Editor’s note: Off The Grid News received a flood of emails about this subject and will post more of them in the future. Below is a sample of responses.
Regarding: Would you support a constitutional convention (Convention of States) with the goal of limiting the federal government’s powers?
I would definitely support a constitutional convention. Those who are worried about such a gathering “going rogue” shouldn’t worry. It’s the state’s concerns that will determine the agenda and the proposed changes to the Constitution, not the members of the Federal government. And it’s the several states that want the changes. Finally, there aren’t enough states that want to move the Constitution in a “progressive” or “liberal” direction to have any significant effect.
I would most assuredly approve a constitutional convention, IF their stated goals were their true and final goals. On the other hand, I wouldn’t want our Constitution up for grabs for the wrong reasons. I say to these people: Show me your proof.
Of course I would support a Constitutional Convention. It’s constitutional, unlike so many other things happening today. I think we need more of this kind of action and less hand wringing and fear -mongering. Doing what we have the moral right to do is what created this country, so why should we now sit on our hands and do nothing? States have a right to convene, period.
No, I would not support a Constitutional Convention. I feel that The Second Amendment, and other rights, would not survive. … In view of current efforts to muzzle freedom of The press by the FCC, the harassment of conservative groups by the IRS and endless regulations by bureaucracies like the ATF, I would greatly fear that any convention would be hijacked by the same people seeking to suppress our currents rights but, this time, the lack of those rights would be cast in stone!!
I think the Convention of States is a potentially horrible and dangerous idea.
The constitution of the Unites States is as perfect as any constitution in the history of the world. If we used the constitution we already have, our problems of federal government overreach would go away without having to start over with a new constitution and very possibly ending up with a constitution inferior to the one we already have.
If the Federal Government will not use the constitution we now have, what guarantee would we have that they honor and use another one instead?
If we repealed or abolished every law and government agency not authorized by the constitution we already have, we could reverse the problems of our present government over reach. We could abolish agencies that have no constitutional authority and return rightful authority to the states as was supposed to be guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment.
Nullification is also a protection we already have and it is almost never invoked to limit the Federal Government power grabs. Unlawful orders and laws should not to be obeyed. Did we not learn anything from the Nuremberg trials about following unlawful orders?
We already have all the tools we need in our present, God-inspired constitution if we just use them.
Every politician has taken an oath to God and Country to defend our constitution. Maybe we need some politicians tried for treason and/or sedition to get the rest of the miscreants to honor their oaths of office.
Our present constitution isn’t the problem. Those elected to honor it are the problem and we need to hold them accountable!
Might be a real can of worms. I think that if you open the door to a con-con, the powers that be just might take it over and thus do more harm than good. … We have enough direction with the Constitution as is. We just need to hold our representatives’ feet to the fire and get them to start looking out for our interests like they are supposed to, or get rid of them.