Constitutional Convention - Democrats want one

[Suck My Glock]

If you have been involved in conservative politics during the last 40 years, you have likely heard during that time talk about a call by the states for a Constitutional Convention. In conservative circles, the idea was that it would be an opportunity to fix many of the ills liberals had caused. By holding such an event, various things could be codified in the Bill Of Rights with new Amendments. Some thought it would be ideal for finally ending abortion. Many thought it would be the ticket for imposing a balanced budget on Congress. Others thought perhaps the 2nd Amendment need further clarifying and restating. And thus many grass roots activists were excited for many decades about the prospect of bringing a Constitutional Convention in order to fire the kill shot against liberals and their poison.

But unfortunately, the whole idea is a double-edged sword. Because once a Constituional Convention is opened,...there are no safety nets,...and ANYTHING is possible,...including eliminating the entire previous legal structure and replacing it with something worse. There are ZERO guarantees that ANYTHING actually aimed for will occur or be achieved, and it COULD go entirely wrong. The warning amongst many cautioning holding such a convention has been that if the Democrats and their secret agents within the Republican Party were smart, they would work to bring on such a convention, then work to lay waste to the 2nd Amendment by repealing it,...and who knows what else.

Well now, partly because many Democrats know they are likely about to lose their stolen edge on things, key Democrat players are looking to hold a Constituional Convention as a Hail Mary play to place their kill shot directly into America, and Gavin Newsom has stepped up to be the figurehead for it.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-AA1gMOHe

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is eyeing a change to the United States Constitution. The state's legislature on Thursday approved a resolution in support of Newsom's call for a 28th Constitutional amendment, according to the Los Angeles Times. The amendment would enshrine a list of Democratic gun-control policy priorities into federal law.

[MarkItZero]

Passing a constitutional amendment is extremely difficult. It requires a majority of both houses of congress and 3/4 of state legislatures.

Gavin can blab all he wants, he's a long way from accomplishing this.

[Suck My Glock]

Gavin can blab all he wants, he's a long way from accomplishing this.

Or so the enemy would have you believe.

[BigNate]

Gavin can blab all he wants, he's a long way from accomplishing this.

Or so the enemy would have you believe.

I'm on both sides of this (I mean that I think that you are both right - to some degree)...
A) I can't imagine a scenario in which 3/4 of the states would ratify an amendment like the one that Newsom is proposing. I would expect that the state legislatures from the deep blue states would be able to get supermajority votes to make it happen - but that there are not close to 38 states willing to sign on for this. So - likely to happen today? Nope - not close...
B) I firmly believe that the most dangerous thing for us in this area is the advancement of subtle social change that perpetuates the "frog in the pot" scenario. When they win small concessions and represent them as "common sense" most people are not shocked by the change and are not spurred to action. Repeat this enough times and you find that the world has changed around you. The key to that approach working is our complacency. If we believe it can't happen, and we don't fight it from the start, then we may find ourselves in a position where we've given up a lot of opportunity to stop it and in that time it has gained momentum. We can't let that happen.

[Suck My Glock]

Nate seems to be making a very intelligent analysis of this.

I don't mean to be Chicken Little here, screaming that the sky is falling. This may in fact not go anywhere.

But what if it does?

I think this is worth watching and discussing.

[aroyobob]

I've always read the push for an Article 5 Con Con comes from the 1% such as the Koch Bro, Mercers, etc.. The intention being to remove the clauses that have been used to justify environmental, workplace safety, transportation safety, food safety and other regulations that make it difficult to be in the 1%. Proponents also say they'll include a balanced budget requirement which is attractive to many people.

https://www.commoncause.org/our-work/co ... onvention/

Former AZ legislator Kelly Townsend is a big proponent of a convention and worked to get a the AZ resolution calling for one passed in 2017. I think there was also some legislative action a year or two ago, maybe renewing the 2017 AZ call for a convention, that Townsend wrung from leadership in exchange for her vote on some bit of legislation (maybe a budget?)
https://alec.org/article/state-legislat ... stitution/
Dry run meeting in Phoenix in 2017 attended by a number of delegations from different pro-concon states.
https://alec.org/article/history-was-ma ... his-month/

No matter who's behind it, I vote no.

[baja]

Before the Constitution there were the Articles of Confederation. Some thought the Articles were a little weak in some areas so they had a Convention to 'tweak it a little'.
The rest is history, the Articles were thrown out and a whole new form of government was formed. Lucky for us it was the Constitution.
Does anyone really think the corrupt, power-hungry, money-grubbing buffoons of today can improve the Constitution? Maybe they'll just throw it out and start all over, after all they're sure they can do better.
Don't be fooled, a Constitutional Convention is only a good idea if you desire to live as a slave!

[xerts1191]

IMG_0020.JPG (17 KiB) Viewed 1647 times

[pneuby]

B) I firmly believe that the most dangerous thing for us in this area is the advancement of subtle social change that perpetuates the "frog in the pot" scenario.

[BigNate]

B) I firmly believe that the most dangerous thing for us in this area is the advancement of subtle social change that perpetuates the "frog in the pot" scenario.

She is stunningly stupid... How someone like that (not to mention her boss) makes it to that level in the government is just about the most stunning evidence of the decline of America that I can think of...

[trailboss60]

B) I firmly believe that the most dangerous thing for us in this area is the advancement of subtle social change that perpetuates the "frog in the pot" scenario.

She is stunningly stupid... How someone like that (not to mention her boss) makes it to that level in the government is just about the most stunning evidence of the decline of America that I can think of...

Well we have a Supreme Court Justice that cannot define what a woman is.
She?He whatever the hell "she" is can, but honesty is not her strong suit...I know where Jar Jar Binks ended up on...the SCOTUS....sad day.

[BigNate]

She is stunningly stupid... How someone like that (not to mention her boss) makes it to that level in the government is just about the most stunning evidence of the decline of America that I can think of...

Well we have a Supreme Court Justice that cannot define what a woman is.
She?He whatever the hell "she" is can, but honesty is not her strong suit...I know where Jar Jar Binks ended up on...the SCOTUS....sad day.

Ironically, didn't they make noises about Kamela joining SCOTUS? The decline in our culture is clear. We value platitudes and narrative, and we advance people who are good at selling them (and negotiating back room deals) instead of people of actual competence. I used to think that this was primarily a function of the side of the political aisle that has a "D" behind their name - but sadly, it is increasingly a characteristic of the "R" side as well.

[trailboss60]

In the current climate, a con-con would be a wet fart.

There are too many stupid people both in the elected and the electorate to go down this road.
If we have gotten to the point in Arizona where we have Hobbs, Mayes as AG, twisted testicular Kelly, and Sinema (even though she is better than the others), it says a lot about how far we have slidden, and about the choices made in the state legislature.

Precious few hold to the ideals of the founders and want to clarify what they were in the current context.

We would end up with a con-con closer to Venezuela with the “leadership” now, useless as a coyote bladder full of piss.

[kenpoprofessor]

In the current climate, a con-con would be a wet fart.

There are too many stupid people both in the elected and the electorate to go down this road.
If we have gotten to the point in Arizona where we have Hobbs, Mayes as AG, twisted testicular Kelly, and Sinema (even though she is better than the others), it says a lot about how far we have slidden, and about the choices made in the state legislature.

Precious few hold to the ideals of the founders and want to clarify what they were in the current context.

We would end up with a con-con closer to Venezuela with the “leadership” now, useless as a coyote bladder full of piss.

Well, that depends ifn it's a female in heat, if you're huntin' cyotes

Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day

Clyde

[samnev]

Carl Sagan (Hope you know who he was) said this many years ago.

"I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time-when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness."

To me all that he said has come true.