Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that we actually get a Con-Con.
What makes anyone think the FedGov would actually abide by anything that comes out of it and gets ratified?........................
Lets see. No Convention, civil war.
Convention, fedgov abides, peace.
Convention, fedgov doesn’t abide, civil war.
Where’s the negative?
“What makes anyone think the FedGov would actually abide by anything that comes out of it and gets ratified?”
Same old question, over and over.
If the states ratified a term limits amendment, for example (either actually limiting terms or allowing states to limit them), how would the Federal Government NOT abide by it.?
If the states ratified an amendment repealing the 17th amendment or the 16th amendment, how would the Federal government NOT abide by it?
If the states ratified an amendment limiting the service of Supreme Court Justices, or allowing states to overrule Supreme Court opinions, how would the Federal Government NOT abide by it.
These are structural amendments (like the 17th or 22nd Amendments). No legislature has appointed ANY senator since 1913, and no president has tried to run for a third term since 1952.
There are many changes that can be made that can actually limit the power of the Federal government that they could not just ignore.
You’re right. The only sensible thing is to wet our pants and cry.
I would think this was a serious question but it gets answered every time it gets asked and it still keeps getting asked.