Article Image
News Link • New World Order

The Goldwater Institute wants a Constiutional Convention??!?!?

 What the #$%^?  They're trying to debunk "myths" that the constitution can't be rewritten and assert that the founding fathers supported constitutional conventions.  Huh?  Other than the ONE con con in 1776, where do they get THAT from?  (Answer: made it up)
Now, they are going to come out with a "study" meant to confuse conservatives and patriots in an attempt to "prove" their case.
Several months ago the GW institute had the former Comptroller of the US out to a lunch and dinner.  He tried to make the same case and couldn't explain why they couldn't just follow the amendment process and needed a constitutional convention.
He just kept asserting over and over that a con con was needed.
Hmmm... can anyone say NWO OPERATIVE??

4 Comments in Response to

Comment by Alan Gaudette
Entered on:

First let it be known that none of the branches of the US of America are in compliance with the constitution as written and intended to be read. I would propose that there be stiff penalties for all who do not comply. I would also require that there be no exemptions from it or enacted law. Serving in any of the branches of the government was not meant to be a lifetime event. So, reasonable term limits need to be set with no tenure for retirement during the first term. Then, on a level playing field, let the chips fall where they may. With the above as the primary issues to be considered, I would support a constitutional convention. Any thing else will be a waist of time and an affront to our founding fathers.

Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

 The difference is that I trust John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin et al.  Yes, I know they were not perfect, but even so.

I don't trust anyone with this power today.

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

I agree with Gene.

The Constitution needs needs something. It needs something strong in it to keep the stupid mess we are in from ever happening again. Unfortunately, the folks who would wind up running the con-con are the same ones who want us in the mess, and want to make it worse. How do we know? Because they are the ones who would have amended the Constitution long ago to get us out of the mess, if that's what they really wanted.

Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

The “original” convention far exceeded it’s limited grant of authority (sound familiar?). They knew so, and that’s why the proceedings were kept secret.
As for “the amendment process”, the hookers in the “State Of…” legislatures cannot be trusted in a con-con. Between “feds” getting (s)elected to “State Of…” offices (former DEA agent Arpaio and former U.S. Atty Napolitano being prime Arizona examples; and Neil Abercrombie, newly (s)elected in Hawaii), and their “enactments” of provisions mandated by federal agency regulations, in order to “participate” in federal-state “compacts”, a con-con would be too great an opportunity for a wholesale sellout.

Join us on our Social Networks:


Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network: