Thursday, April 23, 2009

Con-Con Anyone?

Constitutional Convention, that is.



Randy Barnett makes a strong case in the WSJ.

I like it!

h/t GeekWithA.45.

3 comments:

D.W. Drang said...

First saw the current mooting of the idea in Redistributing Knowledge, by the lady who ran the first Spendulous Protest, before it was the "Tea Party Movement."

I think we should go for repeal of the 17th Amendment as well as repeal of the 16th, but what do I know...?

Crucis said...

Repeal the 17th before the 16th but repeal'em both. And we DON'T need a convention to get that ball rolling.

There is GREAT danger in a convention. A convention is where the mob rules and what are you going to do if your mob loses?

No, I'm NOT in favor of a convention. An amendment can be made without one.

Turk Turon said...

There is a great danger in a Con-Con, but threatening one is about the only way the states can band together and compel Congress to propose an Amendment that would repeal the income tax, for example. Congress would NEVER propose such a thing otherwise.