Stop Calls for an Article V Constitutional Convention (Con-Con)
133 Comments
J
Jeannie Georges
11 years ago
Please support HCR 1 to rescind New Hampshire's call for an Aricle V convention.
G
George
11 years ago
Keep what we have & use it as the founding fathers envisioned.
G
George
11 years ago
Keep what we have & use it as the founding fathers envisioned.
D
Doug MacCormack
11 years ago
I do not trust my current government to make changes to the Constitution and protect my freedoms and liberties. NO TO CON-CON!
D
Doug MacCormack
11 years ago
I do not trust my current government to make changes to the Constitution and protect my freedoms and liberties. NO TO CON-CON!
C
Cathy Marshall
11 years ago
"Amend" means change. Leave our Constitution intact!
C
Cathy Marshall
11 years ago
"Amend" means change. Leave our Constitution intact!
C
Cary Nunnally
11 years ago
Do the research, especially on the claims that states could run an A5C and be allowed to have "one state, one vote".
C
Cary Nunnally
11 years ago
Do the research, especially on the claims that states could run an A5C and be allowed to have "one state, one vote".
D
David Hammer
11 years ago
Stop a Con-Con!
D
David Hammer
11 years ago
Stop a Con-Con!
Z
Zoe Varaday
11 years ago
I don't know if I can yell "STOP" or "NO FUCKINO" quite loud enough, but I hope you get the message.
Z
Zoe Varaday
11 years ago
I don't know if I can yell "STOP" or "NO FUCKINO" quite loud enough, but I hope you get the message.
T
Terry Mixer
11 years ago
Don't let NH be one of the states to rewrite our Constitution.
T
Terry Mixer
11 years ago
Don't let NH be one of the states to rewrite our Constitution.
A
Anonymous
11 years ago
Con-Con is very dangerous. It could go so far as to destroy the Constitution all together. Vote NO on the Con-Con, , please. Thank you.
N
Nancy Carver
11 years ago
Con-Con is very dangerous. It could go so far as to destroy the Constitution all together. Vote NO on the Con-Con, , please. Thank you.
F
Frederick Liewehr
11 years ago
I think it boils down to this. The folks on the right want desperately to fix the Federal government. I am certainly in agreement with that. However, there are problems with this approach. First, we have to look at the fact that leftist groups have also been trying to use this method since at least the 70’s to make the government more oppressive, e.g. to take away our 2nd Amendment rights. If it is foolproof, why would that be the case? They assure us that the states would control the convention, but the very wording of the Constitution gives the lie to that argument – the Congress “calls” and sets the rules for the convention. They assure us that the Constitution directs the process, but the fact is that once started, the convention would control the process. The whole thing would put us in uncharted waters, and I certainly don’t trust people in today’s world to do the right thing. The only precedent we have is the convention that was expressly to amend the Articles of Confederation, which wound up discarding it for a new Constitution. The voting, which was set by the Articles to require all 13 states to ratify, was changed by the convention to require only 9 states. So, we are being asked to trust a process that has not worked in the past. On top of all that, even if we survived it, and our freedoms remained intact, and new amendments were added to rein in the government, why would obama and his ilk pay any more attention to it than they do to our present Constitution? It is simply not worth the risk.
F
Frederick Liewehr
11 years ago
I think it boils down to this. The folks on the right want desperately to fix the Federal government. I am certainly in agreement with that. However, there are problems with this approach. First, we have to look at the fact that leftist groups have also been trying to use this method since at least the 70’s to make the government more oppressive, e.g. to take away our 2nd Amendment rights. If it is foolproof, why would that be the case? They assure us that the states would control the convention, but the very wording of the Constitution gives the lie to that argument – the Congress “calls” and sets the rules for the convention. They assure us that the Constitution directs the process, but the fact is that once started, the convention would control the process. The whole thing would put us in uncharted waters, and I certainly don’t trust people in today’s world to do the right thing. The only precedent we have is the convention that was expressly to amend the Articles of Confederation, which wound up discarding it for a new Constitution. The voting, which was set by the Articles to require all 13 states to ratify, was changed by the convention to require only 9 states. So, we are being asked to trust a process that has not worked in the past. On top of all that, even if we survived it, and our freedoms remained intact, and new amendments were added to rein in the government, why would obama and his ilk pay any more attention to it than they do to our present Constitution? It is simply not worth the risk.
R
Rick Ryan
11 years ago
We fought it off this year in VA. Amending the Constitution will not bring you "live free," but it may bring you "or die."
Please support HCR 1 to rescind New Hampshire's call for an Aricle V convention.
Keep what we have & use it as the founding fathers envisioned.
Keep what we have & use it as the founding fathers envisioned.
I do not trust my current government to make changes to the Constitution and protect my freedoms and liberties. NO TO CON-CON!
I do not trust my current government to make changes to the Constitution and protect my freedoms and liberties. NO TO CON-CON!
"Amend" means change. Leave our Constitution intact!
"Amend" means change. Leave our Constitution intact!
Do the research, especially on the claims that states could run an A5C and be allowed to have "one state, one vote".
Do the research, especially on the claims that states could run an A5C and be allowed to have "one state, one vote".
Stop a Con-Con!
Stop a Con-Con!
I don't know if I can yell "STOP" or "NO FUCKINO" quite loud enough, but I hope you get the message.
I don't know if I can yell "STOP" or "NO FUCKINO" quite loud enough, but I hope you get the message.
Don't let NH be one of the states to rewrite our Constitution.
Don't let NH be one of the states to rewrite our Constitution.
Con-Con is very dangerous. It could go so far as to destroy the Constitution all together. Vote NO on the Con-Con, , please. Thank you.
Con-Con is very dangerous. It could go so far as to destroy the Constitution all together. Vote NO on the Con-Con, , please. Thank you.
I think it boils down to this. The folks on the right want desperately to fix the Federal government. I am certainly in agreement with that. However, there are problems with this approach. First, we have to look at the fact that leftist groups have also been trying to use this method since at least the 70’s to make the government more oppressive, e.g. to take away our 2nd Amendment rights. If it is foolproof, why would that be the case? They assure us that the states would control the convention, but the very wording of the Constitution gives the lie to that argument – the Congress “calls” and sets the rules for the convention. They assure us that the Constitution directs the process, but the fact is that once started, the convention would control the process. The whole thing would put us in uncharted waters, and I certainly don’t trust people in today’s world to do the right thing. The only precedent we have is the convention that was expressly to amend the Articles of Confederation, which wound up discarding it for a new Constitution. The voting, which was set by the Articles to require all 13 states to ratify, was changed by the convention to require only 9 states. So, we are being asked to trust a process that has not worked in the past. On top of all that, even if we survived it, and our freedoms remained intact, and new amendments were added to rein in the government, why would obama and his ilk pay any more attention to it than they do to our present Constitution? It is simply not worth the risk.
I think it boils down to this. The folks on the right want desperately to fix the Federal government. I am certainly in agreement with that. However, there are problems with this approach. First, we have to look at the fact that leftist groups have also been trying to use this method since at least the 70’s to make the government more oppressive, e.g. to take away our 2nd Amendment rights. If it is foolproof, why would that be the case? They assure us that the states would control the convention, but the very wording of the Constitution gives the lie to that argument – the Congress “calls” and sets the rules for the convention. They assure us that the Constitution directs the process, but the fact is that once started, the convention would control the process. The whole thing would put us in uncharted waters, and I certainly don’t trust people in today’s world to do the right thing. The only precedent we have is the convention that was expressly to amend the Articles of Confederation, which wound up discarding it for a new Constitution. The voting, which was set by the Articles to require all 13 states to ratify, was changed by the convention to require only 9 states. So, we are being asked to trust a process that has not worked in the past. On top of all that, even if we survived it, and our freedoms remained intact, and new amendments were added to rein in the government, why would obama and his ilk pay any more attention to it than they do to our present Constitution? It is simply not worth the risk.
We fought it off this year in VA. Amending the Constitution will not bring you "live free," but it may bring you "or die."