[Ingtar]

Am I the only one who thinks a convention would be a bad idea in today’s environment? Calling a convention opens up a multitude of opportunities for mischief. The reason for calling the convention is not binding. We would more likely get a pair of amendments legalizing gay marriage and illegal aliens than anything that is helpful.

[Gaffer]

I have heard multiple arguments from proponents of this here of how they would assure that what you fear would not happen, but I am not convinced. Intentions and action are two very different things.

I just don’t see how the proponents could capture, control and keep the ‘narrative’ (and execution) of it all with the huge liberal and MSM influences that could happen. We’ve see shenanigans with McCain in WV, Romney, and in the VA race for governor. There’s just too much opportunity there to just cut to the chase and invalidate the safeguards we still have.

So I’m with you.

[Repeal The 17th]

Your fears are unfounded.

[Rebelbase]

No, you are not the only one and the points you make need to be considered with sincerity.

The romance of a COS is alluring but it has potential to backfire.

[Jacquerie]

Our framers recognized the states have interests that are different from the people at large. That is why they created a vertical separation of powers between the states and the federal government, which was to be enforced by a senate of the states.

It is no secret to state legislators that our nation is on a suicide track and they are subservient to Washington, DC.

I don't assume a state amendment convention will immediately solve the problems generated by liberals these past 100 hundred years. We may well be too far gone, and if that is the case there is nothing to lose. But, I am positive the framers gave us a peaceful way to fight tyranny, a method they didn't have.

The hard tyranny is here. Congress at best makes policy, while Obama and the courts make law. There is everything to fear from our runaway government. An amendment convention is our last hope.

Convention of States.

[Psycho_Bunny]

A Convention at this point would result in a Bill of Rights with nothing between the first and third amendments.

[Political Junkie Too]

We would more likely get a pair of amendments legalizing gay marriage and illegal aliens than anything that is helpful.

You don't get amendments. You get amendment proposals.

You still need the states to ratify them. Good luck getting 38 states to ratify gay marriage.

"Illegal aliens" is not an amendment, it is a current state. One can pass a law to legalize them, but I fail to see how any kind of amendment can be aimed at something ambiguous as "legalizing illegal aliens." Once the current population of illegal aliens is legalized, what would the amendment do? Would this amendment remove any illegality for all time? Would this amendment say that anyone who enters the United States for any reason instantly becomes a citizen? Anyone who overstays a visa is not here illegally? There is no longer a reason to get a visa because the United States is now borderless? Good luck getting 38 states to pass that kind of amendment, too.

-PJ

[Georgia Girl 2]

I have already emailed them that a convention of states is a terrible idea and to forget about it.

[LibLieSlayer]

Those legal minds that know like Levin etc have said that doing an Article 5 State convention will allow narrow amendment processes and they can control what is brought up. The left will be controlled and locked out if enough States agree to reaffirm rights and limit the amendments. if not... there will be no convention.

[RipSawyer]

“Am I the only one who thinks a convention would be a bad idea in today’s environment?”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
NO!
I have in other threads on the subject compared it to someone who goes to a doctor and asks him to prescribe a different medication because the prescription he was given has not helped him and in fact he feels worse than before he was given the prescription. The doctor asks if he is taking the medicine according to the directions and the patient says, “No, in fact I never went to the drugstore to fill the prescription.”

In other words we are totally disregarding the original constitution, why should I think that modifying it is going to help the situation? I am not Solomon the wise nor am I a prophet but I am not the dullest knife in the entire drawer either and I see no good coming from this.

[Nowhere Man]

Am I the only one who thinks a convention would be a bad idea in today’s environment? Calling a convention opens up a multitude of opportunities for mischief. The reason for calling the convention is not binding. We would more likely get a pair of amendments legalizing gay marriage and illegal aliens than anything that is helpful.

I remember getting into many a discussion on this back in the late 1980's and early 1990's on the old Fidonet BBS system where there was a push for States to call a Constitutional Convention and we had similar debates then. I can see both sides, but your concerns are a worry of mine too and I lean towards it being a bad idea. To me, it was a bad idea in 1988 and it is one now.

[A Navy Vet]

"Am I the only one who thinks a convention would be a bad idea in today’s environment? Calling a convention opens up a multitude of opportunities for mischief. The reason for calling the convention is not binding. We would more likely get a pair of amendments legalizing gay marriage and illegal aliens than anything that is helpful."

I'm no expert, but I believe you are confusing a Convention of States with a Congressional Constitutional Convention. The former only allows certain Amendments to be introduced as agreed by the States; the later allows everything, much like the original Constitutional Convention. Somebody tell me if I'm wrong.