Talk:Convention of States

Gimmick?

We can choose to disagree but by calling a gimmick, you are essentially calling the Founding Fathers morons for including this tool.--Jpatt 22:53, 23 April 2015 (EDT)

The Founding Fathers rejected term limits for presidents, too. That proved to be a huge mistake that had to be corrected by an amendment.

The liberal media has far greater influence today than in 1787, and yet even then the Founders insisted on a rule of secrecy from the media for the Constitutional Convention. That secrecy would be impossible today, and thus a Con Con should not be attempted even under the Founders' principles.--Andy Schlafly 23:52, 23 April 2015 (EDT)

The Daily Constitutional Convention

the SCOTUS Obamacare ruling is perfect example of why we need article 5. The executive branch makes law the legislative branch ignores law and the judicial branch reinterprets law. Gay marriage next up.If these people are in charge another decade the Constitution will be rendered dead.--Jpatt 11:50, 25 June 2015 (EDT)

Lots to criticize, that's for sure. But the issue is whether a Con Con would make things better, or worse. With the media 100% on the side of liberals, and Congress mostly on their side, a Con Con (as controlled by Congress per Article V) would make things far worse.

The life issue is a perfect example. Roe v. Wade was 7-2, and the Republican president and Congress supported it also. A Con Con would place it in the Constitution. But without a Con Con, enormous pro-life progress has been made, and youth are increasingly pro-life.--Andy Schlafly 22:49, 25 June 2015 (EDT)

It's inevitable. The weekly outrage coming from DC is creating a tipping point. I think the opposition, as good intentions as they have, need a credible plan to fix DC. Attacking article 5 is not a plan.--Jpatt 11:03, 26 June 2015 (EDT)