It is not a Constitutional Convention that is being organized. It is an Assembly of States where the states act in tha same capacity as Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution. There’s a huge difference between the two and Denninger obviously is clueless. Why does he feel the need to write something of which he is clueless?
As for your comment that the Constitution is perfect, if that is so, then why has it been amended 27 times?
We have near full blown socialism running our federal government and federal courts without agreement and support of the states.
Why did the Framers of the Constitution make a provision for the states to amend the US Constitution? Were they not serious?
Why should the states not be allowed to address changes that benefit the People through the provision in the Constitution that allows them to convene an assembly?
Why are states less trustworthy than the ruling class that has a lock on matters in the federal sphere?
38 states would like to have an amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Why are they told it is inappropriate to use the Constitution for them to make that amendment?
That's a great question that answers itself. Well done.
Is it possible to use a con con to present a list of crimes that the federal government has committed against the American people and then be able to issue a warrant for the arrest of all guilty including executive, judicial and legislative? Then have a plurality of governors provide national guard troops to make the arrest?
“As for your comment that the Constitution is perfect, if that is so, then why has it been amended 27 times?”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I would suggest that many if not most of those amendments were mistakes. For instance the eighteenth was a bad idea, the twenty first was a good idea but only because it repealed the eighteenth. There was great resistance to the idea of the first ten, the bill of rights, on the basis that they would give congress an excuse to pretend that only those rights mentioned in the constitution were valid rather than the original intent to preserve rights which were considered self evident to most people and therefore not needing to be mentioned in the document. I think those who objected may have been right in doing so. Had we passed an amendment saying that no citizen can be deprived of the right to live past the age of fifty without due process of law I can easily imagine the supreme court finding something in that language to justify executing anyone they please who has reached the age of fifty one, after all we have let them live past fifty, it doesn’t say they have the right to live past fifty one. That may sound crazy at first reading but think of the implications of the decision that Obamacare is constitutional, the logical implication of that decision is that the government can require people to do pretty much anything you can think of and tax them if they fail to do so and the extension of that is that they can be imprisoned for failing to pay the tax. I cannot think of a single more absurd and twisted court decision than that one and yet a lot of supposedly logical thinkers say that it is based on the same logic that allows the states to require someone to buy liability insurance to drive a vehicle on the highways which is monumentally ridiculous.
I will add one more thing. It is very difficult to clarify meaning by ADDING words. Some people would write a constitution as long as War and Peace. No one who understands anything about human nature believes that adding a lot of words without removing at least as many will make the constitution easier to understand or less likely to be violated by congress, the courts and the executive branch.