With all the newly elected senators & congressmen and the popular notion of term limits, the question arises of whether or not they will pursue the Term Limit amendment, if that is even a good idea, and if a Constitutional Convention will be sought to meet that end. A con-con is a decidedly bad idea for the reasons below. The quoted text describes it well.
I'm not convinced that Term Limits are a true solution to our woes either. More like a feel-good solution, when what is needed is for the public to be roused from their chemical-induced, propaganda-fed, television-watching, government school-attending, brain-dead zombie coma. Term limits will not replace the need for an educated populace.
Term Limits Temptation: Creating the Pretext for a Con-Con
I'm not convinced that Term Limits are a true solution to our woes either. More like a feel-good solution, when what is needed is for the public to be roused from their chemical-induced, propaganda-fed, television-watching, government school-attending, brain-dead zombie coma. Term limits will not replace the need for an educated populace.
Term Limits Temptation: Creating the Pretext for a Con-Con
The true goal is a con-con for any purpose, which instantly becomes a con-con for every purpose. Once a con-con begins, it can propose amendments upon any subject it chooses, and whatever limitations the state legislatures thought they had imposed on it may be ignored. Delegates to a convention would never face the voters to account for their actions; they would be accountable to no one. A con-con could make drastic changes in the Constitution involving radical redesign of the federal government. It could propose a truly national government with a parliament along the lines of Great Britain and European countries. It could propose whatever it likes. It could even alter the methods of ratification for the changes which it produces.