There is growing interest in an Article V Convention to amend the Constitution of the United States. But it's NOT the Constitution that is the problem...the federal government has far exceeded it's constitutional authority and is far and away out of control. As it stands now, our Constitution and the Republic that our Founding Fathers intended and our very Liberty are under attack. So, what to do?
The question is, "What is the best way to reclaim the Republic and restore the Constitution of the United States?"
1. We can try to elect constitutionally conservative candidates but is there time to save the Republic by waiting to go through several election cycles? Will the newly elected servants remain true and honor their Oath of Office to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." or will they be co-opted and corrupted and turn into the same self-serving political whores we have now?
Or...
The question is, "What is the best way to reclaim the Republic and restore the Constitution of the United States?"
1. We can try to elect constitutionally conservative candidates but is there time to save the Republic by waiting to go through several election cycles? Will the newly elected servants remain true and honor their Oath of Office to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." or will they be co-opted and corrupted and turn into the same self-serving political whores we have now?
Or...
2. We can call an Article V Constitution to pass a few key amendments to force the federal government to change its behavior and pray that it doesn't turn into a runaway convention resulting in the complete trashing our current Constitution for a new, more "modern" advocated by sitting Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg when being interviewed. Personally, I view her remarks as a violation of her Oath of Office which is at least Perjury and possibly Treason.
Either way, the risks are perilous to our Republic, our Constitution, and our Liberty. |
|
CAUTION: Questionable Players in the Convention of States
Posted On: 01-30-2014
Stand Up to American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Americans For Prosperity (AFP), Convention Of States (COS), Tea Party Patriots, Tea Party Caucus, Tea Party Express, Tea Party, Tea Party Nation, National Tea Party Federation, Tea Party Leadership Fund, and Freedomworks. ALEC is heavily involved with the Convention Of States (COS) a.k.a. Con-Con. Most of the legislators that went to Mount Vernon for the COS meeting in December 2013 were ALEC members. Congress will not obey the U.S. Constitution today. What makes you think that Congress would obey the Constitution if changes were made? Is the Convention Of States connected to the Council On Foreign Relations?
Michael P. Farris is Head of Convention of the States Project, better known as a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con), and President of Parentalrights.org in which Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member Grover G. Norquist is the Director. Mr. Farris is also the advisory board member of Christian Freedom International. George Soros is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations with Grover P. Norquist.
Are the Convention Of States' Key Supporters Connected to Common Core?
Some of the same key supporters of Convention Of States (COS) also support Common Core. To see the connection of Common Core to ALEC, Huckabee, National Governors' Association and U.S. Department of Education, click here. Secure Arkansas' opinion is that Mike Huckabee still appears to be supporting Common Core because he has a very complex stand on education. We agree with this Oklahoma educator who wrotean informative article to show Huckabee's stance. Here is just one eye-opening paragraph from her article:
Huckabee admitted right up front on his show that he is losing a good sized chunk of his TV audience.
He then admitted and described a few, but not all, of the problems that are coming from Common Core Standards themselves. Huckabee said, “The term Common Core needs to disappear from the lexicon of education policy.”
But a name change won’t change the philosophy or the centralized control policies that have been put into place.
Remember the past? The names have changed, but the government control is the same. First, it was "Outcome-based Education"... then "Goals 2000"... then "No Child Left Behind"... and now "Common Core".
We question Huckabee's stance on Common Core, especially if he's still endorsing the Convention of States. Here's a link that shows his letter to Oklahoma lawmakers urging them to back Common Core. Also, Mike Huckabee is co-chairman of Alliance for a Healthier Generation which Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation co-founded. Click here to follow the dots. Mike Huckabee is also an advisory board member of Secure America Now with CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) member John R. Bolton and CFR member Devon Gaffney Cross. Click here to follow the dots. Click here to see info about Huckabee and others endorsing the COS project.
Click here for another article that Exposes Common Core ALEC corporate connections. Some of these groups are the same ones supporting the Convention Of States (COS). For an ALEC/Common Core refresher course, click here.
Do you really trust these groups attempting to change our U.S. Constitution? It looks as though our state lawmakers have taken all the federal grant money they can get their hands on and have jeopardized our children with Common Core curriculum in this so-called Race to the Top.
ALEC Demands Lawmakers Pledge Allegiance - to ALEC December 10, 2013. The State Chair must sign the ALEC form "The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) State Chair Job Description and Agreement" that appears on page 19 through 21 of the attached August 6, 2013 ALEC Board Meeting. One item in the ALEC Allegiance Pledge is "I will act with care and loyalty and put the interests of the organization first." So, you see, the legislator loyalty is to ALEC and NOT the voters they are supposed to represent. Aren't these legislators supposed to be safeguarding our Constitution? The companies that are members of ALEC can be found by clicking here. You need to know if your legislator has sold you out and pledged to do ALEC's dirty work for Corporate America. ALEC legislator state chairs can be found by clicking here. The legislators with ALEC ties by U.S. state can be found by clicking here. If your legislator has ties to ALEC, it might be time for a change because their allegiance seems to be to ALEC and not to the voters that they represent. Google became a member of American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2013. http://my.firedoglake.com/nsolomon/tag/american-legislative-exchange-council/
Don’t let your legislator tell you that they can control or limit a Constitutional Convention (also known as an Article V Amendment Convention). That is a lie, and it is deceptive. Under Article V (five) of the Constitution, our founding fathers established two methods for future generations to add amendments to the Constitution: Method 1: Two-thirds of both houses of Congress can propose an amendment, and then three-fourths of the states ratify it… or not. (This is the only safe method.) For Method 2 below, REMEMBER: the U.S. Congress decides the mode of ratification. The state legislators can be circumvented if the Congress calls for ratifying conventions. For the evidence showing the inability of the states to limit an Article V Convention, click here. Method 2: Two-thirds (34) of the states call for a federal constitutional convention, and then three-fourths of the states ratify whatever amendments are proposed by the convention. (This method must be avoided at all costs. This method could lead to a runaway convention in which our original Constitution would be scrapped and a new Constitution would be substituted consequently stripping us from our bill of rights.) There is a proposed Constitution already waiting for the New States of America. Mark Levin Wants to Play Russian Roulette with the U.S. Constitution (be sure to click on this link) Our legislators have sold us a pack of lies about the Convention of States (COS) that they have NEVER verified, and they're selling it as truth. Don't take anyone's word for it. Everyone needs to do their own research if they want to find the truth. If you want to email us about this article, please reference the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and/or federal laws that support your rebuttal. Thanks for reading! Please remember to forward this email to everyone on your list.
Securing the blessings of liberty,
Secure the Republic
SecureTheRepublic.com
[email protected]
Stand Up to American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Americans For Prosperity (AFP), Convention Of States (COS), Tea Party Patriots, Tea Party Caucus, Tea Party Express, Tea Party, Tea Party Nation, National Tea Party Federation, Tea Party Leadership Fund, and Freedomworks. ALEC is heavily involved with the Convention Of States (COS) a.k.a. Con-Con. Most of the legislators that went to Mount Vernon for the COS meeting in December 2013 were ALEC members. Congress will not obey the U.S. Constitution today. What makes you think that Congress would obey the Constitution if changes were made? Is the Convention Of States connected to the Council On Foreign Relations?
Michael P. Farris is Head of Convention of the States Project, better known as a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con), and President of Parentalrights.org in which Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member Grover G. Norquist is the Director. Mr. Farris is also the advisory board member of Christian Freedom International. George Soros is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations with Grover P. Norquist.
Are the Convention Of States' Key Supporters Connected to Common Core?
Some of the same key supporters of Convention Of States (COS) also support Common Core. To see the connection of Common Core to ALEC, Huckabee, National Governors' Association and U.S. Department of Education, click here. Secure Arkansas' opinion is that Mike Huckabee still appears to be supporting Common Core because he has a very complex stand on education. We agree with this Oklahoma educator who wrotean informative article to show Huckabee's stance. Here is just one eye-opening paragraph from her article:
Huckabee admitted right up front on his show that he is losing a good sized chunk of his TV audience.
He then admitted and described a few, but not all, of the problems that are coming from Common Core Standards themselves. Huckabee said, “The term Common Core needs to disappear from the lexicon of education policy.”
But a name change won’t change the philosophy or the centralized control policies that have been put into place.
Remember the past? The names have changed, but the government control is the same. First, it was "Outcome-based Education"... then "Goals 2000"... then "No Child Left Behind"... and now "Common Core".
We question Huckabee's stance on Common Core, especially if he's still endorsing the Convention of States. Here's a link that shows his letter to Oklahoma lawmakers urging them to back Common Core. Also, Mike Huckabee is co-chairman of Alliance for a Healthier Generation which Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation co-founded. Click here to follow the dots. Mike Huckabee is also an advisory board member of Secure America Now with CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) member John R. Bolton and CFR member Devon Gaffney Cross. Click here to follow the dots. Click here to see info about Huckabee and others endorsing the COS project.
Click here for another article that Exposes Common Core ALEC corporate connections. Some of these groups are the same ones supporting the Convention Of States (COS). For an ALEC/Common Core refresher course, click here.
Do you really trust these groups attempting to change our U.S. Constitution? It looks as though our state lawmakers have taken all the federal grant money they can get their hands on and have jeopardized our children with Common Core curriculum in this so-called Race to the Top.
ALEC Demands Lawmakers Pledge Allegiance - to ALEC December 10, 2013. The State Chair must sign the ALEC form "The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) State Chair Job Description and Agreement" that appears on page 19 through 21 of the attached August 6, 2013 ALEC Board Meeting. One item in the ALEC Allegiance Pledge is "I will act with care and loyalty and put the interests of the organization first." So, you see, the legislator loyalty is to ALEC and NOT the voters they are supposed to represent. Aren't these legislators supposed to be safeguarding our Constitution? The companies that are members of ALEC can be found by clicking here. You need to know if your legislator has sold you out and pledged to do ALEC's dirty work for Corporate America. ALEC legislator state chairs can be found by clicking here. The legislators with ALEC ties by U.S. state can be found by clicking here. If your legislator has ties to ALEC, it might be time for a change because their allegiance seems to be to ALEC and not to the voters that they represent. Google became a member of American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2013. http://my.firedoglake.com/nsolomon/tag/american-legislative-exchange-council/
Don’t let your legislator tell you that they can control or limit a Constitutional Convention (also known as an Article V Amendment Convention). That is a lie, and it is deceptive. Under Article V (five) of the Constitution, our founding fathers established two methods for future generations to add amendments to the Constitution: Method 1: Two-thirds of both houses of Congress can propose an amendment, and then three-fourths of the states ratify it… or not. (This is the only safe method.) For Method 2 below, REMEMBER: the U.S. Congress decides the mode of ratification. The state legislators can be circumvented if the Congress calls for ratifying conventions. For the evidence showing the inability of the states to limit an Article V Convention, click here. Method 2: Two-thirds (34) of the states call for a federal constitutional convention, and then three-fourths of the states ratify whatever amendments are proposed by the convention. (This method must be avoided at all costs. This method could lead to a runaway convention in which our original Constitution would be scrapped and a new Constitution would be substituted consequently stripping us from our bill of rights.) There is a proposed Constitution already waiting for the New States of America. Mark Levin Wants to Play Russian Roulette with the U.S. Constitution (be sure to click on this link) Our legislators have sold us a pack of lies about the Convention of States (COS) that they have NEVER verified, and they're selling it as truth. Don't take anyone's word for it. Everyone needs to do their own research if they want to find the truth. If you want to email us about this article, please reference the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and/or federal laws that support your rebuttal. Thanks for reading! Please remember to forward this email to everyone on your list.
Securing the blessings of liberty,
Secure the Republic
SecureTheRepublic.com
[email protected]
Socialists and Soros Fight for Article V Convention
Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D. | Wednesday, 15 January 2014 09:38
Recently, The New American has reported on the efforts by radio talk show host Mark Levin and others to push for a constitutional convention (a convention of the states, in the parlance of the proponents).
In his new book, Levin argues that such a convention is the last hope “to reform the federal government from its degenerate, bloated, imperial structure back to its (smaller) republican roots.”
Unfortunately, many otherwise well-educated and well-meaning conservatives have succumbed to Levin’s siren song and they have gone so far as to deny the constitutionality of nullification and to insist that an Article V convention is the only way to restore the balance of federalism in our Republic.
Fighting for the Constitution as given to us by our Founders is a noble goal and the anxiety of the conservative con-con collaborators is understandable. We at The New American and The John Birch Society welcome the help of all those courageous enough to enlist in the battle to defeat the forces of federal absolutism. We part company with those pushing for an Article V convention, however, and we believe that a constitutional convention is not the right way to stop the federal assault on our Constitution and the freedoms it protects.
The New American and many other liberty-minded organizations promote nullification as the “rightful remedy” for curing the constant federal overreaching. We believe that as the agent of the states, the federal government has exceeded its contractual authority and the states as principals have the right to refuse to ratify any such usurpation.
Since the publication of Levin’s admittedly popular book, the battle between those promoting nullification and those advocating for an Article V constitutional convention is a topic getting plenty of coverage in the alternative media.
There is another uncomfortable aspect of the Article V movement that is not being discussed, however, but needs to be, particularly in light of the good people who have associated themselves with it.
Within the ranks of those clamoring for an Article V convention are found numerous extremely radical, progressive, and socialist organizations that otherwise would have little in common with the conservatives fighting on the same side.
Wolf-Pac is one of the groups that this reporter suspects many Levin listeners would be surprised to know is their compatriot in a call for a con-con.
On its website, Wolf-Pac pushes for an Article V “convention of the states” as the best way to accomplish its “ultimate goal:"
To restore true democracy in the United States by pressuring our State Representatives to pass a much needed 28th Amendment to our Constitution which would end corporate personhood and publicly finance all elections in our country.
In order to persuade Americans to join its cause, Wolf-Pac will:
inform the public by running television commercials, radio ads, social media, internet ads, and using the media platform of the largest online news show in the world, The Young Turks.
The Young Turks? Most constitutionalists (and I imagine most fans of Mark Levin) don’t spend much time during the day watching the Young Turks, the YouTube-based news and entertainment channel that dubs itself the “world’s largest online news network.”
As unfamiliar as they may be with the Young Turks, it seems certain conservatives pushing for a con-con are even more unfamiliar with who pays the bills at this online purveyor of progressive ideology: George Soros (shown). Dan Gainor reports:
In fact, Soros funds nearly every major left-wing media source in the United States. Forty-five of those are financed through his support of the Media Consortium. That organization 'is a network of the country's leading, progressive, independent media outlets.' The list is predictable — everything from Alternet to the Young Turks.
That’s right. George Soros — the financier of global fascism — is pumping millions of dollars into the same Article V campaign that is being promoted by Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and other popular conservative spokesmen.
What will those in Wolf-Pac do if they are able to get “their amendment” proposed and accepted by an Article V convention?
“Celebrate the fact that we had the courage and persistance [sic] to accomplish something truly amazing and historic together.”
Anything a group with this anti-constitutional agenda would do to our Constitution would certainly be historic — in the worst way.
This should be enough to convince all true conservatives, constitutionalists, and friends of liberty to run headlong away from the ranks of the Article V con-con army, regardless of how popular and persuasive their generals may be.
It will likely surprise these devoted, but deluded, Article V advocates that Wolf-Pac is just the tip of the iceberg. These good people would be wise to take a look at this heavily abbreviated roster of their radical fellow travelers in the con-con movement, each of which is a registered “founding member” of the “Move to Amend” coalition.
Alliance for Democracy
Center for Media and Democracy
Code Pink
Independent Progressive Politics Network
Progressive Democrats of America
Sierra Club
Vermont for Single Payer
Mind you, hundreds more groups “committed to social and economic justice, ending corporate rule, and building a vibrant democracy” are gathered under this umbrella.
This hardly seems to be a corps that most Levin listeners would be happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with in the fight for a “convention of the states.” In fairness, these allies likely don’t share their conservative cohorts’ love and loyalty to the Constitution.
It’s time these right-minded men and women know with whom they are associating.
Its doubtful that Mark Levin’s legion of listeners would be as eager to get behind his Article V con-con agenda if they knew whom they were fighting beside and how radically their new allies want to change our beloved Constitution.
And that’s the problem. Regardless of the soothing words of Levin or others in the con-con camp, they cannot guarantee the outcome of such a convention. In fact, in light of the lists of leftist groups provided above, the results of the convention could be an outright scrapping of the Constitution written by the Founders in favor of one more in line with the progressive ideologies of Wolf-Pac, the Sierra Club, Code Pink, and others.
Remember, according to the history of Article V-style conventions, regardless of any state or congressional legislation requiring them to consider only one amendment (a balanced budget amendment, for example), the delegates elected to the convention would possess unlimited, though not unprecedented, power to propose revisions to the existing Constitution, based on the inherent right of the People in convention to alter or revise their government.
The mind boggles at the potential proposals that could come out of a convention composed of such radical representatives.
Don’t forget, George Soros’s billions are funding these fringe groups and politicians aren't known for their ability to resist hefty campaign contributions.
Conservatives should shudder at the specter of a convention endowed with power of this magnitude, populated by activists who have a Soros credit card in their pocket and a commitment to “social justice” as their purpose. All the good intentions of the conservatives in the Article V camp would not be enough to force all these devastating changes to the Constitution back inside the progressive Pandora's Box.
Readers are encouraged to click the links provided in this article and to investigate for themselves the agenda of the various Article V advocates and to determine if it's worth the risk to our Constitution that would be posed by the presence of these groups in the "convention of the states."
Finally, the startling information set out in this article is not meant as an attack on Mark Levin or anyone else working to call a “convention of the states.” Rather, it is intended to help the thousands of committed constitutionalists who find themselves believing in the Article V gospel he’s preaching to realize who’s sitting in the pews with them and whose money built the church.
Photo of George Soros: AP Images
Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels frequently nationwide speaking on topics of nullification, the NDAA, the Second Amendment, and the surveillance state. He is the co-founder of Liberty Rising, an educational endeavor aimed at promoting and preserving the Constitution. Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at [email protected]
In his new book, Levin argues that such a convention is the last hope “to reform the federal government from its degenerate, bloated, imperial structure back to its (smaller) republican roots.”
Unfortunately, many otherwise well-educated and well-meaning conservatives have succumbed to Levin’s siren song and they have gone so far as to deny the constitutionality of nullification and to insist that an Article V convention is the only way to restore the balance of federalism in our Republic.
Fighting for the Constitution as given to us by our Founders is a noble goal and the anxiety of the conservative con-con collaborators is understandable. We at The New American and The John Birch Society welcome the help of all those courageous enough to enlist in the battle to defeat the forces of federal absolutism. We part company with those pushing for an Article V convention, however, and we believe that a constitutional convention is not the right way to stop the federal assault on our Constitution and the freedoms it protects.
The New American and many other liberty-minded organizations promote nullification as the “rightful remedy” for curing the constant federal overreaching. We believe that as the agent of the states, the federal government has exceeded its contractual authority and the states as principals have the right to refuse to ratify any such usurpation.
Since the publication of Levin’s admittedly popular book, the battle between those promoting nullification and those advocating for an Article V constitutional convention is a topic getting plenty of coverage in the alternative media.
There is another uncomfortable aspect of the Article V movement that is not being discussed, however, but needs to be, particularly in light of the good people who have associated themselves with it.
Within the ranks of those clamoring for an Article V convention are found numerous extremely radical, progressive, and socialist organizations that otherwise would have little in common with the conservatives fighting on the same side.
Wolf-Pac is one of the groups that this reporter suspects many Levin listeners would be surprised to know is their compatriot in a call for a con-con.
On its website, Wolf-Pac pushes for an Article V “convention of the states” as the best way to accomplish its “ultimate goal:"
To restore true democracy in the United States by pressuring our State Representatives to pass a much needed 28th Amendment to our Constitution which would end corporate personhood and publicly finance all elections in our country.
In order to persuade Americans to join its cause, Wolf-Pac will:
inform the public by running television commercials, radio ads, social media, internet ads, and using the media platform of the largest online news show in the world, The Young Turks.
The Young Turks? Most constitutionalists (and I imagine most fans of Mark Levin) don’t spend much time during the day watching the Young Turks, the YouTube-based news and entertainment channel that dubs itself the “world’s largest online news network.”
As unfamiliar as they may be with the Young Turks, it seems certain conservatives pushing for a con-con are even more unfamiliar with who pays the bills at this online purveyor of progressive ideology: George Soros (shown). Dan Gainor reports:
In fact, Soros funds nearly every major left-wing media source in the United States. Forty-five of those are financed through his support of the Media Consortium. That organization 'is a network of the country's leading, progressive, independent media outlets.' The list is predictable — everything from Alternet to the Young Turks.
That’s right. George Soros — the financier of global fascism — is pumping millions of dollars into the same Article V campaign that is being promoted by Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and other popular conservative spokesmen.
What will those in Wolf-Pac do if they are able to get “their amendment” proposed and accepted by an Article V convention?
“Celebrate the fact that we had the courage and persistance [sic] to accomplish something truly amazing and historic together.”
Anything a group with this anti-constitutional agenda would do to our Constitution would certainly be historic — in the worst way.
This should be enough to convince all true conservatives, constitutionalists, and friends of liberty to run headlong away from the ranks of the Article V con-con army, regardless of how popular and persuasive their generals may be.
It will likely surprise these devoted, but deluded, Article V advocates that Wolf-Pac is just the tip of the iceberg. These good people would be wise to take a look at this heavily abbreviated roster of their radical fellow travelers in the con-con movement, each of which is a registered “founding member” of the “Move to Amend” coalition.
Alliance for Democracy
Center for Media and Democracy
Code Pink
Independent Progressive Politics Network
Progressive Democrats of America
Sierra Club
Vermont for Single Payer
Mind you, hundreds more groups “committed to social and economic justice, ending corporate rule, and building a vibrant democracy” are gathered under this umbrella.
This hardly seems to be a corps that most Levin listeners would be happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with in the fight for a “convention of the states.” In fairness, these allies likely don’t share their conservative cohorts’ love and loyalty to the Constitution.
It’s time these right-minded men and women know with whom they are associating.
Its doubtful that Mark Levin’s legion of listeners would be as eager to get behind his Article V con-con agenda if they knew whom they were fighting beside and how radically their new allies want to change our beloved Constitution.
And that’s the problem. Regardless of the soothing words of Levin or others in the con-con camp, they cannot guarantee the outcome of such a convention. In fact, in light of the lists of leftist groups provided above, the results of the convention could be an outright scrapping of the Constitution written by the Founders in favor of one more in line with the progressive ideologies of Wolf-Pac, the Sierra Club, Code Pink, and others.
Remember, according to the history of Article V-style conventions, regardless of any state or congressional legislation requiring them to consider only one amendment (a balanced budget amendment, for example), the delegates elected to the convention would possess unlimited, though not unprecedented, power to propose revisions to the existing Constitution, based on the inherent right of the People in convention to alter or revise their government.
The mind boggles at the potential proposals that could come out of a convention composed of such radical representatives.
Don’t forget, George Soros’s billions are funding these fringe groups and politicians aren't known for their ability to resist hefty campaign contributions.
Conservatives should shudder at the specter of a convention endowed with power of this magnitude, populated by activists who have a Soros credit card in their pocket and a commitment to “social justice” as their purpose. All the good intentions of the conservatives in the Article V camp would not be enough to force all these devastating changes to the Constitution back inside the progressive Pandora's Box.
Readers are encouraged to click the links provided in this article and to investigate for themselves the agenda of the various Article V advocates and to determine if it's worth the risk to our Constitution that would be posed by the presence of these groups in the "convention of the states."
Finally, the startling information set out in this article is not meant as an attack on Mark Levin or anyone else working to call a “convention of the states.” Rather, it is intended to help the thousands of committed constitutionalists who find themselves believing in the Article V gospel he’s preaching to realize who’s sitting in the pews with them and whose money built the church.
Photo of George Soros: AP Images
Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels frequently nationwide speaking on topics of nullification, the NDAA, the Second Amendment, and the surveillance state. He is the co-founder of Liberty Rising, an educational endeavor aimed at promoting and preserving the Constitution. Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at [email protected]
Pros and Cons of Constitutional Conventions
Added by admin on September 6, 2013.
Saved under Conservative, Editorial, Libertarian
Tags: Article V Constitutional Convention, Articles of Confederation, con-con, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh., Sean Hannity, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic
Saved under Conservative, Editorial, Libertarian
Tags: Article V Constitutional Convention, Articles of Confederation, con-con, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh., Sean Hannity, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic
Viewpoint By Bob & Christina Powers
Mounting frustrations with the size and scope of the United States federal government have ebbed and flowed over the years with calls for a Constitutional Convention, touted as the solution for controlling an leviathan government. Mark Levin’s current book, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic, promises a “quick fix” but at what cost? Political commentators Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh have also taken up the cause. In the past such movements always died when the public realized the consequences of such dangerous undertakings.
There have been two Constitutional Conventions in our history and both were held in secret. The first was to alter the Articles of Confederation. Rhode Island chose not to participate for unknown reasons. When convened, the Articles (all delegates being in agreement for revision) were completely abandoned and our new US Constitution was born. Although our current Constitution is a fine document by all accounts, some things were lost such as the unanimous ratification among the States for amendments The Constitutional Convention, in effect, became a “runaway” convention in which the prior form of government was scrapped and a new one created, all in secret.
The second, convened on February 4, 1861. Forty-three delegates from South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, and Louisiana assembled in Montgomery, Alabama, to write a provisional constitution for the Confederate States of America, also done in secret.
The Framers of our Constitution recognized the need to address unanticipated issues and changes that would arise in the future that could not be addressed specifically in the new Constitution and thus, Article V was created which states:
Mounting frustrations with the size and scope of the United States federal government have ebbed and flowed over the years with calls for a Constitutional Convention, touted as the solution for controlling an leviathan government. Mark Levin’s current book, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic, promises a “quick fix” but at what cost? Political commentators Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh have also taken up the cause. In the past such movements always died when the public realized the consequences of such dangerous undertakings.
There have been two Constitutional Conventions in our history and both were held in secret. The first was to alter the Articles of Confederation. Rhode Island chose not to participate for unknown reasons. When convened, the Articles (all delegates being in agreement for revision) were completely abandoned and our new US Constitution was born. Although our current Constitution is a fine document by all accounts, some things were lost such as the unanimous ratification among the States for amendments The Constitutional Convention, in effect, became a “runaway” convention in which the prior form of government was scrapped and a new one created, all in secret.
The second, convened on February 4, 1861. Forty-three delegates from South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, and Louisiana assembled in Montgomery, Alabama, to write a provisional constitution for the Confederate States of America, also done in secret.
The Framers of our Constitution recognized the need to address unanticipated issues and changes that would arise in the future that could not be addressed specifically in the new Constitution and thus, Article V was created which states:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in the Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this constitution, when ratifies by the Legislature of three fourths of the several States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by Congress; …. |
In other words, there are two ways to make changes to the Constitution (Amendments): (1) by two-thirds vote by both Houses of Congress; or (2) on Application by the legislatures of two-thirds of the States calling for a convention for proposed Amendments, known as a Constitutional Convention or Con-Con. Amendments are then ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures or state conventions.
In 1983, the Con-Con movement hit a high point when Missouri became the 32nd State (out of 34 required) with calls for a Balanced Budget Amendment. Since then, several States have considered calling a balanced budget Con-Con but all have decided the risks were far too great. Thus far, 11 States have withdrawn their previous endorsement.
Since then, there have been numerous attempts to resurrect a Balanced Budget Amendment in different guises. In 2009 Prof. Randy Barnett’s proposed “Bill of Federalism” (10 amendments) was marketed to Tea Partiers by the Wall Street Journal and Michael P. Leahy (Top Conservatives on Twitter) as a threat (nuclear option) to force Congress to listen to conservatives. Surprisingly, even Judge Napolitano (who should know better), made the Con-Con pitch. Currently, none gathered enough national steam.
Proponents cite the fact that (1) three-fourths of the States are needed to ratify the Amendment(s) and thus, is a strong enough deterrent against “bad” amendments, and (2) that State legislatures can limit the size and scope of a Con-Con (to which history proves and honest proponents admit is false). To quote Prof. Randy Barnett “An amendments convention is feared because its scope cannot be limited in advance” and yet he advocates in favor of this remedy.
Opponents of Con-Cons cite the risks involved. They are : (1) Once called, it becomes its own authority and cannot be limited, (2) It can become a “runaway” convention in which our current form of government and its constitutional protections are completely thrown out and a new form of government is created, (3) Given the current caliber of our representatives, our delegates cannot be expected to have the knowledge, understanding or commitment to limited governance, liberty and freedom shared by the original drafters of our Constitution. In fact, many have been busily disregarding and disrespecting it for years despite their oaths of office when it serves their own interests.Additionally our representatives are increasingly beholden to special interest groups and corporations, and (4) The public’s lack of education on the Constitution and its virtues has led to increased government dependence that are mitigating factors in favor of bigger government.
Opponents have some impressive heavyweights on their side when arguing that Con-Cons are impractical and impossible to limit. They include jurists and legal scholars of all political persuasions, including James Madison, Chief Justice Warren Burger, Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, Harvard Law School Prof. Lawrence Tribe, Notre Dame Law School Prof. Charles Rice, Yale Law School Prof. Thomas Emerson, and Stanford Law School Prof. Gerald Gunther and Judge Robert Bork. Quoting Justice Warren Burger, “A Constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all for special interest groups, television coverage, and press speculation.”
Considering the risk factors inherent in a Constitutional Convention at a time when our country is increasingly polarized, one has to ask, why choose the “nuclear option” when the Constitution provides for more practical, safe remedies? Many of the problems we face today are a result of changing or misinterpreting the Constitution in the first place. Why pass more laws or amendments, if the government refuses to follow the ones we have? They will not follow a balanced budget amendment if they don’t want to. We need to address the real problem of our government violating the laws we have. The people MUST elect and then INSIST our representatives be held to account in faithfully upholding the LAW –THE CONSTITUTION (which limits the size and scope of government in the first place). Many of our problems would be solved as a result.
In 1983, the Con-Con movement hit a high point when Missouri became the 32nd State (out of 34 required) with calls for a Balanced Budget Amendment. Since then, several States have considered calling a balanced budget Con-Con but all have decided the risks were far too great. Thus far, 11 States have withdrawn their previous endorsement.
Since then, there have been numerous attempts to resurrect a Balanced Budget Amendment in different guises. In 2009 Prof. Randy Barnett’s proposed “Bill of Federalism” (10 amendments) was marketed to Tea Partiers by the Wall Street Journal and Michael P. Leahy (Top Conservatives on Twitter) as a threat (nuclear option) to force Congress to listen to conservatives. Surprisingly, even Judge Napolitano (who should know better), made the Con-Con pitch. Currently, none gathered enough national steam.
Proponents cite the fact that (1) three-fourths of the States are needed to ratify the Amendment(s) and thus, is a strong enough deterrent against “bad” amendments, and (2) that State legislatures can limit the size and scope of a Con-Con (to which history proves and honest proponents admit is false). To quote Prof. Randy Barnett “An amendments convention is feared because its scope cannot be limited in advance” and yet he advocates in favor of this remedy.
Opponents of Con-Cons cite the risks involved. They are : (1) Once called, it becomes its own authority and cannot be limited, (2) It can become a “runaway” convention in which our current form of government and its constitutional protections are completely thrown out and a new form of government is created, (3) Given the current caliber of our representatives, our delegates cannot be expected to have the knowledge, understanding or commitment to limited governance, liberty and freedom shared by the original drafters of our Constitution. In fact, many have been busily disregarding and disrespecting it for years despite their oaths of office when it serves their own interests.Additionally our representatives are increasingly beholden to special interest groups and corporations, and (4) The public’s lack of education on the Constitution and its virtues has led to increased government dependence that are mitigating factors in favor of bigger government.
Opponents have some impressive heavyweights on their side when arguing that Con-Cons are impractical and impossible to limit. They include jurists and legal scholars of all political persuasions, including James Madison, Chief Justice Warren Burger, Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, Harvard Law School Prof. Lawrence Tribe, Notre Dame Law School Prof. Charles Rice, Yale Law School Prof. Thomas Emerson, and Stanford Law School Prof. Gerald Gunther and Judge Robert Bork. Quoting Justice Warren Burger, “A Constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all for special interest groups, television coverage, and press speculation.”
Considering the risk factors inherent in a Constitutional Convention at a time when our country is increasingly polarized, one has to ask, why choose the “nuclear option” when the Constitution provides for more practical, safe remedies? Many of the problems we face today are a result of changing or misinterpreting the Constitution in the first place. Why pass more laws or amendments, if the government refuses to follow the ones we have? They will not follow a balanced budget amendment if they don’t want to. We need to address the real problem of our government violating the laws we have. The people MUST elect and then INSIST our representatives be held to account in faithfully upholding the LAW –THE CONSTITUTION (which limits the size and scope of government in the first place). Many of our problems would be solved as a result.
Furthermore, problems can and need be addressed directly in the States by refusing to allow or recognize unconstitutional laws within their borders and refusing to be controlled by a carrot and stick method of force (taxes) used by the federal government. The process of nullification is the rightful remedy for States, not to be taken lightly, of course, but as a last line of defense against a federal government that has broken its limits. The States created the federal government not the other way around. Enforcement of the Constitution is more practical, cost effective and less risky than revising the Constitution. Don’t be fooled by the false promises for a quick and easy fix. It will cost you more than you bargain for.
Bob & Christina Powers are a couple of Simi Valley activists who recently became Citizen Journalists, too
I don't presume to be the sharpest tool in the shed. I stand on the shoulders of many people greater than myself by attempting to bring together the best sources of reliable information, giving credit where credit is due. I try my best to research and connect the dots to get to the truth of the matter. Don't just take my word for it. Do your own homework to know the subject, and understand what you know, so you can speak knowledgeably with others. Keep your mind open to new ideas and information and then analyze it using the good common sense that God gave you to arrive at an informed conclusion. Question BOLDLY. Respect other people, their opinions, and their property. Vote for the Constitution does not necessarily endorse any comment or post herein and is intended only for information and research purposes only. I am not an attorney or certified financial advisor and nothing on this website shall be construed or relied upon as providing legal or tax advice.
Fair Use Notice Act Disclaimer: This website may contain copyrighted material of which use may not be authorized by the copyright owners. Under section 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research. If you wish to use this material that goes beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Fair use notwithstanding, I will comply with any copyright owner who wants their material removed, modified, or wants me to link to their website, or wants us to add their photo.
Fair Use Notice Act Disclaimer: This website may contain copyrighted material of which use may not be authorized by the copyright owners. Under section 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research. If you wish to use this material that goes beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Fair use notwithstanding, I will comply with any copyright owner who wants their material removed, modified, or wants me to link to their website, or wants us to add their photo.
Copyright © 2019-2024 Vote for the Constitution. All rights reserved.
|
Proudly powered by Weebly
|