Convention of States=Trashing of the Constitution. 25 states call for constitutional convention

First things first. Let us look at Article V of the constitution of the United states, the section that outlines how new amendments to the constitution are ratified. You may have to refer back to it through reading this thread, so I will put it at the top:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

For now on, constitutional convention is going to be referred to as a con-con.

Down to business. My state legislator of Michigan passed a call for a convention last week. Alaska passed theirs on the 26th of March. This makes 25 states. They called specifically for a Balanced Budget Amendment. It takes 34 states to call a convention on the same subject in order for one to be called.

Article V says congress SHALL call a convention on the applications of 2/3 of the states. Congress is obligated to do it.

Already, more than 2/3 of states have calls for a con-con, but 2/3 of the states have not called on the same issue. Many have called to repeal citizen's united.

What is important to know is WHO is supporting the constitutional convention? How many of you have read Mark Levin's new book, The Liberty Amendments? Popular talk-show radio host Mark Levin argues that out of control spending can only be fixed with a con-con. This book was praised by Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and almost every other right-winger.

co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, Mark Meckler, would have you believe that what congress would be calling is a "convention of the states" where it is the states that choose delegates and choose issues discussed at the convention.

This week, the Convention of States resolution is pending in multiple state legislatures. Many state legislators are standing up and calling for an Amending Convention under Article V. These brave legislators are fighting to take the power from the federal leviathan and return it to you, the sovereign citizen. But they can’t do it without your help.

www.conventionofstates.com...
There is no difference between a convention of states and a con-con according to Article V. We even have state calls for a con-con that use the term constitutional convention

Maryland

United States Constitutional Convention–Democracy Amendment FOR the purpose of applying to the U.S. Congress for an amendments convention called under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, on the application of the legislatures of two–thirds of the several states, to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that affirms every citizen’s freedom to vote and restores free and fair elections in America;

mgaleg.maryland.gov...

New Hampshire

This resolution urges the United States Congress to adopt a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States or to call a constitutional convention for the purpose of proposing a federal balanced budget amendment for ratification by the states.

www.gencourt.state.nh.us...

Would the Tea Party Patriots be supporting the convention idea if they knew George Soros was spending millions to promote it?

George Soros funds an internet news channel, The Young Turks through Media Consortium. The Young turks have organized Wolf-PAC, a PAC committed to a con-con.

Along with George Soros, nearly every lefty group under the sun is supportive of a con-con.
movetoamend.org...
Would listeners to Rush Limbaugh support a convention if they knew it was supported by:
Code PINK
Independent Progressive Politics Network
Progressive Democrats of America
and Occupy groups from every corner of the country.

What is worse, we are seeing these groups use millions of dollars to fund invite-only council dinners where proponents funded by Koch and Soros discuss a con-con.

We have the Con-con-con and Mount Vernon Assembly. At con-con-con were representatives of the Goldwater Institute, Cato and ALEC, all of which are funded by the Koch brothers, and members of Independent Progressive Politics Network and Progressive Democrats of America.

Another book that deals on a con-con is "Six Amendment" by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Jones, which calls for repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

PRECEDENTS

There has been two conventions. One in 1787 and one in 1861 for the Confederate constitution. Both conventions were arranged in secret. One must assume any new convention will be negotiated secretly too.

The Articles of Confederation had to have new changes ratified unanimously. The 1787 convention changed this to 3/4 of state legislators without approval from the states. We must assume a new convention can lower the bar to half the states, or no states. Proponents argue a con-con can be held to one issue and bad amendments can't pass the states. But bad amendments, like number 16, 17, 18 and 25 have passed state legislators. James Madison argued in Federalist #40 a convention cant be held to one issue. The 1787 convention was supposed to do nothing but amend the Articles. The Articles were scrapped. Another convention cant stay to one issue when the proponents of a balanced budget amendment are working hand in hand with socialists.

Here is the text to a proposed Balanced Budget Amendment in the Senate
www.scribd.com...

It says the government cant spend more money than it takes in unless if 2/3 congress votes to do so. Only 1/2 of congress is needed if we're occupying somewhere. Section 9 says it wont aim to reduce the debt. No mention of off-budget spending, like foreign aid.

If politicians dont follow the constitution now, will the follow new amendments? If YOUR sends corrupt legislators to congress, wont your state choose corrupt delegates to a convention? What delegates will California send? If CONGRESS has to choose the delegates, won't they choose corrupt delegates? Will the con-con chairman be Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner?

How can we pay the debt off? Repeal Amendments 16 and 17. End the Federal Reserve. Elect politicians that will cut back spending. It takes 50% of the House+1 votes to make a budget that cuts back spending.

This video makes the case against Articles 16 and 17:
www.youtube.com...

Groups opposed to a con-con:
ACLU
VFW
John Birch Society
NRA
American Legion

No no we throw all that out now.

I ran out of room in the original post to continue further. I said that Amendment 17, which allows people to directly vote for their senators, was bad. I posted a link that would explain that, but not all of you are going to take the time to find out why. Just to prevent people arguing that I am against the right to vote when I say I am against the 17th amendment, here is why i oppose it.

Prior to 1913, Senators were appointed by the state legislators. the idea was that the House of Representatives represents people, the Senate represents the state governments. Senators are like state government ambassadors to the federal government. Prior to amendment 16, the income tax was not law. Taxes were sent to the states based on population. Meaning large states got a large bill from the federal government and small states got small bills. These bills were based off of population, so every person paid equally.

State legislators knew they would be voted out if they led to taxes that were too high for some people to pay. Senators knew the state legislature would vote them out if they sent a bill too big back to their state.

The people have a thing called UNLIMITED WANTS AND NEEDS. Because of this, the constitution specifies all budget bills originate from the House but also have to be approved by the senate. Prior to 1913, a large budget bill was drafted by the House and the Senate would demand for it to be reduced. Representatives could go to their constituencies and say "I tried to get your birth control funded but the meanies in congress took it out of the budget bill."

reply to post by MisterMandlebrot

I'd be willing to take the risk of a con-con ... if we could just have a bunch of armed 2d Amendment supporters standing around.

The US is in a bad way right now. The same flexibility which made the Constitution a platform for the country to succeed from is being used to undermine the low information voters of this era. Not sure about the timing of this (e.g. getting the minimum # of states to approve), but I hope it holds until after 2017.

If, as you suspect, there is a hidden agenda ... maybe that'll be the spark.

S&F for old school ATS style threading.

Snarl
reply to post by MisterMandlebrot

 

I'd be willing to take the risk of a con-con ... if we could just have a bunch of armed 2d Amendment supporters standing around.

The US is in a bad way right now. The same flexibility which made the Constitution a platform for the country to succeed from is being used to undermine the low information voters of this era. Not sure about the timing of this (e.g. getting the minimum # of states to approve), but I hope it holds until after 2017.

If, as you suspect, there is a hidden agenda ... maybe that'll be the spark.

S&F for old school ATS style threading.

It isn't worth the risk. Like I said, the 1787 convention was held in secret and the 1861 convention was held in secret. The Confederate States held a vote in 1861, over whether or not they should let the public know about the convention. If armed citizens stand around where the con-con is held, provided it isn't held in top secret, one of three things will happen:

1: Police break it up immediately, no way will they stand for armed protests outside the capitol building
2: The media will ignore it, making it all too easy for delegates to pretend the mob doesn't exist
3: The media will sensationalize it and use the image of an armed mob threatening the delegates as reason for delegates to be scared into approving anti-2nd-amendment bills

The convention chooses how many states are needed to ratify the new amendment.

What amendments will be proposed?

Balance budget? Like I said, it wont change anything except raising taxes as a way to balance the budget

Repeal citizen's united? That charge is funded by Geogre Soros, so it will end in Soros proclaiming: "unlimited spending is the right of no-one but me"

Get rid of the 2nd amendment? This will definitely be brought up at a con-con

Term limits for congressmen? There already is a term limit. Legislators are only allowed to stay in congress until their constituencies are dissatisfied with them. A term limit will just lead to the legislators stealing faster.

reply to post by MisterMandlebrot


Problem is 9 out of 10 people don't understand this so it has to work its way backwards, cause you can't teach stupid people new tricks.

There is an awfully large cat in that bag, and I am not at all sure we want to let it out. Because of the lack of control over the convention once it is seated I shudder to think of the damage that could be done to the Constitution. Maybe we better work a little harder getting balanced budgets through current avenues.

reply to post by txinfidel

I'm not so worried about the stupid ones ... the ignorant though, can be so easily misled.

I've been aware of the developments of the subject OP for some months now. I bought a hardcopy of The Liberty Amendments (recommended!!) for more detail.

However, the % of people who even have a clue of potential calamitous change is woefully low. You try to explain it and find yourself looking into the blank stare of the low-information voter. LOL

reply to post by Snarl


lol try explaining that to my wife.

reply to post by Snarl


Liberty Amendments doesn't take into account foreign entanglements. Too many people are beginning to believe that treaties with the UN change our laws. Jefferson and Madison made it very clear that only the Senate, only one chamber of congress votes on treaties, because treaties can't supercede the law of the land.

What you don't realize at all is that very few papers based outside of America refer to the soldiers in Afghanistan as an American Occupation Force. Almost all news site, papers and media outside the U.S. refer to that group as the International Assistance Security Force, or ISAF. There are UN treaties that say our soldiers, handed over to United Nations coalitions like the ISAF, before they make a move, it has to be approved by the UN. Look at this list:

Arkady Sobolev--USSR (1946-1949)
Konstantin Zinchenko—USSR (1949-53)
Ilya Tehernychev—Ygoslavia (1954-1957)
Anatoly F. Dobrynin—USSR (1958-1960)
Georgi Ptrovich Arkadev—USSR (1960-1962)
Eugeny Dmiterievich Kiselev—USSR (1962-1963)
Vladimir Pavolovich Suslov—USSR (1963-1963)
Alexie E. Nesterenko—USSR (1965-1968)
Leonid N. Kutakov—USSR (1968-1973)
Arkady N. Shevchenko—USSR (1973-1978)
Mikhail D. Sytenko—USSR (1978-1981)
Viacheslav A. Ustinov—USSR (1981-1986)
Uasiliy S. Safronchuk—USSR (1987-1992)
Vladimir Petrovsky—Russia , “former USSR (1992-)

A list of Under secretary generals at the United Nations. people in charge of military operations under UN control. All of them are Russian. And they have to approve a NATO, SEATO or ISAF military move before it is carried out. Makes you wonder why we really are committed to never ending wars in Afghanistan and how we really lost in Vietnam.

Levin's book does not mention these international treaties and how they're a problem.

John Adams had said that this constitution was fit only for a religious and moral people. Levin makes no mention of the need for proposed amendments of be based on morality.

Ever heard of state nullification? Washington just passed a bill nullifying gun-grab laws out of Washington. Michigan and California nullified drone usage. South Carolina nullified Obamacare. Most of the states nullified the Real I.D. Act. Many states nullified the Runaway slave act. Colorado nullified the federal marijuana laws.

What did Levin say about nullification? He said supporters of nullification are: “neo-confederates, fringe, idiotic, and crazy.” Said it on Cspan's BookTV, talking about his book.

Go to Levin's book and look at the index, look up Amendment to Vote. This would end up leading to the federal government having COMPLETE control over elections, from paper ballots vs digital ballot, to federal financing of candidates.

Why do you support an Article V Convention? Most states are controlled by republican majority legislatures. Do you support the convention because the delegates would be a majority of republicans? So what? Would all of the republicans be constitutionalists? Because the Michigan state legislator wouldnt choose a constitutionalist, the governor sure as hell wouldn't choose a constitutionalist. I can't speak for the rest of the states.

Hmm. I don't know, lol. You know I don't think all the spending that the Federal government does would bother me so much if it were spent on something here at home, something useful, like things that would bolster the economy, among other things. But SOOO much money is basically wasted overseas on a whole variety of endeavours. When a government is spending too much, one would think it logical that they cut back to the things here at home. Since that is in our freaking country, one would think that more important. The pointless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not worth it, neither financially nor in the name of safety.

Without all the money spent on these two conflicts, the Federal books would look a whole lot better. No bank bailouts, and the books would still look better today. I mean the government, and not just the Obama administration nor the current Congress, basically just throws money away. It happens in EVERY administration, and in Congress, no matter who has the majority.

Even a Constitutional convention will not suffice to fix the budget problems, because there are too many ingrained systems, and too much red tape, too many agendas, among a plethora of other things. There are almost always ulterior motives with every big thing that is done it seems, and if those who wield a certain amount of power in a certain group wish for things to be a certain way, they will find a way to make it so. While the law should be fairly cut and dry, it usually isn't where the government is concerned. A little clause here or there, and things go awry. These are slipped in to all kinds of unrelated bills all the time. I don't care which party a person supports, both have an agenda. Neither are the answer. The government has just strayed too far from what it was intended to be. And those in power in every administration always seem to place more roadblocks in the way, making it more and more difficult to wrangle the government in and fix the problems.

I guess the whole point of my post, if it has one, is that there is no real "fix" that could or would be implemented. Any one thing is never going to make much of a difference at this point, considering the current state of affairs. The people have absolutely no clue as to the intricacies that go on, often behind closed doors, yet the people are supposed to be in the loop when it comes to how they're governred. But things are made complicated on purpose in my opinion, so people cannot easily cry foul. So we have all these people clamoring over the Federal budget, but I doubt that the majority really "know" what they're really trying to get at, if that makes sense.

reply to post by MisterMandlebrot

Why do you support an Article V Convention?

Because 290 members of the House, 67 members of the Senate, and 38 states have to cast their votes to make a change. Have you looked at the disapproval ratings of our branches of government? Do you know why the establishment shook in fear the last time the states drove them right to the precipice? I'll tell you ... a Con-Con could spark a flat-out revolution.

I am tired of following this same old path that's leading us into 3d World status. My hands remain callused from wringing them in fear. If we go out ... we should exit from as close to the top of the heap as possible. You and I aren't going to know what's on the agenda at a Con-Con. We may get lucky and find out some of the details, but nothing is certain, because once TPTB sit down, the agenda items we take for granted will change. Give 'em credit for being smart enough to know better than trying to pull a fast one. There's a lot of pissed-off Americans who've been expecting something better than what they've had for a long time ... and there's plenty that could be stripped from the elites (even if it's only privilege).

Who knows ... the 16th and 17th Amendments may be repealed outright ... and I (for one) believe the Senate should be reigned in and responsible to their state legislatures. They might put the Fed out of business and tell 'em to shove the entire national debt into a place where the Sun doesn't shine. The election process could be fixed to where a common man might have a chance of running for office ... instead of needing tens of millions of dollars for his name to be printed on a ballot.

The sky is pretty much the limit ... but it won't happen without a Con-Con. Without it we're gonna keep grinding our way deeper and deeper into debt, tax rates will keep rising, pork-barrel politics will go unchecked, manufacturing will remain overseas, unemployment will remain high, entitlement spending will increase, we'll continue trading off our national resources for crap quality foreign goods, the gap between rich and poor will continue to widen ... as we wander ever closer towards hyperinflation.

Yeah ... I'd say it's about time for an Article V Convention ... even if all we get out of it is an affirmation that the current Constitution must be enforced by all branches of the government.

reply to post by MisterMandlebrot


Did some one say pissed off americans?

An informative thread and by someone with knowledge of the topic.
That's becoming hard to find around here, so SnF for that.

But I'm not just pissed off in the tide lands because of a political
circus that hasn't come to town yet. I realised, seems like ages ago.
That it will never get here, because the clowns, are running the
show.

Where for I then deduced that, I don't want to see anything that's
ran by a bunch of clowns anyway. Not even a circus. Today I hate the
circus, not the clowns. It's the circus it's self that is cruel to it's
animals and entertainers, employees, patrons. And even to those
who own, the whole world wide traveling event. Which is
likely the reason it was given over to the clowns in the first place.
I've seen the hate everyone has for the circus. But fear and the
divisive social structure perpetuate the existence of the circus.
Even tho it sickens us all more everyday. The show must go on.

reply to post by MisterMandlebrot


Star and flag for a well thought out piece. Though, I draw a somewhat different conclusion. The problem isn't socialism, or fiscal conservatism. There are decent societies that are both socialist and fiscally conservative (Iceland, e.g.).

What I think we should be concerned about when the groups of the false paradigm get together in secret to change large structural factors of our society is what their agenda really is. They aren't the opposing forces they would have us believe. What is it they are both after? Well, what I've seen over the years is a steady march of Corporatism and the Police State. Both of these ideas are heartily supported by both the "left" and "right".

It's all a facade.

Its seems to me as if none of you understand that what is decided at a Constitutional Convention does not make it LAW. Read your history, the Original Constitutional Convention was in 1787 the US Constitution did not have enough States ratify it (to make it law) until 1789). The US Constitution you needed 9 of the 13 States to Ratify or 3/4 of the states. And along the way many changes were made to the Constitution to get States to sign on, The Bill of Right was one such change.

Now with a Con-Con you can propose what ever the hell you want, However if you can't get 38 of the 50 States (3/4) to agree nothing happens, and the US Constitution remains as is. Getting the original 9 states to ratify was a pain in the ass (I should know my ancestors helped get it ratified the first time). But today you need 38 states to agree an extremely difficult task, when you consider we play hell just trying getting the US Constitution Amended. Which is one reason a Con-Con is often talked about but never attempted.

If for instance if a Con-Con were held and they say want to ban the people right to keep and bear arms, and eliminate the Second Amendment, it would fail (people like their guns ).

So for arguments sake say the Con-Con wanted to set congressional term limits, require a balanced budget except during time of declared war, revoke the governments authority over healthcare, education and limit the EPAs authority. And for #s and giggles any "Official that is caught taking a bribe or anyone caught tampering with a Federal Election will be put to DEATH And you get 38 states to ratify, boom its now law! And the Supreme Court and US Government can't do # about it because the states say so.

So fear not, just because something is proposed and comes out of the convention does not mean it will happen.

It would be interesting to see how things play out, we could see who is for the people and who is just bat # crazy and out to screw us all over.

reply to post by pirhanna


Amen, I couldn't agree more.
OP- excellent post, I too have been wrestling with whether , or not such a convention at the present time...considering the present players in congress, could possibly go in the proper direction. The original document presented some lofty ideals that would be sorely missed given this horrific bunch of impostors running the show in the USA.

A con-con is a double-edged sword as the other posters have already mentioned.

The last 2 times there was a con-con, I can bet that the folks involved were far more virtuous than the ones we have today. In fact, I wouldn't want a single person from today's Congress involved in a con-con.

If we open up the doors for the folks running the show today, and give them the power to change any part of the Constitution, who is to say we don't end up in a worse situation than we are today? It could take another generation or two to realize the consequences of those decisions.

Let's face it, everyone knows by now that the Delegate system for elections is rigged so that only 3% of the base needs to participate to choose the nominee for President. We also know that if you become President, you choose the VP and get to replace anyone in the military you want, as exemplified by our current President and the dismissal of dozens of top ranked military officials.

Times have changed... the system of elections and the way the People were intended to be represented has changed. 200+ years ago, we needed representatives because the People couldn't travel across the country to have their voices heard in Washington (or Pennsylvania) so it made more sense. In today's world of technology and connectivity, every person in the country has a channel available to them to have their voice heard without the need for a representative. This is what needs to happen. I'm not saying we need a majority rule, or a pure democracy, because then you are being ruled by the masses. However, there is a compromise that can be found where we can get rid of the corruption starting with the elections. That's the only way to put the right people in to office and break free of two-party rule.

Once we can break free of the two-party system, and put technology to use by allowing us to have a more realistic vetting process to evaluate people and their backgrounds before putting them into an office where they are responsible for the safety and well-being of an entire state or country, we could create real world changes. Think e-Harmony but for finding the right representatives instead. Now you have a way to find the right people. Get them into the states first, then into the Federal government, and everything will start to fall into place rather quickly. We can pick the people who don't want to get paid tons of money and will accept a minimum wage to be a servant to the People. We can pick the people who will abolish the Federal Reserve. We can pick people that will lower the debt, refine the laws and do the things that normal people want to see happen, rather than only making the changes that special interests and elitists believe is right for us, the incapable children that they feel they must parent and rule over.

It has to start at the bottom. There is no picking a President that is going to make the changes we need. We have to replace judges, lawyers, get rid of gerrymandering districts, fix the election rights so that only citizens can vote with proof, change the election process by giving everyone the opportunity to vote through technological channels, using their social security numbers, which would reduce the possibility of illegals and dead people being able to vote. If you want these types of changes, a con-con won't do it, we have to change the way elections are handled. Sort of ironic that of all of the things that have had laws changed by corrupt politicians, they stay away from changing how elections work because they know they have them completely rigged.

It will probably take a revolution to make it happen, otherwise, the elite will continue to drain the resources of the masses until they have enough to outlast the masses in a revolution. It's happened before, it will happen again unless we do something different to stop it.

~Namaste

JBRiddle
Its seems to me as if none of you understand that what is decided at a Constitutional Convention does not make it LAW. Read your history, the Original Constitutional Convention was in 1787 the US Constitution did not have enough States ratify it (to make it law) until 1789). The US Constitution you needed 9 of the 13 States to Ratify or 3/4 of the states. And along the way many changes were made to the Constitution to get States to sign on, The Bill of Right was one such change.

Now with a Con-Con you can propose what ever the hell you want, However if you can't get 38 of the 50 States (3/4) to agree nothing happens, and the US Constitution remains as is. Getting the original 9 states to ratify was a pain in the ass (I should know my ancestors helped get it ratified the first time). But today you need 38 states to agree an extremely difficult task, when you consider we play hell just trying getting the US Constitution Amended. Which is one reason a Con-Con is often talked about but never attempted.

If for instance if a Con-Con were held and they say want to ban the people right to keep and bear arms, and eliminate the Second Amendment, it would fail (people like their guns ).

So for arguments sake say the Con-Con wanted to set congressional term limits, require a balanced budget except during time of declared war, revoke the governments authority over healthcare, education and limit the EPAs authority. And for #s and giggles any "Official that is caught taking a bribe or anyone caught tampering with a Federal Election will be put to DEATH And you get 38 states to ratify, boom its now law! And the Supreme Court and US Government can't do # about it because the states say so.

So fear not, just because something is proposed and comes out of the convention does not mean it will happen.

It would be interesting to see how things play out, we could see who is for the people and who is just bat # crazy and out to screw us all over.

edit on 29-3-2014 by JBRiddle because: (no reason given)

[/quote

How was it decided it take three fourths of the states to ratify? The convention decided that. Did it take three fourths of states, or unanimous approval to decide that? No. Rhode Island didnt even attend the convention. Can a new convention choose for ratification to be done by only half of the states? Yes. Can a new convention choose that is both chambers of congress approve of new amendments without any states approving? Yes.

Government interference in health care and education. The EPA. Both of these things are already unconstitutional. It only takes 218 representatives and 51 senators and zero states to end all of these things. It takes 292 representatives and 67 senators to make an amendment, with 3 out of 4 states ratifying.

Instead of seeing a balanced budget, lets see a constitutional budget.

JBRiddle
Its seems to me as if none of you understand that what is decided at a Constitutional Convention does not make it LAW. Read your history, the Original Constitutional Convention was in 1787 the US Constitution did not have enough States ratify it (to make it law) until 1789). The US Constitution you needed 9 of the 13 States to Ratify or 3/4 of the states. And along the way many changes were made to the Constitution to get States to sign on, The Bill of Right was one such change.

Now with a Con-Con you can propose what ever the hell you want, However if you can't get 38 of the 50 States (3/4) to agree nothing happens, and the US Constitution remains as is. Getting the original 9 states to ratify was a pain in the ass (I should know my ancestors helped get it ratified the first time). But today you need 38 states to agree an extremely difficult task, when you consider we play hell just trying getting the US Constitution Amended. Which is one reason a Con-Con is often talked about but never attempted.

If for instance if a Con-Con were held and they say want to ban the people right to keep and bear arms, and eliminate the Second Amendment, it would fail (people like their guns ).

So for arguments sake say the Con-Con wanted to set congressional term limits, require a balanced budget except during time of declared war, revoke the governments authority over healthcare, education and limit the EPAs authority. And for #s and giggles any "Official that is caught taking a bribe or anyone caught tampering with a Federal Election will be put to DEATH And you get 38 states to ratify, boom its now law! And the Supreme Court and US Government can't do # about it because the states say so.

So fear not, just because something is proposed and comes out of the convention does not mean it will happen.

It would be interesting to see how things play out, we could see who is for the people and who is just bat # crazy and out to screw us all over.

edit on 29-3-2014 by JBRiddle because: (no reason given)

How was it decided it take three fourths of the states to ratify? The convention decided that. Did it take three fourths of states, or unanimous approval to decide that? No. Rhode Island didnt even attend the convention. Can a new convention choose for ratification to be done by only half of the states? Yes. Can a new convention choose that is both chambers of congress approve of new amendments without any states approving? Yes.

Government interference in health care and education. The EPA. Both of these things are already unconstitutional. It only takes 218 representatives and 51 senators and zero states to end all of these things. It takes 292 representatives and 67 senators to make an amendment, with 3 out of 4 states ratifying.

Instead of seeing a balanced budget, lets see a constitutional budget.

I find it intriguing. It will certainly paint a clear picture either way.

As was said, the states have to ratify any changes made, so I'm not too worried about horrible dismemberment of the Constitution being put into law. However, I do believe the federal government is beyond the point of just accepting changes from the people that would give them less power. That is something they refuse to give up at this point.

So a Con-Con can happen and a number of scenarios can play out:

1. Good changes are made and amendments added, the states ratify it, federal government accepts it. (Unlikely)

2. Good changes are made and amendments added, the states ratify it, federal government ignores it. (Likely)

3. Bad changes are made and amendments added, states don't ratify it, nothing is accomplished.

4. Bad changes are made and amendments added, states ratify it, people show their ignorance.

5. Changes are made and amendments added, changes are pushed through without ratification.


Either of those outcomes, all except the first would probably lead to a spark of revolution. There are certain lines for people that do not get crossed and I know for the militias and defenders around the country, defiling or defacing The Constitution would be the final nail.

We live in interesting times.