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

Tweet

Con-con is short for Constitutional Convention. As Washington wrote in his Farewell Address (I'll paraphrase): People if you value your freedom, do not trust a two-party system. It is susceptible to corruption by clever minds domestically and internationally. Your freedom will be compromised or destroyed. That said, be slow to choose violent revolution, rarely does it end with positive results. Value your Constitution because it has the provision to Amend when, not if, there are abuses in power. (End paraphrase.) There has been a little protest called Tea parties since the Bank bailouts before and after the election called Tea Parties. (I've not had time to follow.) Our 13 colonies' original revolution was over "taxation without representation." The small time taxes, like the paper tax, was an example of the day. Was there a tea tax? (Have not had time to tea tax point, either...) Be clear. We are way over $10 trillion in debt. Servicing debt makes us less free... The Reagan Republicans talk the talk of fiscal conservatism but what the Republican Presidents did, Starting with Reagan and including Sonny Bush, was deficit spending with the chief benefactors being the Military Industrial Complex. Obama seems to be continuing the "Age of Reagan..." The very high Medicare and Medicaid costs should be a warning of how expensive Universal Health Care could become if care is not taken. Since nobody is seriously protesting Medicare and Medicaid stupidity, I have no confidence in proposed legislation that is looming for Universal "Health Care," a Democrat "concern." Anyway, to call a Con-con requires 2/3 of the states and the math is 50 times 2 divided by three, meaning 34 States. According to scholars we already have 33. We need just one more State. (50*2/3 = 33.3 or 34.) When State 34 happens I guarantee a legal battle that will go to the Supreme Court. Since I also view our Courts corruption by clever minds, I predict that any State rescinding the State's Call for a Con-con will be "interpreted" by the Supremes leading to a negative verdict. So, if anyone has time to find out, it would be nice to have the list of the 33 States, and especially the States that rescinded. Then the remainder would be the battle ground States for a Con-con. I am explicit that the new call for a Con-con should stipulate that like the original Bill of Rights be the model for the Con-con and would package single issue proposals for Amendment to be ratified by the States. I imagine that election of the President and Vice President by popular vote will become the next ratified Amendment. Respectfully your, Steve Slaton