You want to dance and avoid and change the subject yada yada yada....everyone can see what you’re doing!
Well, everyone but you can figure out the answer... LOL ...
I'll try to explain it once again, but as I said, I should have known that if you can't understand what the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Warren Burger, says -- I doubt you can understand.
It starts with what the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said (Post #106) ...
I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don't like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress "for the sole and express purpose."
Now, the real specific thing here is the following ...
Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don't like its agenda.
So, when someone says that they want to do a Constitutional Convention and they say that Congress has set limits on what can be done... I've just gotta laugh.
And if someone can't understand that... then they are not going to get very far with understanding me... I'm afraid.
That being the essence of the problem with a Constitutional Convention -- that's as good as I can do for you... doncha know...
So you won’t give the simple yes or no answers.
Ok, you win. I’m not going to get a yes or no out of you on ratification, that’s for sure.