GOA Alert: Stop Constitutional Convention in PA Senate

[RenoV8]

From James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," regarding a Constitutional Convention:

"If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress*. It would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides * [and] would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who, under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts * might have the dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric*. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a second, meeting in the present temper in America"

https://books.google.com/books?id=6GtmdUBtWboC&pg=PA130...

Maybe, that is just what we need...congregate all these retards in one place and take them out to pasture...problem solved, solutions abound. Play their game, play with their rules.

Done being a pawn in this bullshit environment...as I am sure everyone else here is too.

Why don't you guys take your gloves off...this pussy, bitch slapping contest is getting old. Time to fight like real men.

Elevate your game.

[vfinnell]

Val,

Thanks for your reply, the A V convention of states is not defined correctly by some great minds.. IMHO. We'll agree to disagree. I don't know where this fear is coming from. The convention of states has a specific purpose stated in A V, no different than the congressional process, only states vote on proposed amendments instead of congress. It is the the only tool states have to reign in a tyrannical government. If it was dangerous to our freedom the left would be screaming for it to happen, they are not because they do not want 34 states to pass this legislation and have this tool at their disposal. I am more afraid of the congressional amendment power, even more if we just give up these states rights. Best, John

You are welcome. I am posting another legal analysis by two Constitutional lawyers. Please take a look at it.

[vfinnell]

I have uploaded a document titled, "the 'Con-Con' Con." It is written by William Olson and Herb Titus, both Constitutional attorneys. GOA uses the Olson law firm in our appellate case work.

https://pennsylvania.gunowners.org/w...ust-7-2019.pdf

[knight0334]

Hello,

I disagree with your post and the 9 year old article. This is for an article 5 convention of states, not a constitutional convention; there is a stark difference.

This is the second amendment process in article V, the first amendment process is congress, the framers installed the second amendment process for the states. This convention of states is no more a threat to the 2A than congress.

It is no different than method one where congress proposes and votes on amendments. So, you think that this process should also be removed from congress then, correct? Should article 5 be deleted completely? Why would we leave the article V amendment power only to congress?

A no vote is exactly what the democrats want, hence the misinformation of a con con.. With our current voting system there is a possibility that the democrats could get 290 in the house and 67 senators, propose bad amendments and pass them. We have the possibility of having 33 republican states. You are supporting purposely giving up states rights, our only recourse.

It is very important that this vote is yes. I am really upset by your post, and I am a GOA member and supporter.
At the very least you should change the heading to accurately reflect what is being voted on. Very disappointing.

Read what is written, not someone's "interpretation".

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.

I thank you for taking some time to reconsider your position. I'm sorry but your "hijacking" hypothesis is not correct. I welcome the details of the argument for your position and where it came from.

Regards,
John

A Constitutional Convention can completely rewrite and/or adopt a new constitution. How do you think we ended up with the one we have now?

The only way a Constitutional Convention is safe is if there is a pro-gun person literally pointing a gun at the back of each delegate's head.

Leftists have already hijacked the CC thing, and they are trying to rewrite the entire, or enough of, to eliminate the 2A and create a new leftist type government. There are plenty of examples of their intents on the internet for your viewing. 10-20 years ago, yeah, it would have been more a restoration and limiting of government. ....not anymore.

[buckengr]

I have uploaded a document titled, "the 'Con-Con' Con." It is written by William Olson and Herb Titus, both Constitutional attorneys. GOA uses the Olson law firm in our appellate case work.

https://pennsylvania.gunowners.org/w...ust-7-2019.pdf

As someone who once believed that an Article V Convention of the States could be narrowly constrained to act on a set of specific amendments according to the text of the applications of the state legislatures that would be calling for the convention -- any such illusion was extinguished completely and permanently after witnessing the total disregard for meaningful review of our election integrity via the Electoral College process as implemented this past January.

Don't mistake my words: the Electoral College (and the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights) is critically important, but my faith in Americans' desire and ability to uphold it, uncorrupted, is gone -- (at least until some revival of integrity, honesty, and morality transforms the hearts of Americans again.) The average American does not understand or respect the original design for our founding documents, let alone the impact of proposed changes to them.

We live in an age when political oligarchs, in partnership with big tech and media corporations, wield giant weapons to influence the public. To think that the core fabric of the document which purports to impose the few remaining limits on government power and yet is already so often disregarded without consequence will be strengthened through a process implemented by present day Americans in this political environment is naive.

Think of the average American. Then realize that half of them are going along with more woke-ness than that.

Our Constitution needs to be reread, not rewritten. More importantly, the reasons why it is written the way it is need to be better understood by all Americans and taken to heart.

As John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

We must endeavor to transform the hearts of ourselves and our fellow countrymen to be the kinds of men and women fit for our Constitution and the limited government it prescribes, rather than seeking to bend the Constitution to fit shortsighted, impulsive political theories and culture.

An Article V convention would surely spell the end for the Republic in the current environment.