A constitutional convention would be INCREDIBLY dangerous

[TwixVoy]

At a constitutional convention the activity is NOT limited to one agenda. I remember reading a civics book back in the day stating that such a convention would be in theory incredibly dangerous because any number of changes could be made to the constitution in a short period of time.

If the right wingers were somehow able to get a convention going (and they had a majority at the convention) all bets are off.... ANYTHING would be fair game. Anything would be the law of the land no matter how nuts it was. They could pass an amendment declaring all liberals enemies of the state to be shot on site and there would be NO recourse for anyone through the legislative, executive, or judicial branches.

Of course I don't think such an amendment would pass, but I can see them SERIOUSLY restricting the freedoms we enjoy every day and setting the groundwork for a complete disaster for this nation.

These people are nuts. To even be THINKING about this over one bill just shows how far over the edge the right has gone.

[Statistical]

1. Please read the Constitution (or cliff notes)

Constitutional Convention can only propose amendments.

They must then be ratified by 3/4th of States. Nobody is going to accidentally ratify a bunch of amendments. There is a reason there have only been 26 in the history of our country.

2 step process that will require months if not years to complete provides more than enough checks and balances.

[trayfoot]

4. AND........

the states can choose to call "state conventions" for the purpose of ratification - many did that with the 1787 Constitution in order to circumvent state legislatures which were not "friendly" to the proposals. It (Constitutional Convention) is a DANGEROUS OPTION!

[Statistical]

9. What is so dangerous.

If 3/4th of the States want something that is a super-super majority.

The founders intended the Constitution to be modified.

Hell we can barely get 51% of people to agree on anything. I think the bar is set high enough to make change possible but at the same time very difficult.

[trayfoot]

2. You are OH SO RIGHT!

We've had ONE Constitutional Convention which was advertised to revise the Articles of Confederation. They revised it alright! They through it out and wrote the current Constitution. I don't believe we would be lucky enough to get the caliber of representatives that populated the 1787 Convention! I would NEVER agree to a Convention - and today's political climate just underscores that decision!

[anigbrowl]

3. I'm confused...is anyone seriously advocating such a thing?

I can't say I see any serious discussion of it in the news. I'm not sure many of the tea party crowd even know what what such a thing is or how it would work. I haven't heard them demanding one, though if you have I'd be interested in reading about it.

[trayfoot]

5. At one time, they were only 3 states short of requiring a

Constitutional Convention. Yes, it IS being discussed under the radar.

[anigbrowl]

6. Well, I shall keep an eye open for it

I agree that it is not a prospect to taken lightly.

[RandomThoughts]

7. And who would be at such a convention.

CEOs of major corporations? King George? Maybe some lobbyist?

Nope, we should get the country back to the Constitution by protecting the vote of people in society, and other ideals about a representative democracy by the people, not by the dollar.

[lumberjack_jeff]

8. Absolutely right. A shitty idea.

We're one bomb away from the nutcases demanding totalitarianism.

[Tace]

10. The Powers That Be Do Not Want A Constitutional Convention

The idea of calling a constitutional convention to deal with campaign financing and other issues is not necessarily a right-wing concept. It's those in power, who are interested in preserving the status quo, who are most opposed to a constitutional convention.

I don't agree that it's necessarily a bad idea.