Reply #13: Once again, everyone needs to remember [View All]

[Literate Dragon]

that there's an inherent conservatism (by which I mean the dictionary-definition "resistance to change," not "pandering to nut jobs") built into the Constitution in that all amendments require 3/4 of the states to approve. Also, calling a convention DOES NOT immediately abrogate the entire Constitution and require us to start from scratch. The Convention COULD do that, but while it was working the existing Constitution would remain in place. The convention could only recommend, it could not implement. Any recommendations it made, the states would have to approve.

The radical changes desired by the Tea Party, such as eliminating the 1st Amendment and creating a theocracy, could not be implemented by such a measure because 3/4 of the states would NEVER approve of this. So that sort of fear is unrealistic and overblown.

The idea that it might be dominated by the wealthy and powerful is more realistic and yes, that could happen. Most of the delegates to the original convention in Philadelphia were prominent men of means. It could be that for this reason, or because of that same innate conservatism I mentioned above, this method could not give us what we need. But the dangers attendant on revolution are so severe that I say we have nothing to lose by trying it. Revolution should be a last resort.