[tcrlaf]

Am I the only one that thinks a Constitutional Convention is a REALLY horrible idea??

Too many opportunities for political shenanigans, like enshrining gay culrure, etc., and the chance to really wipe out our liberties in this.

The problem isn’t with our Constitution, it is not enforcing what the Constitution says.

[Axeslinger]

and your realistic alternative is?

[cotton1706]

You need to do some reading. There is nothing wrong with the states proposing amendments to each other. Some may be enacted, some may not.

I give you the example of the ERA amendment in the 70’s. It had overwhelming support by the powers that be, and was even extended, yet was not approved by the requisite 3/4ths.

The danger lies in the continual consolidation of power in Washington. Something must be done. And the states can lead the way.

[Repeal The 17th]

“...The problem isn’t with our Constitution,
it is not enforcing what the Constitution says...”
-
If the Constitution can not be enforced, then THAT is a problem.
A Convention of States to “propose amendments” is not a problem;
it is a solution to the problem.

[TomGuy]

Am I the only one that thinks a Constitutional Convention is a REALLY horrible idea??

I shake my head in dread of what would probably happen at such a Convention. Libs/Dems won't remain silent and will have as much to say as the so-called Republicans/conservatives.

Pubbies are known for their folding and bending-over strategies. In such a Convention, they would likely compromise and give in to the will of the Dems. They are Pubbies. They fold and capitulate. That is who that are. That is what they do.

==

Additionally, it would take years for any proposals to circulate through the states. By then, if we get more liberal presidents (regardless of the R or D following their names), new amendments will do little.

The government (Congress, Judiciary, and Executive) already only enforce laws they want and ignore those they don't like. How will new amendments do anything? Those government officials are already ignoring that part of their oath of office about upholding The Constitution.

A Convention of the States is a pipe dream that could turn into a massive nightmare, as modifications are made to Amendment One, Amendment Two, etc.

==

[glennaro]

What is proposed is a convention of the states ... not a "Constitutional Convention". There is a profound difference and you should read up on it.

Something must be done to save our Constitution. Not only has power been consolidated at the federal level, it has occurred because unelected bureaucrats and career politicians have discovered myriad ways to circumvent and, in many cases, violate the Constitution without amending it. They have done so -- quite effectively and efficiently -- simply through legislative and executive actions.

This is no longer a matter of policy differences, it is literally a matter of preserving our Constitutional Republic.

[SaraJohnson]

NO, you are not the only one leery of a Constitutional Convention!

If we don’t come up with a conservative constitution, we won’t come up with a liberal one, either. Then the convention will expose the reality that today, this country’s people can not be united under a Federal Government and should split.

[DiogenesLamp]

Am I the only one that thinks a Constitutional Convention is a REALLY horrible idea??

No, I have serious misgivings about it too. I have pointed out numerous times that other than the first Ten Amendments, most of the subsequent amendments have been mistakes/disasters.

I have little hope that modern representatives can produce something that corrects our problems. More like, they will just make things worse.

[Jacquerie]

<>The problem isn’t with our Constitution, it is not enforcing what the Constitution says.<>

How do you propose to see that the constitution is enforced?

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

The real problem is an electorate dumb enough to keep putting these people in power.