Should a Con-con occur in the U.S.of A.?  

Thank you, Melissa Ruth, and I agree with you.

Life happens while one plans on doing other things. For me, Con-con is one for me...

(My mother's health collapse this winter has occupied most of my energy. We just had Mom's memorial yesterday. Went well, but I still have lots of family stuff to do.)

Anyway, Mylot is NOT an effective place to "organize." At one level Yahoo is handy for groups via e-mail but one cannot load video...,
There is face book and my space...
then there is MSN,
or i-google?
Any preferences?

In the last election I was active with Independents and have suggested Con-con on several occasions. The Independent group thinks much smaller and their efforts are focused on "Open Primaries" in every State. (Admirable but does not touch the 2-party system, really.)

I have not taken the time to search the web but there is probably Con-con groups. I am clear that there is a VERY ORGANIZED anti-Con-con blogging out there. I think these are paid hacks of the rich...

Gone are the days, for me, of being a leader of things. I'm a small old man. Ben Franklin in his age eldered the youngsters in The Revolution. I guess that is what I see my role in a pro-Con-con effort.

Steve

Melissa Ruth,

As I just now re-read you comment. You said, ... "and all politicians should have to attend."

Assuming that you mean that they would be witnesses from the peanut gallery, then I agree.

To me, all elected politicians should be forbidden from being elected as voting representatives to Con-con.

As to the number of representatives, several different approaches could be considered. I suppose there could be a case made to elect Con-con representatives from each U.S. House District. What I do not like about that is that D.C., the Native American "Nations" on reservations, and territories like Porte Rico, would not have a voice and I think they should.

The conservative view would probably want each States governors to go and then select the representatives from within their existing legislatures. Of course if this absurd idea occurred, the Con-con would be worse than a waste of time...

I'm for present or past politicians being stuck in the peanut gallery or they can watch from C-span.

Steve

It IS cool to read your support. I cannot think of a better Venue where reason could be inserted into the "world order."

Effectively the U.S.of.A. is an Empire that the revolutionary citizens were zealous to avoid. The Demand for the People's Bill of Rights was against what we have become. We have exceeded Hamilton's wildest dreams almost totally at the expense of freedom.

So... Let's do it. Got any ideas about how we can accomplish this feat?

What do you think?

Respectfully yours,

Steve Slaton

Here is a list of states that have NOT yet called for a con con, I know several states that called for one also recinded their call, like New hampshire, but I don't know what weight that carries.

California
Montana
Connecticut
New Jersey
Hawaii
New York
Illinois
Ohio
Kentucky
Rhode Island
Maine
Vermont
Massachusetts
Washington
Michigan
West Virginia
Minnesota
Wisconsin

Thank you Xfahctor!

Your list is 17. 17-33 = 50.

So, since you seem to be a whiz at research, which of the 33 "rescinded" the Con-con call?

Also,it is up to you if you wish to discuss your sources, but I would bet that these naysayer experts are benefactors of a white, male, racist, unconstitutional, class-based world order.

I suggest that every person should carefully evaluate"Conservative" voices, especially if they thing of their own voice as conservative... Since the world is unjust, those who wish to perpetuate injustice, are really advocating the perpetuation of injustice.

Most who fought the revolution were liberal wig-types because they wanted to be liberated from conservative tory-types. Yet history bears out the the Tories are dominate...

Is the 16th the right to Federal Income taxing?

Also, do not forget that the original Constitution had to be ratified by the States. I cannot imagine any Con-con outcome without the same provision of ratification by the States.

Respectfully yours,

Steve Slaton

Yes, the 16th amendment is in reguards to wage taxes. The states shot themselves in the foot by ratifying this amendment. By cutting this amendment, we essentialy take incredibly greater control and leash over them by eliminating this. there are a number of other's but this is a very good start. By even the TALK or HINT of this, a lot of people in washington would suddenly get pretty damn scared. this is their lifeblood. Money. When you child is out of control, whats one way to reign them in? The purse strings you the parent have over them. This is no different. the federal government is indeed a child of the states and it is indeed out of control.

My state, New Hampshire retracted it's request, I don't know who else did, but it may not matter. There is no mention of calls for retraction, there is no mention of a time limit or a statute of limitations - a "sunset" time period on a vote for a convention. I actually started poking in to this a bit more today, got some more questions for some people much smarter than me about it to ask. There isn't much out there in documented process for a convention. I have learned there are two types, an all out constitutional converntion and whats called an "article 5" convention. Not sure of the difference yet, it's a bit confusing.

There is one danger i spotted myself. While in full convention, any disputes involving it or the process or the particular issues discussed or not discussed, the matter would of course go to the supreme court...... BUT .....but... while the matter is in the courts, the convention STILL continues.... some clever usurpers could easily durring this time do a number of things that would null and void any court rulings, or even void the very court court itself.
The whole process of amending the constitution was made difficult on purpose, so we would not be tempted to continuously amend it trivialy. I would imagine the process for actualy calling it in to convention entirely would have been made even more difficult.

Again, I still have a number of questions to ask some people I trust and know to be very learned in constitutional matters. I'll be comming back to this discussion because I think it is not only a very important one, it is a nessesary one because it may well eventualy happen. If proven to be a usefull and safe "nuke option" for reigning in the federal government and getting our state's back, than I think we should do so, but VERY carefully and thoroughly.

a warning from former Chief Justice Warren Burger, in a letter written to Phyllis Schlafly, President of Eagle Forum:
"...there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don't like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress..."

Perhaps the first step should be to have the required number of states to get together and decide on a safe process that is also legaly binding. A convention to define a convention if you will, a document that would be ratified by the required number of states, it would be a companion document to the constitution and if agread upon by the required states, would be just as binding and out of the hands of congress as to the process and delgeate requirememnts. I can't think of a more horrifying thing than the thought of congress being the people who choose the delegates for a constitutional convention. So, lets find a way to make it a SAFE process first. When one is building a bomb, making sure it does not blow up on you is just imporatant as making sure it blows up on the enemy.
****NOTE TO HOMELAND SECURITY*****
The bomb reference was a metephore!!!!