No it’s not the essence of the problem.
Well, that's what being discussed as the issue ... :-) and it sure seems like the essence of the problem to me... (and to those others who oppose this very thing).
It's kinda funny, hearing an "argument" from the side wanting to go forward with this, saying that this is not the "essence of the problem" -- when the ones who oppose it have brought up this very thing as the very objection itself... LOL ...
Yep, that's a sly tactic to shift the focus away from the very core issue of the problem with a Constitutional Convention -- especially when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Warren Burger, even says that this is the "very problem" itself.
It's also funny to hear how Congress has set it up so that it's not a problem -- when the very argument itself is that Congress would be ignored (and limitations such as this were ignored before).
Suuuure... that sounds like a real convincing argument.
Have fun being a sit-down spectator while others do the work of which you will undeservedly benefit.
Oh... don't worry, I'll be actively opposing this... :-)
I don’t get you and sorry if this gets personal. But someone very famous once told me that anything having to do with money is personal, and this has to do with money.
I don’t get you because you seem to think that a free-for-all is going to do what? What is it going to do? We don’t even know that such a thing will happen, a free-for-all, whatever that is, and yet you think it’s going to affect our lives? If you do, then you MUST mean that 38 states are going to go along with free-for-all amendments.
So please answer how a free-for-all (whatever that is) convention is going to translate into 38 states ratifying whatever free-for-all is handed to them.
Let me number the questions for you because people are reading and may want to know:
1. What is a free-for-all (however described) at a Constitutional Convention going to do to affect our lives?
2. How are free-for-all amendments going to translate into 38 states ratifying?