cuchulainn
Member
Beware chickenlittleitis, folks.
A bunch of guys "discussed the possibility" of a convention. Note that they didn't actually call for a convention -- they "discussed the possibility" -- and even if they had called for it, that wouldn't mean it would occur. Any fool can say, "By golly, we oughta have us a constitutional convention!"
I think that if you look at the history of failed constitutional amendments, that you'll see a bunch instances of the losers "discussing the possibility" of a convention. We haven't had one yet ... and we won't this time.
Frankly, we're more likely to see SCOTUS accept a clear 2nd Amt case than see a constitutional convention.
That said: there are some interesting hypothetical and speculative points being made.
A bunch of guys "discussed the possibility" of a convention. Note that they didn't actually call for a convention -- they "discussed the possibility" -- and even if they had called for it, that wouldn't mean it would occur. Any fool can say, "By golly, we oughta have us a constitutional convention!"
I think that if you look at the history of failed constitutional amendments, that you'll see a bunch instances of the losers "discussing the possibility" of a convention. We haven't had one yet ... and we won't this time.
Frankly, we're more likely to see SCOTUS accept a clear 2nd Amt case than see a constitutional convention.
That said: there are some interesting hypothetical and speculative points being made.