@81. Mel: – Mark Levin thinks a new Constitutional Convention is a crummy idea.

I honestly could not care less what Levin thinks about a ConCon. That’s not what I’ve been referring to here.

An ARTICLE V CONVENTION – which is a mechanism afforded to the several States to propose and pass Constitutional Amendments that the feds might otherwise ignore or reject – is completely different.

One example of this would be a convention to define, propose and pass an amendment that reflects the current sense of the States regarding health care, i.e., that the federal government may not operate a national health insurance entitlement program for all Americans (or better yet, for ANY Americans, which would set the stage for the elimination of Medicare). Another likely issue for this treatment is immigration. The list goes on.

The point of the Art. V Convention is to provide the States with a way to limit federal overreach without having to wait for representatives in the U.S. Congress to address the issues. The points of widely discussing an AVC NOW would be manifold, but the most important would raising the general public’s awareness regarding the detailed nature of the current Congress’ and Administration’s abuses and usurpations. In the parlance of this post and thread, it would provide an important opportunity to form coalitions founded on beliefs. It is the next logical step following the recent (media-embargoed) spate of Tenth Amendment State Sovereignty Resolutions passed by various State legislatures.

Again – if you’re not familiar with the AVC mechanism, I recommend doing some research on it. I’ve already provided links above. It’s not a “Constitutional Convention” in the sense most people have been trained (by a defective public education system) to understand it.