We don't have to stop them at a CC from starting the process of doing away with the Second Amendment; they are already trying to do that without a CC. It takes 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify an amendment as well as 2/3 of Congress IIRC......they don't have that and won't get it from the states, anyway.
The only possible reason/purpose I could see the need for a CC and would support is one adding a final amendment that officially sanctions a process for state secession.
Fifty years ago...you would have been able to open up a Constitutional Convention and maybe accomplished two or three significant changes (within a four week period of discussion and debate).
Today? There were be over two hundred agenda items and the Constitutional Convention would go well past 200 days...with almost nothing accomplished. Special interest groups would control the media attention on this and leave everyone in a daze each evening as they spelled out the daily non-accomplishments in various minute-by-minute analysis. The political parties know this and simply wouldn’t waste the time to even such an event today.
Half of this country has ceased following the Consitution. More words on paper will not limit their actions.
As a dedicated pacifist (an armed pacifist - I will have peace even if an armed thug attempts to disturb my peace), I strongly approve of your proposed final amendment. I cannot imagine anything that would more effectively minimize the danger of another civil war than to create a mechanism by which states can peaceably sever the bonds that unite us in law, although not in fact. The logistics of secession may be awkward, but they are not insurmountable. The difficulties are far less than those involved in being ruled by 51% of the country, when they are voting to ignore our God-given rights. Peaceful secession is probably the best possible outcome for the Texans, Idahoans, Southerners, Alaskans, and other Americans in free states. If any decent state seceded, I would leave my People's Republic immediately and move there - if they would take a productive foreigner.
“The only possible reason/purpose I could see the need for a CC and would support is one adding a final amendment that officially sanctions a process for state secession. “
Odd that you should mention that. This is what I got back from that ever transparent site wh.gov—petitions, along with a missive about how educated our LIAR in Chief is about the Constitution.
Petition Response: Our States Remain United
By Jon Carson, Director of the Office of Public Engagement
Thank you for using the White House’s online petitions platform to participate in your government.
In a nation of 300 million people — each with their own set of deeply-held beliefs — democracy can be noisy and controversial. And that’s a good thing. Free and open debate is what makes this country work, and many people around the world risk their lives every day for the liberties we often take for granted.
But as much as we value a healthy debate, we don’t let that debate tear us apart.
Our founding fathers established the Constitution of the United States “in order to form a more perfect union” through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government. They enshrined in that document the right to change our national government through the power of the ballot — a right that generations of Americans have fought to secure for all. But they did not provide a right to walk away from it. As President Abraham Lincoln explained in his first inaugural address in 1861, “in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual.” In the years that followed, more than 600,000 Americans died in a long and bloody civil war that vindicated the principle that the Constitution establishes a permanent union between the States. And shortly after the Civil War ended, the Supreme Court confirmed that “[t]he Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.”
Although the founders established a perpetual union, they also provided for a government that is, as President Lincoln would later describe it, “of the people, by the people, and for the people” — all of the people. Participation in, and engagement with, government is the cornerstone of our democracy. And because every American who wants to participate deserves a government that is accessible and responsive, the Obama Administration has created a host of new tools and channels to connect concerned citizens with White House. In fact, one of the most exciting aspects of the We the People platform is a chance to engage directly with our most outspoken critics.
So let’s be clear: No one disputes that our country faces big challenges, and the recent election followed a vigorous debate about how they should be addressed. As President Obama said the night he won re-election, “We may have battled fiercely, but it’s only because we love this country deeply and we care so strongly about its future.”
We’re all sitting here worrying about Obummer side-stepping the Constitution, yet again, with yet another of his hideous Executive Orders (this time over gun laws). We all know the Constitution is being dismissed by some as irrelevant, and some few commentators are even calling for its repeal.
With our foundational document under vicious attack from all sides, why are we afraid of a Constitutional Convention? The worst that could happen is to continue on the anti-Constitution path our government is on right now!
The way I understand Article V, the Framers gave us TWO options for amending the Constitution — WITH the approval of Congress, or WITHOUT it. If the Congress won’t make needed amendments (Term Limits springs instantly to mind) then the States may do so in spite of them. The ratification requirements are the same for either option — three-fourths of the states must approve the new amendment, whether by state Legislature or by state Convention.
And if the Convention proposes something terrible and stupid, and three-fourths of our sibling states ratify it, then hey ... we’ll all have to accept it. I’m sure a lot of people weren’t happy with Prohibition, but enough states were in support for that mistake to become law. We could give imperial powers to our chief executive, or ban all children, or forbid the burning of petroleum or mandate that all people must eat broccoli twice a day, if three-fourths of the states allow such amendments. That’s how our system works, but I’ve got enough faith in my fellow citizens not to worry about such foolishness.
Article V clearly allows us to “call a Convention for proposing Amendments” and that pretty much limits its functions, IMHO. We would all be watching such a Convention pretty damn closely, so any attempt to “go off the tracks” would result in a howl so loud that even the selectively deaf MSM couldn’t hide the roar. (For our peace of mind, perhaps each state could provide a 100-member militia contingent to surround the meeting place ... with lots of rope ... just sayin’.)
Congress is useless. The current White House occupant is worse than useless.
The Several States need to fix this mess, and I think a Constitution Convention, with a firm agenda agreed upon in advance, is the best way to get something worthwhile done.