The real smoking gun is the fact that everything they say they want to do at a Constitutional Convention could be accomplished easier with a Amendment. If all they want are a few specific amendments then they should just propose a few amendments.
They say they want a specific change... but they ask for a blank check
The real smoking gun is the fact that everything they say they want to do at a Constitutional Convention could be accomplished easier with a Amendment. If all they want are a few specific amendments then they should just propose a few amendments.
They say they want a specific change... but they ask for a blank check
They couldn't be more obvious about it if they tried, and yet sheep will buy into the idea.
There is only one case where a Constitutional Convention would make sense. There is another big difference between the Amendment process and the Constitutional Convention process.
- The Amendment process is run by Politicians in DC (two thirds of both Houses)
- The Constitutional Convention process is run by State Legislatures (the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States)
So a Constitutional Convention would make sense if you are based enough to think that Washington was compromised while at the same time being naive enough to think that your state legislation is above reproach.
So a Constitutional Convention would make sense if you are based enough to think that Washington was compromised while at the same time being naive enough to think that your state legislation is above reproach.
How many states have signed on to the ? (Fifteen, so far. Saved you a click.) That alone tells you all you need to know about how above reproach the states are.
(post is archived)