[knarf]

I’m no Constitutional scholar .. I rely on others .. and I’ve read that a Constitutional convention at this point in our history would open up a Pandora’s box of worms, and that the Constitution should be left alone .. as it stands .. and enforced.

[GraceG]

>> I’m no Constitutional scholar .. I rely on others .. and I’ve read that a Constitutional convention at this point in our history would open up a Pandora’s box of worms, and that the Constitution should be left alone .. as it stands .. and enforced. <<

Agreed, The last time we let well meaning progressives fiddle with the Constitution we ended up having to reverse it some years later. Prohibition is a good example of progressive meddling.

[buccaneer81]

You don't need a Constitutional Convention. In fact, that's only been tried twice in our history,and both times the proposed amendments failed. It can be done by Congress:

"The method of proposal by Congress requires a supermajority of two-thirds of both houses; this means two-thirds of those members voting in each house—assuming that a quorum exists when the vote is cast—and not necessarily two-thirds of the entire membership. Amendment proposals generally contain a deadline before which the ratification by states must be completed, but the legal status of such a deadline remains unsettled. To become valid, an amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the states, that is, by 38 states, either by their legislatures or by ratifying conventions."

Of course, therein lies the problem. No Congress is going to vote themselves into becoming commoners like the rest of us.