The “woman who clearly gets it” is talking about a “Con Con,” which is not what is under discussion. Also, he/she is an anonymous ‘09 signup, not exactly someone I’m willing to use while forming my own opinions. Has this person, or any of the naysayers on here, actually read the book?!
Maybe we should all read the book so we can all get on the same page with our discussions, because freepers are not discussing the same constitutional process. As i understand it, statists cannot run a process which is designed to where those who initiate the process — in this case, nonstatists — are the ones who retain control of the process.
Like i said, we should read the book before having a discussion on the definitions and mechanics, which, of course, brings us back to your original point about ppl who push books. ;-)
LOL! When I get the chance I’ll pick up the book. I give it a month or 2 before its on sale. My qualms aren’t with the amendment proposing process, which I think think will be difficult enough, but with the ratification which I think is almost impossible.
There is a real tendency amongst the politically enthusiastic to think that others agree with them or if they don’t agree, that at least the opposition can be swayed by inspired arguments. I’m here to tell you that there is a large subset of people in the US who are just fine with how things are and will resist any changes. Mitt romney was essentially correct in his 47% comments. And when you consider that in a sizable minority of the states that 47% is the majority, there is just no way to implement changes that those folks don’t see as being to their benefit.
I generally applaud people who are trying some last ditched efforts to fix the problems. But unfortunately the time is late. As a nation we’re headed for divorce, not reconciliation. I don’t pretend to like it and sincerely hope that someone has a secret sauce that can allow for a continuation, but I haven’t seen that to date.