The last time we had a constitutional convention, we ended up with an entirely new constitution. Admittedly, we were fortunate in that the constitution we ended up with was (and is) a pretty good one. I'm not so sure we want to play that game again, especially considering the number of Insiders who would go to any length to hijack any such convention.

First, we use thew power of the ballot on ALL levels. Second, we use the states for nullification and reasserting state rights. If we ever end up with a NAU or something like that, we will be beyond a con-con anyway. There is a very narrow window where a con-con MAY be a second to last resort.

Except for the repeal of a few ill-advised amendments, the Constitution doesn't need amending! If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

And even if we DID add an amendment or two as safeguards, that would be like installing a new burglar alarm after the break-in and while the burglars are still in the house.

The problem isn't with the constitution, it's with the people in Washington who are abusing it. They've ignored it thus far. What makes anyone thing they are going to pay any attention to another paragraph or two?

A con-con is insane. It IS A CON JOB!

rpew,


I wholeheartedly agree.

When I first looked into Professor Barnett's proposal, I initially believed there might be a legitimate and logical reason to support the idea. However, after studying the issue at great length, I can clearly predict the disaster such an idea would most likely create if put into practice.

There is absolutely no intellectual reason for advocating a Constitutional Convention, in my opinion. There are so many alternate and successful avenues to utilize in our effort to correct current policy issues without ever having to make any type of amendment to our current Constitution. Making changes to the Constitution for the sake of rapid convenience, which is precisely what a "con-con" would be, would undoubtedly render the document meaningless within a short length of time, as special interests would surely define the terms.


~Will

As Art Thompson pointed-out: If Congress doesn't obey the Constitution we have now, why would it obey any other constitution?

Dave, very true, but even if Congress were obeying the current Constitution, why continually amend it in a fortuitous effort to correct policy? It is nothing but another form of Progressive ideology, precisely the intellectual form of thinking which has put the nation in its current state of detriment.

Endless constitutional amendments are an attempt to apply subjective policy to an objective document. The end result is neither.

The only reason the result of the 1787 convention was a good one was because of the moral, religious, and liberty loving nature of the delegates to the convention.

He who controls the selection of delegates, controls the outcome of the convention.

Considering that Congress shall be in charge of calling the convention, it is generally thought that Congress has the responsibility of designating the method of selection of delegates. That should keep you up at night!

The call for a Con-Con is based upon the false idea that flaws in the Constitution are the root of our problems.

Only when you can clearly identify the root of the problem, can you arrive at the proper solution. That is why doctors seek to diagnose before prescribing treatment.

The root of the problem is an ignorant citizenry. The people of this nation, by and large, are ignorant of the principle of liberty, the voting records of their elected officials, and the plans of those trying to undermine liberty in this nation.

Based upon this, the solution is a nationwide re-education effort. The JBS is at the forefront of this effort.

rbrown,

I agree with your second comment to a small extent but disagree that it is an all-inclusive reasoning behind a "con-con". After having intensively studied the issue on several levels (inserting a moment to thank Mr. Greenley for his invaluable knowledge on the subject), I have come to realize that blaming the advocation for a "con-con" on ignorance is overly simplistic. Whilst ignorance is a contributing factor, from what I have found, the primary reasoning behind those advocating a "con-con" is naivete (believing our elected body consists of virtuous and noble persons) and an attempt to make rapid policy changes in governance. The reality is, few people, especially within the elected body, are virtuous or noble and the purchase power of special interests nearly always dictates the terms of government policy (hence, the current mess we are in as a nation...a result of corruption).

~Will

Will,
You are right. And the corrupt politicians are a symptom of a people who will tolerate corrupt representatives. A moral, religious and ever vigilant people will only tolerate moral, religious representatives.

I have been opposed to a Con Con under the impression that the convention itself could ratify amendments without approval from state legislatures, however, if any amendments must still be approved by 3/4 of the state legislatures, and this process simply replaces Congress with special delegates elected by the people of the several states, I actually think that is a more reliable procedure than involving Congress.

Congress as we know it is never going to pass amendments that will truly restrain their power. I think we're more likely to get those things from popularly-elected delegates.

Nicholas,

As Dave Scholefield quoted from Art Thompson previously, in essence, if elected officials are disregarding the Constitution to begin with, what leads one to believe they will do otherwise after a con-con?

What we as citizens of the United States currently have in effect is a separate entity from the people, no longer of the people, which is in automatic mode of systematic operation. There is nothing a con-con can do to turn that reality around. The most effective counter-measure we can provide at the moment is by strengthening States Rights through the Tenth Amendment.

~Will

No sensible American would even begin to support a Con Con. Common sense dictates that we have alredy lost complete control of our legislators. They go to war against popular opinion. They fund private banks with public funds against the peoples best judgement. They take over Corporations that are failing from incompentant business decisions against public support and more. So how could any expect that these legislators would in any way bother to consider the needs of the public at a Con Con?

The Constitution would be re-written to accomodate the very same people who control our legislators already and the so-called experts many of whom are members of the Rockefeller led Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission would completely control the agenda to undermine our present limits on government and complete our transformation to a Marxist inspired form of government. The dangers would be immense and immediate and it should be strongly opposed as it could spell the end of any remaining elements of the American way of life and freedoms.

Glen Beck is controlled opposition. That is obvious to me. Anyone who supports a constitutional convention is either very naive, or is a wolf in sheeps clothing.

"My Mr. Beck, what big teeth you have."