Posted on 01/01/2023 1:11:04 PM PST by Jacquerie
Rodney has a habit of losing his voice on the subject of Constitutional Conventions and the possibility of losing everything when the Convention goes off into uncharted territory.
I do appreciate your stance on the potential dangers of a Constitutional Convention.
Mr Dodsworth aka Jackassery, does not share our opinion and trumpets the COS line that a Convention cannot do any harm.
He refuses to respond, and I refuse to ping him on these threads especially when he started the thread with the article from 2019.
wita wrote: “Rodney has a habit of losing his voice on the subject of Constitutional Conventions and the possibility of losing everything when the Convention goes off into uncharted territory.”
I really think the chances of a convention doing harm are the same as the chances of the convention doing good, ie, zero.
It seems the advocates of the convention believe the issues and solutions are self-evident and can be resolved if only the people/states are given a voice instead of being silenced by the politicians in Washington.
With that I disagree. Take any of the issues and the country is fairly evenly divided on whethr that is an issue and what the solution should be.
Texas and California will never agree on abortion, guns, balanced budgets, etc,. Now how will a convention bridge that gap to define the issues and propose solutions. The convention will deadlock. Why bother?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.