7 replies to this topic

[shinner]

Interesting...never knew we were so close to having a CC called:

http://www.chuckbald...e_20081216.html

Update:

http://www.chuckbald...e_20090113.html

To give readers a simple tally, the following states have never voted to ratify a new Constitutional Convention: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

These states voted for a new Constitutional Convention but later rescinded their resolutions: Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Idaho, Utah, North Dakota, Arizona, Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia.

If you do not see your state listed above, it means your state indeed voted to call for a new Constitutional Convention and has not rescinded its vote.

*I added the color for effect to easily distinguish among the groups. Sadly my own state is in the red.

[Mr. Scot]

Oh, he!! no! In today's political environment? God only knows what would happen.

[Davidson Deac II]

The founding fathers had an advantage in that they didn't have to deal with the massive amounts of media coverage that a convention today would have to deal with. A constitutional convention would be a media circus with every fringe group protesting and demanding attention.

It could end up being a disaster.

[shinner]

And yet were VERY close to it....hopefully the necessary 2 states never materialize.

[Bill Walker]

Before making a decision on this important constitutional issue, I suggest you examine both sides of the issue

For example, Mr. Baldwin makes a statement that 32 states have applied for a convention. This is incorrect. The public record shows that all 50 states have applied over 650 times for a convention, well in excess of the 34 states needed for a convention call. You can read the applications and lot of other information about a convention at www.foavc.org.

Also, you will encounter a discussion by a so-called Burger Letter supposedly written by Chief Justice Warren Burger. The John Birch Society, the primary political group behind the anti-convention movement has used this so-called letter as its primary evidence for all of its accusations and allegations about what would happen if we were to obey the Constitution and compel Congress to call a convention rather than the current situation of permitting Congress to veto the text of the Constitution.

You can view a video discussing the issues surrounding the letter at:
[ame][/ame]

Take time to learn about both sides please. Look at the references and sources of information Mr. Baldwin and others provide. Then compare that to what is provided by FOAVC. Read all of it, then decide. Thank you.

[Davidson Deac II]

Before making a decision on this important constitutional issue, I suggest you examine both sides of the issue

For example, Mr. Baldwin makes a statement that 32 states have applied for a convention. This is incorrect. The public record shows that all 50 states have applied over 650 times for a convention, well in excess of the 34 states needed for a convention call. You can read the applications and lot of other information about a convention at www.foavc.org.

Also, you will encounter a discussion by a so-called Burger Letter supposedly written by Chief Justice Warren Burger. The John Birch Society, the primary political group behind the anti-convention movement has used this so-called letter as its primary evidence for all of its accusations and allegations about what would happen if we were to obey the Constitution and compel Congress to call a convention rather than the current situation of permitting Congress to veto the text of the Constitution.

You can view a video discussing the issues surrounding the letter at:


Take time to learn about both sides please. Look at the references and sources of information Mr. Baldwin and others provide. Then compare that to what is provided by FOAVC. Read all of it, then decide. Thank you.

I am sure there are valid arguments from both sides, but I don't want a constitutional convention. The arguments for and against don't really matter to me. I think the founding fathers had big advantages over what we would have today (no political parties to deal with and no mass media coverage), and I don't think we could improve over the existing document.

Edited by Davidson Deac II, 18 January 2009 - 08:25 AM.

[Mr. Scot]

At a constitutional convention, pretty much anything goes.

People who want to open the constitution up to that kind of tinkering scare me, regardless of where they fall in the political spectrum.

[Htar]

The constitution has been bastardized anyway. We grant constitutional rights to illegal immigrants and enemy combatants alike.