Last I checked, a constitutional convention could only propose amendments, which would still have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states to become the law of the land. There is no way that 38 states would agree to amendments (or a new constitution) proposed by a collectivist constitutional convention run amuck. I wouldn’t lose any sleep over this issue.

An interesting article, but long on hyperbole and hypotheticals. Until an actual convention is called, I'm not going to lose any sleep.

If a Constitutional Convention is called, here are a few things I'd like to see proposed:

1. Elimination of the 17th Amendment and a return of Senators being elected by their respective State Legislatures.
2. Elimination the 12th Amendment, re-establishing that the Vice President is the runner-up in the Presidential election. (This would give real teeth to any threat of Impeachment and Conviction and make the Vice President more of an active role in the Senate. This would also encourage other political parties.)
3. Amendment to the 14th Amendment, clarifying that the US Constitution and its protections extend ONLY to US citizens and legal guests on US soil.
4. Repeal of the 16th Amendment and apportioning taxes to the States by Census for Federal budgeting purposes.
5. New Amendment placing the burden of supporting members of Congress (salaries, staff, offices, etc.) on the respective States (to replace the 27th Amendment).
6. Amendment to the 20th Amendment prohibiting the participation in Congress or the Executive Branch of outgoing members (to prevent lame duck actions). Also institutes a freeze on Executive Recess Appointments during this same period.
7. New Amendment restricting political fundraising by candidates to moneys from voters residing in and legally qualified to vote in their respective Congressional Districts.
8. New Amendment adjusting the size of the House of Representative, increasing the number to one Representative for every 200,000 citizens per State. Also provide for the House to meet and conduct business by teleconference.
9. New Amendment mandating a balanced budget to include debt service.
10. New Amendment eliminating the Federal Reserve and prohibiting adoption of a non-governmental body with powers to set either monetary or fiscal policy.

Feel free to add your own.

Seeing the threat, George Soros and his ilk have recently funded considerable media and other opposition to this movement. I spotted disinformation here immediately by the author's label of a Constitutional Convention, which it would not be.

What it would be is a Convention of States, called by law by Congress at the lawful demand of the required quorum of states to establish and discuss - and possibly act on - one single matter considered for resolution to repair a problem at the national level.

Each state legislature would appoint one voting delegate to place his/her vote on any matter. Most state legislatures are conservative.

Imagine the hope for our nation if it were resolved that welfare is solely for the states' individual authorities and unconstitutional at the national level. This would more than any other issue decapitate the dream of American socialism.

Oh so true
Our task is to defend the principle of individual sovereignty and reason on which it depends. Then it will work perfectly.

According to the organizers of COS, that is NOT on the agenda. The agenda has already been set and pitched to the states.
Could all that change?...maybe, but the states that have entered so far are unlikely to change that agenda making it difficult for other states to stick their mentally impaired fingers into the works.
We have yet to see a leftest state join the convention yet as far as I know. My state, CT., is probably the dumbest among them and rejected it...needless to say, we have a Lot of stupid lefties in our kakistocracy.

Am I being too optimistic?...Probably.

The excerpt above is simply wrong for reasons stated in my earlier post below. This is simply misinformation that is either from a source that doesn't understand Article 5 of the Constitution, or from a source connected to the Washington Ruling Class cabal.

The Constitutional Separation of Powers between the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches must be preserved. Stripping the Rules and Regulations practices away from the Executive branch and replacing them with express responsibilities and restraints in the Legislative branch would be a BIG improvement.

If I had to think of an analogy to this possibility (of a Constitutional Convention), it would be the smell of a Parliament cigarette (1) that fell into a city street near a garbage dumpster filled overpriced profiterole refuse, (2) that was dried out by a bum, (3) that was kept in a grimy Patriots stocking cap, (4) along with the resultant odor after he lighted and smoked it.

Since the original constitution is rarely conformed to if it were replaced the method might be different or more dramatic but the results will still be the same.

Perhaps a solution would be to first pass a constitutional amendment through the time honored Congressional method that would restrict a constitutional convention to considering only those proposed objectives in an agenda approved in advance by the state legislatures calling the convention, and providing that any other changes proposed at the convention be not considered.

Well, Mark Levin on his radio show claims that that
would not happen. From what he said, I gather that
he means that it would mean passage of certain
Amendments that would then be submitted to the States for their approval. But I think that it is probably not worth the risk.

That certainly id a negative outlook. It means that those of us who believe in the Constitution as written by the founders would be dead on arrival if a Constitutional convention were to be held today.So...we've already lost?Perhaps so. That means we are fighting a strategic retreat trying to keep the USA as close to its founding while it crumbles beneath our feet.

I've long said, and it appears I am about to be found correct, that the seeds of America's destruction are baked in the cake. If it doesn't happen now, it will happen eventually. It's not often I say this: "I'm glad I'm old, so I won't have to see it." However that doesn't change the sadness I feel for my grandchildren.

I agree with this article. The original Constitutional Convention passed motions violative of the instructions of at least half the States that sent them to Philadelphia. Furthermore, they chose to establish the new Constitution "between those States so ratifying the same."

The Declaration of Independence says in relevant part, "Whenever any government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it." Therefore a COS would be plenipotentiary, and no instruction could possibly limit it.

I agree that a constitutional convention should be resisted since it would likely lead to changes that those who want less government would oppose, but I don't agree with the the "ten regions" UN conspiracy nonsense that sounds like it comes straight out of a '70s JBS pamphlet.

[Sarcasm]We have to be very careful with a CoS. I mean, it could throw out the entire protections of the Constitution. The president could be passing executive orders and getting us into wars as if the Exec branch were Congress. The Fed gov't could force states and cities to comply with federal initiatives if they want their tax dollars back. We might even see calls to ban guns, restrict protest, and search through all communications traffic with only a flimsy system to protect against misuse. There would be nothing to stop the gov't from saying you're free from search where there's expectation of privacy, but not if you're travelling by car, airplane, train, or any modern transportation method. They could use that to impose drug prohibition on local gov'ts that are anti-prohibition. We could actually end up with gov't spending accounting for a fourth of GDP, with heavy influence in all sectors of the economy. At that point, the gov't might build a network of military bases and secret prisons around the world, making us look like the Roman empire. There would be nothing to stop them from passing a law saying you need to buy "insurance" against needing things you know are coming like birth control or flu shots. Without protections against takings, they could seize your stuff if they even suspect it was somehow related to a crime.

If it should ever came to this, discourse would turn into a struggle among groups. People who live in separate places minding their own business could be turned against one anther for political gain. Politicians could promise urbanites policies to make rural people uncomfortable, and then the rural gas station owner who previous liked those people and their imports that need high-test suddenly wants to see the city people feeling uncomfortable for a change. Gov't would have the power to do it too. People could go to town making their neighbors uncomfortable, but not the gov't. They need the jobs from the military base, their kids' free college, someone to pay for their medical expenses, the childhood nutrition programs, the gov't paying for their mom's nursing care (how dare they try to "take" her wealth to pay for it!!), all the jobs that come with having so much of the population in prison or on probation of some sort, all the SBIR grants (mostly for war). So they'd steer clear of all that and just stick to calling their neighbors names.

This nightmare scenario could happen in the case of a run-away convention.[/Sarcasm]

It seems like the current Constitution isn't limiting gov't power, so we don't have much to lose. If they said leave all issues, including repsecting basoc rights, up to the majority, we wouldn't be in that worse a position than today.

People keep pointing out that most people voted for Clinton in the last presidential election. I voted for her and went to her findraisers. I hold her in high regard. On the night I met my wife I invited her to a non-partisan event where Hilary Clinton was giving the keynote. The majority voted for Hilary, but hopefully most of us don't want tyranny of the majority.