Difference between revisions of "Top ten reasons to oppose a Con Con"
| (6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | TOP 10 REASONS AGAINST AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION | + | '''TOP 10 REASONS AGAINST AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION''' |
<br>(also called a “CONVENTION OF STATES”) | <br>(also called a “CONVENTION OF STATES”) | ||
10. An Article V convention cannot be limited. The text of the Constitution expressly states that only Congress may “call” it, and multiple “Amendments” will be allowed – a plural “s” after “Amendment”. | 10. An Article V convention cannot be limited. The text of the Constitution expressly states that only Congress may “call” it, and multiple “Amendments” will be allowed – a plural “s” after “Amendment”. | ||
| − | 9. Big liberal states like California and New York would have 10 to 30 times more power at an Article V convention than small conservative states would, because the Supreme Court has required the “one man, one vote” rule since 1964. | + | 9. Big liberal states like California and New York would have 10 to 30 times more power at an Article V convention than small conservative states would, because the Supreme Court has required the “one man, one vote” rule since 1964. Voting would be based on population, as Supreme Court decisions generally require. |
| − | 8. Supporters of the “Convention of States” falsely claim that States would not ratify bad amendments. But state legislatures | + | 8. Supporters of the “Convention of States” falsely claim that States would not ratify bad amendments. But an Article V convention can set its own rules for ratification that bypass state legislatures. |
7. Each of the Democratic and Republican Conventions is chaotic and contentious enough. A joint convention of both parties would have uncontrollable conflicts and an unpredictably bad outcome. | 7. Each of the Democratic and Republican Conventions is chaotic and contentious enough. A joint convention of both parties would have uncontrollable conflicts and an unpredictably bad outcome. | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
6. The original Constitutional Convention had three essential conditions that do not exist today: (i) secrecy from the media, (ii) participants who fought in the American Revolution against tyranny, and (iii) George Washington presiding. Today, instead of men like Benjamin Franklin who wrote our Constitution, we would have liberals like Barney Frank rewriting our Constitution. | 6. The original Constitutional Convention had three essential conditions that do not exist today: (i) secrecy from the media, (ii) participants who fought in the American Revolution against tyranny, and (iii) George Washington presiding. Today, instead of men like Benjamin Franklin who wrote our Constitution, we would have liberals like Barney Frank rewriting our Constitution. | ||
| − | 5. Tactics of the Left are being used to try to pass a “Convention of States.” That project is funded by secret donors who have hidden agendas. There are wealthy globalists do not like our Constitution for many reasons. One of the prominent directors of the Convention of States has also been a leader of the “Never Trump” movement, which has helped only | + | 5. Tactics of the Left are being used to try to pass a “Convention of States.” That project is funded by secret donors who have hidden agendas. There are wealthy globalists who do not like our Constitution for many reasons. One of the prominent directors of the Convention of States has also been a leader of the “Never Trump” movement, which has helped only Democrats. |
| − | 4. The first | + | 4. The first things liberals would do in an Article V convention are to repeal the Second Amendment, insert a right to taxpayer-funded abortion into the Constitution, and add transgender rights. |
3. If the problem is that politicians do not obey the current Constitution, then writing a new one is no solution to that problem. Politicians who ignore the current Constitution would ignore a new one. | 3. If the problem is that politicians do not obey the current Constitution, then writing a new one is no solution to that problem. Politicians who ignore the current Constitution would ignore a new one. | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
2. On July 12, 2016, the Republican platform committee resoundingly rejected a call for an Article V convention, for many good reasons as stated by conservative delegates during a televised session. | 2. On July 12, 2016, the Republican platform committee resoundingly rejected a call for an Article V convention, for many good reasons as stated by conservative delegates during a televised session. | ||
| − | 1. '''''It is a “horrible idea” to hold an Article V convention''''', in the words of Justice Scalia, as he explained at a public event in May 2015. | + | 1. '''''It is a “horrible idea” to hold an Article V convention''''', in the words of Justice Scalia, as he explained at a public event in May 2015, and a reporter published his comment. '''''Phyllis Schlafly also always opposed holding an Article V convention'''''. |
[[category:ConCon]] | [[category:ConCon]] | ||
Latest revision as of 21:33, 23 April 2024
TOP 10 REASONS AGAINST AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION
(also called a “CONVENTION OF STATES”)
10. An Article V convention cannot be limited. The text of the Constitution expressly states that only Congress may “call” it, and multiple “Amendments” will be allowed – a plural “s” after “Amendment”.
9. Big liberal states like California and New York would have 10 to 30 times more power at an Article V convention than small conservative states would, because the Supreme Court has required the “one man, one vote” rule since 1964. Voting would be based on population, as Supreme Court decisions generally require.
8. Supporters of the “Convention of States” falsely claim that States would not ratify bad amendments. But an Article V convention can set its own rules for ratification that bypass state legislatures.
7. Each of the Democratic and Republican Conventions is chaotic and contentious enough. A joint convention of both parties would have uncontrollable conflicts and an unpredictably bad outcome.
6. The original Constitutional Convention had three essential conditions that do not exist today: (i) secrecy from the media, (ii) participants who fought in the American Revolution against tyranny, and (iii) George Washington presiding. Today, instead of men like Benjamin Franklin who wrote our Constitution, we would have liberals like Barney Frank rewriting our Constitution.
5. Tactics of the Left are being used to try to pass a “Convention of States.” That project is funded by secret donors who have hidden agendas. There are wealthy globalists who do not like our Constitution for many reasons. One of the prominent directors of the Convention of States has also been a leader of the “Never Trump” movement, which has helped only Democrats.
4. The first things liberals would do in an Article V convention are to repeal the Second Amendment, insert a right to taxpayer-funded abortion into the Constitution, and add transgender rights.
3. If the problem is that politicians do not obey the current Constitution, then writing a new one is no solution to that problem. Politicians who ignore the current Constitution would ignore a new one.
2. On July 12, 2016, the Republican platform committee resoundingly rejected a call for an Article V convention, for many good reasons as stated by conservative delegates during a televised session.
1. It is a “horrible idea” to hold an Article V convention, in the words of Justice Scalia, as he explained at a public event in May 2015, and a reporter published his comment. Phyllis Schlafly also always opposed holding an Article V convention.
