alleghany

I hate when I have to say that Forest Gumpire is right, but anyone that thinks a convention of states is a good idea should be beaten with a history book. There is a chance it can be a good event, but both times in history that a convention was held, a completely new government was created. Very drastic things can happen in a constitution because everything is free game going in. This is a very scary idea

Our forefathers gave us the U.S. Constitution and even with amendments, it is basically sound and good!

Way to go Missouri! Sending this to my brother who lives there.

Confounding yourself in your circumlocution again there, umps. The stated desire for this convention is to amend our current constitution, not to rewrite it. There is nothing stopping that process now except for the LDLP whiners. Any action by a convention would have to go through the ratification process just like amendments do now so your arguments are poot, or excuse me moot!

Note from GoNC: a portion of this post was removed for trolling.

All Patriots who love America should shout a loud and resounding "NO' to this foolhardy Convention idea
http://www.unifiedpatriots....-unmasked/

THE FIRST CONVENTION WAS CALLED TO AMEND THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION, NOT TO WRITE A NEW CONSTITUTION. WHAT IS THERE TO STOP THIS NEW CONVENTION FROM DOING THE SAME?

DANCING? NOT HARDLY. THAT IS JUST YOUR WAY SAYING THAT YOU JUST GOT YOUR *** NAPALMED AGAIN.

Note from GoNC: a portion of this post was removed for trolling.

So the sniffers pursuing this Convention are in league with George Soros. Rush and the other retardicans will **** a brick!
http://securetherepublic.co...onvention/

Dance away there, umps. Precedent can be followed, given this historic opportunity to form a more perfect union. Recognizing the flaws in the Articles of Confederation, the parliamentary procedures our founders employed worked well enough to get us this far. NEXT!

The main sniffer behind this movement seems to lack any credibility. He is surely not pursuing a Convention out of any love for America. Why do sniffers hate our Constitution?
http://www.michaelfarrismoneymotive.org/

THE RULES FOR THE FIRST CONVENTION WERE TO AMEND THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION.

ONCE AGAIN IT IS PROVEN THAT YOUR IGNORANT *** KNOWS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT HISTORY.

Given that this is the first time a Convention of the States is absolutely necessary, perhaps the precedents set by the original Constitutional Convention would serve as operating procedures since it worked so well the first time. I'm confident that the required "RULES" can be established. NEXT!

THERE ARE NO RULES GOVERNING HOW THE CONVENTION SHOULD OPERATE. NO RULES STATING WHO THE PARTICIPANTS SHOULD BE. NO RULES IN PLACE TO LIMIT WHAT CAN BE PROPOSED.

SOME OF THE STATES PASSED THEIR RESOLUTIONS BACK IN THE 1970'S. ARE THESE STILL VALID?

ALSO, SOME STATES HAVE RESCINDED THEIR RESOLUTIONS, ARE TE VALID?

You do know there are like five different CotS movements going on right now.

A balanced budget amendment, term limits, campaign finance reform, removal of lobbyists and reduced government regulation to begin with. Now before you attempt to discredit these universally acceptable points perhaps you could outline your reasons against an Article 5 Convention of the States. You know, compete in the arena of ideas, for a change. Can you be specific?

TELL US WHAT THIS IMPORTANT OPPORTUNITY IS? TELL US WHAT THE PROPOSED CONVENTION IS ALL ABOUT?

SURELY YOU CAN DO THAT.

Old news but here is it from last summer.

Thanks for the update, Skeptic. Momentum is building for this important opportunity. Jump in here Lies and tell us again how fraught with danger this is. I have yet to hear a credible argument against this Constitutionally proscribed necessity.

DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT?

LET'S SEE YOU EXPLAIN YOUR POSITION AND THE GOALS OF THIS PROPOSED CONVENTION.

More good news for the Convention. It's moving along in Missouri and Louisiana.

http://www.conventionofstat...ate_passes