want to look at deals with this: Matt Bracken's "Foreign Enemies and Traitors." His scenario is exactly how I think it would play out.