Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!stanford.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!abvax!iccgcc!herrickd From: herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Amendments Message-ID: <4490.28254f62@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> Date: 6 May 91 17:43:13 GMT References: <4364.2816d635@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> <1991Apr26.141044.7544@alphalpha.com> <1991Apr28.061119.18402@eecs.nwu.edu> Lines: 53 In article <1991Apr28.061119.18402@eecs.nwu.edu>, ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) writes: > In article <1991Apr26.141044.7544@alphalpha.com> nazgul@alphalpha.com > (Kee Hinckley) writes: > >> In article <4364.2816d635@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> herrickd@iccgcc. >> decnet.ab.com writes: > >>> The other is to get three-quarters of the state legislatures to >>> petition Congress to call a Constitutional Convention, at which >>> time Congress has no option but to call the convention. > >> It should be noted that this option is avoided like the plague, since >> once a CC is convened it's open season on the Constitution and *anything* >> can be changed. > > No, it should *really* be noted that this option is only avoided like > the plague by lawyers, ACLU-types, and other stupid liberals who want > to save us from ourselves ... > > Good heavens! The idea of the unwashed masses of the American public > having any actual say-so in how they are governed? I think a CC would > be a great idea, with real people -- not politicians, not lawyers, not > Alan Dershowitz, not ACLU'ers -- actually deciding their fate for a > change. Understandably, a couple of law school professors might grow > nauseous and faint if it happened ... > I am frightened by the prospect of such a convention. (Notice I started this discussion.) I really expect to see a sudden call by the last required state followed by an attempt to get the action through Congress fast followed by an attempt to fill the convention with friends (not my friends). My only protection in this action will be to get some people who are not easily bamboozled appointed as delegates to the convention and to persuade enough states to not ratify the output of the convention. It may be possible to keep the climate perceived as unfavorable. The largest indicator that there is an attempt afoot to replace our constitution with something very different comes in an event back about 1987. Why did a man with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, sitting as Chief Justice, resign when the sitting president could be counted on to appoint his ideological opposite. He said it was to chair an obscure committee meeting behind closed doors to plan a suitable way to commemorate the second centennial of the Constitution. His ideology was important to him. It is very likely that he believed when he resigned that he could promote this ideology more effectively in the new post than as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. If there is any truth in this line of deduction, I want him thwarted. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com