[SatinDoll]

I have maintained that a Constitutional Convention, a ConCon, will not achieve what its proponents want. There is nothing wrong with the Constitution; only people themselves, the citizens, are imperfect.

I do not always agree with Denninger, but I suspect in this case he's straight-on correct.

If you want to respond, please do, but any name calling or vulgarity will be reported to the Moderators.

[Nifster]

Try reading
Levin

[Amendment10]

Do people understand that the product of a con-con is a proposed amendment to the Constitution that the states can choose to either ratify, making it a part of the Constitution, or ignore, in which case the Constitution remains untouched and the con-con a waste of time?

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

A Con-con is DIFFERENT from a convention of the states for PROPOSING AMENDMENTS to the Constitution.

Proposed amendments would still require ratification by the states, as do amendments proposed by Congress.

One important difference is that Congress will never propose an amendment imposing congressional term limits.

[nathanbedford]

So far it seems to me that opposition to Article V boils down to about four objections:

1. It won't work -so don't bother trying.

2. It won't work, even if it does work, because "they" will undo it, ignore it, or somehow overrule it, so don't bother trying.

3. It will work, but don't try it because it will work only for the other side.

4. No opinion on whether it will work or will not work, but the Constitution we have is just fine so the solution offered by the Constitution itself in Article V should be ignored in favor of redoubling our efforts and doing more of the same every election cycle because this time we will get different results.

Which category are you in?

[familyop]

Those who want a constitutional convention are state and local government employees, politicians and other government-linked crooks, who want to take over the federal government and shovel unlimited pork to themselves while intensifying their police state tactics. They aren't satisfied with having already outlawed most productive activities and freedoms with regulations, fees and outright robberies. They are public corruption.

Heavy Hitters: Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2014
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $60,949,129 [Democrat] 81% [Republican] 1%”

Leviathan (Uncle Sam employs more people than you think)
National Review ^ | 02/03/2011 | Iain Murray
"...nearly 40 million Americans employed in some way by government."

[E. Pluribus Unum]

An Article 5 convention of states is NOT a "con-con," to use the cool low-information type acronym.

An Article 5 convention is for the sole purpose of proposing amendments to the constitution.

No rewrite of the constitution is possible, but let's not let reality stand in the way of the hysterics.

[kvanbrunt2]

I agree. no law can bring the lawless to respect it. Nuke em.

[jaydee770]

Given examples such as Wickard v. Filburn, we could argue that the constitution is not being followed — and even go further and claim it is being outright abused.

I think Wickard v. Filburn is downright bull-butter and the original intent would preclude that decision. But then the relevant section involved merely reads, “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. That simple wording apparently left the court with all the wiggle-room it needed.

I think we would need a constitution worded with the complexity of the fine print on a cell phone contract to remove any wiggle-room the courts could use to pervert original intent.

If not a Con-Con, then how do we “undo” the decades of federal over-reach? All of the federal code that is unconstitutional would need to be stricken; all of the federal offices, depts, etc that are unconstitutional would need to be eliminated.

Someone smarter than me would need to come up with a single amendment that serves as a reset button.

[Faith65]

BFL

[Nuc 1.1]

Karl is one smart fellow. However his argument is a bit faulty. His second amendment argument falls for the idea of incorporation. That each item in the constitution applies to the states, usually as interpreted by a federal court. The constitution with a few exceptions applies to the federal government, and the federal government only. Thus, the federal government cannot abridge the right to keep and bear arms but states and localities can. Karl is spot on regarding the federal courts. But he is completely incorrect when he states that there is nothing wrong with our current constitution. For example the fourteenth and sixteenth amendments need immediate attention. Both need to be repealed. But more fundamentally a legal path needs to put in place to empower the states to directly resist federal tyranny. And this is to address Karl’s and I would say FReepers most fundamental concern which simply stated is the federal government won’t follow the constitution anyway. This is what the COS is intended to address, a lawless federal government. The shape any proposed amendment takes is up for debate but Mark Levin envisions an amendment allowing a super majority of the states to over rule a Supreme Court decision for example. Would the federal government ever issue such an amendment to the states for ratification? Hell no. And this is why we need the Convention of States to bypass the federal government and restore balance. As you state the morality of our people is the root of our present problems and I agree with that analysis. Regardless we must address the crisis that is upon us and the CoS is the peaceful way to do so while bypassing federal tyranny. Anyone has the right to disagree however I believe you re incorrect in doing so.

[Da Bilge Troll]

When you say “ConCon” I know you’re spewing PropagandaPropaganda.

[precisionshootist]

Yes it's a horrible idea. Those framers of our Constitution sure were a bunch idiots! What were they thinking!

/s

[Dajjal]

ConCon bump