Questions about a Constitutional Convention?

[Matt Collins]

A friend of mine who is much more educated than I has said the following regarding a Constitutional Convention:



The point of the ConCon is that an article V convention has got to be held sooner or later. If it is delayed until the BotZombies completely take over then they can declare bailed out states part of the Federal government (there will be many) and thus they could THEN stack the concon with Pelosis, Jackson Lees and Durbins.


Time and momentum are on our side right now. There is nothing that could be presented at a concon that could get ratified by your state that has not already been done or usurped. Nothing. The Left has made its move and believes their dominion forever is a fait accompli, we should pull out every stop to counter. Passing acts that will surely be struck down by the federal courts invites the next question: what then? Submission? Secession?



What do you think? Thoughts? Ideas?

[Chester Copperpot]

i dont think we need a concon.. we just need to enforce the constitution we've already got.

[Zippyjuan]

The Constitution says nothing about who gets to participate in a Constitutional Convention. Do the states pick their own representatives? Would it be the members of Congress and the Senate? Any proposals for amendments to the Constitution or even rewriting the entire document would have to be ratified by three fourths of the states to come into effect. This much is in the Constitution.

[fisharmor]

The Constitution says nothing about who gets to participate in a Constitutional Convention. Do the states pick their own representatives? Would it be the members of Congress and the Senate?

It really doesn't matter to me who it would be. There is no way that any delegation of any size is going to come up with any proposal other than statist crap. And there is no way that 3/4 of the states are going to ratify any proposal other than statist crap.

It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. And the friend of yours hit it on the head: two options, submission or secession.

I feel pretty confident that even though things are going to get door-to-door search kind of ugly before long, there are a couple places on the continent that won't put up with that and will leave. And we're getting broke enough for it to work, too.

[Matt Collins]

Another friend of mine who is much more educated than I has said the following regarding a Constitutional Convention:


The reason they say nullification is a waste of time is that the federal courts would strike it down. OK, so we nullify that! Others make a good case for the ConCon but the present Constitution is already fairly clear and they pay no attention. Also, hard to think a ConCon wouldn't be hijacked. Others says that with states passing 10th Amendment resolutions, etc., then the type of person who would be at the ConCon would be very pro-states' rights. Well, that might be true of a handful of states, but meanwhile the whole proceedings would be demonized in the media unlike anything we'd ever seen.

[Pericles]

Ultimately, at the end of the day, there is only one law on the Earth. Whoever has the best army.

[CAKochenash]

i dont think we need a concon.. we just need to enforce the constitution we've already got.

+1

[Matt Collins]

The John Birch Society (JBS) has just released a new 12-minute video on YouTube, "Beware of Con-Cons: State Legislators Warn Against a Constitutional Convention."





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMg_yGlcUX4