Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

355

State Government Committee Minority Chair Sharif Street (D-Philadelphia) spoke against the resolution, fearing it could end up compromising important constitutional rights.

“I have great reservations about opening up a constitutional convention and all of the challenges that could come out of that, potentially eroding many of our fundamental rights,” he said.

This is what was talking about

> State Government Committee Minority Chair Sharif Street (D-Philadelphia) spoke against the resolution, fearing it could end up compromising important constitutional rights. > “I have great reservations about opening up a constitutional convention and all of the challenges that could come out of that, potentially eroding many of our fundamental rights,” he said. This is what @BuddhasTorch was talking about [yesterday.](https://poal.co/s/TellPoal/501077)

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (12).
[–] • 0 pt

If a Constitutional Convention is successfully called it will be the end of Freedom.

This is the key point that needs to be made in any and every conversation about a Constitutional Convention. The Constitution that comes out of it will almost certainly be radically different than the one we have now. (Even with its flaws.) If anything leads to a secession of states it will be this.

[–] • 1 pt

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

[–] • 1 pt

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.

[–] • 0 pt

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.