Sunday, August 18, 2013

FW: A new name for a bad idea


Sue …


I'm still cognizant of the obvious dangers of a con-con, but am beginning to ponder the actually likelihood of any possible results of the convention becoming new law. And this thought process goes well beyond the very difficult hurdle of requiring ¾ of the states to ratify it.


What may prevent the chaos to the nation might well be the chaos of that convention itself. Since there is no established structure for the convention to take place and run itself, then exactly how would that structure construct itself?


My answer is … it can't! Who would be the chairman of the convention? I don't believe it would even be remotely possible to elect one. Regardless of which state initiates the call for the convention, that does NOT put them in charge! Why should people from Texas agree with folks from Virginia being in charge … or any other state delegations having their way … or even as to what the agenda should be?


Who would ever agree as to who would serve on the "Rules Committee?" Who would ever agree to ANYTHING? And how would they do that?


In practical terms, it is very difficult to paint a scenario where anything could get done at all! So what exactly could come out of such chaos at such a pointless convention ultimately to be ratified by the states?


My guess is NOTHING! So why bother?


One could also easily conceive at this point that a chaotic con-con would drag out hopelessly for a very, very long, tedious and wearisome amount of time. Who would be willing to be away from their homes, jobs, family, etc. for such an agonizing period of torment and misery to see such a futile process through? Who would PAY them for their time and effort?


The only conceivable way to establish any workable structure under which the convention could even take place and administer itself would be for very, very long and tedious "pre-convention" negotiations to take place ahead of time. I see this as having the same inherent problems as the idea of the convention itself. Who would lead the "negotiations," and who would ever agree to the rules and structure of leading those negotiations?  


Now digress even further. How about selecting who gets to be the "privileged characters" within the state delegations? Who gets to choose the delegates? How many should there be? State governments would likely insist that THEY should determine the delegation as originally  provided for United States senators in the original Constitution … later repealed by the 17th Amendment. And the PEOPLE would likely object and say no … the delegates should be elected directly by THEM!


The list of these types of questions will become endless. This process is designed (whether intended or not by the Founders) with every possible human shortcoming and failure which could be thrown into the mix. It cannot succeed in accomplishing anything, nor changing the status quo due to its own inevitable and inescapable failure. A constitutional convention … as provided for under the current Constitution …  would self-implode!


So why bother?


The Constitution we have today actually came into being from the "illegal" abandonment of the Articles of Confederation once the delegates came together in Philadelphia. They could not accomplish what they wished to accomplish under the constraints of the previous document, so they concluded it must be thrown out …  so they could start over from scratch! My guess is that is what would end up happening again. I would also offer that those men were of far superior honor, character, integrity and morals than any such assembly that we could put together today. No such delegation could or would be trusted by anyone.


Therein lies the most thoughtful and practical reason for opposing a con-con. Since a convention as provided for under the existing Constitution could not be productive in any way, the delegates (however chosen) would quickly conclude to either prudently and wisely walk away facing certain failure, or throw out the existing document in order to accomplish their dirty work.



Mike Prunty

Founder and President

The American Freedom Project

Newport News, Virginia

Cell: (757) 329-6879


From: []
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 7:57 AM
To: A Sue
Subject: A new name for a bad idea


Just to clear up the confusion about calling for a convention to change the Constitution.  There has been sufficient exposure of a Constitutional  Convention (Con Con ) so the tactic now is to change the name and sell it as something different.  But it's still all the same.  (It's the same principle as changing the name from Global Warming to Climate Change.)



But ,it is all the same thing  - a Constitutional Convention, a Convention of States - an Article 5 Convention.  By whatever name, it would still result in an assembly that has no controlling authority and which would make up the rules once convened.  It could vote to totally scrap the whole Constitution and that no states need to approve.


The same reasons that a Con Con is not a good idea apply regardless of the name used to sell it.  


No comments:

Post a Comment