An Article V constitutional convention ("con-con") only occurs if 2/3rds of the state legislatures call for one with the exact same subject of singular focus. The main effort right now is a "con-con" focusing on "amendments to limit the power of the federal govt"... Only amendments that satisfy that subject matter are fair game. No matter how many amendments may be proposed by the con-con, the amendments still have to be passed by a 3/4ths supermajority of state legislatures to become part of the US Constitution. Thus, 38 state legislatures out of 50 would have to ratify any amendments. Currently, the GOP controls over half of the state legislatures.

This process is why it is difficult to pass any constitutional amendments (a good thing) and why liberals chose to use judges and alphabet soup federal agencies to promote their agenda over the years...

Here is a link I found, talking about why a "runaway con-con" is not a big concern:

http://conventionofstates.com/why-it-wil...

I am sure you are right that the compromised politicians and lobbyists are ready for this. This is all the more reason we need to start getting Atlantis ready.

I'm totally against it. With the number of communists/socialists and other compromised politicians and lobbyists for the NWO milling around in D.C., there's no way in hell any "constitution" they'd agree on would be on that We The American People would approve.

Think back on when the Ovomit care bill came out: barely 45 days after he takes office and voila! A 2600 page bill ready to go! That's a BS flag.

They (the communists) had that bill fully written & ready to go, LONG before ovomit got elected. I'm will to bet $$ that they already have a "constitution", uh, a UN-approved one at that, fully written & ready for the voting calls. Ok, perhaps they may have 2 or 3 other alternate ones, but the overall arching goals for the complete dismantlement of what you, I and the rest of the world has known as the United States is contained in all versions. As I said before: NO CON-CONS!

I like the idea of a constitutional convention, but am careful about it, too. Vermont's Article V resolution would make it impossible to implement many of the key purposes of such a convention. A constitutional convention is likely to be a double-edged sword.