[ripnbang]

And as I understand it, a Concon opens ALL amendments to be changed, not just the ones we want changed. Is that true? If so, do we really want that?

[TomGuy]

And as I understand it, a Concon opens ALL amendments to be changed, not just the ones we want changed. Is that true?

There is a supposed difference between a Concon and an Article 5.

When the doors shut, however, WE have no idea what they are going to come out with. Supposedly, the Article V cannot add new amendments that the states have not approved. Similar was thought when the Articles of Confederation was replaced by The Constitution. Repeat: WE have no idea what they are going to come out with.

[Texas Eagle]

And as I understand it, a Concon opens ALL amendments to be changed, not just the ones we want changed. Is that true? If so, do we really want that?

That's the con in ConCon. Once it starts, there's no telling what it will lead to.

The simple question pro-ConCons won't answer is this: If our elected representatives refuse to abide by the current Constitution, why would they abide by a new Constitution?

Unless, the new Constitution is worded in such a way that codifies violating it.

They may very well exempt themselves from abiding by the new Constitution the way they exempt themselves laws they pass for the rest of us.