> “Nice try. I didn’t say that.”
Yes, you did.
> “Can you address what I *did* say?”
No, I won’t do that because it’s all here in your posts:
#195______________________________________________
It’s hard to imagine a topic that couldn’t be smuggled into this convention based on that mission. There are plenty of voices who would like to ***diminish states rights***, and as you state later in your post everything from fiscal matters to healthcare to land use to culture would be on the table.
#197______________________________________________
the list is long, and the flip side of any argument to limit federal authority is an argument to ***move more control from the states to the fed***.
I’m well aware of the other safeguards in the Article V process that would serve to prevent such amendments from being adopted, but they could certainly ***come in under the open ended “states rights” topic***. I’m pointing out that the “mission” could be a double-edged sword.
My main point is that I think entering into a convention with such a ***broad mandate and without specific amendment proposals is doomed to fail***. I don’t see how pushing the sausage-making into such a high-profile, high-pressure setting could possibly work in today’s world.
#200______________________________________________
You’re assuming the consequent that focusing on “States Rights and Control of States Rights” means limiting federal power. It could just as ***easily mean limiting states rights***.
I don’t have a particular one in mind but it doesn’t take much imagination. How about explicitly ***expanding the Commerce Clause to encroach on things like state gun laws*** as has been tried by the left in the past?
Thanks for reinforcing the point that my arguments were hypothetical.