enz0matic

enz0matic t1_itrolsz wrote

And once "added to the constitution" will not be subject to reversal until another constitutional convention is called and then would be a very complex process to overturn.

Incorrect? Did you read my comment? Or did you just miscomprehend it? I didn't say that it wouldn't be voted on to get into the constitution. The crux of comment was once in the constitution, near impossible to remove. Not sure how that was incorrect.

Suppose the voters were mislead by propaganda, or subject to disinformation, or even lied to about what an amendment entailed, then inadvertently voted for policies against their interests. There would be no easy recourse once in the constitution. My point is this decision should not be taken lightly, and to consider all the potential negative ramifications - and that IS a correct statement.

Many groups who want constitutional conventions want to instill their ideological policies and remove the choice from the people to change those policies.

1

enz0matic t1_itqjhrm wrote

Keep in mind anything added to a constitution can no longer be a ballot issue, or decided by the voters. Many pushing for Convention want to push the interests of a small group, that would not have a chance if put to a ballot. In other words take away the peoples' right to ever vote/choose on those issues.

Be aware that there has also been a long running push for a US Constitutional convention to cement policies that are not popular with the majority of citizens, and favor only a small percentage of the population. It has been slowly making progress towards that goal.

−1