There's a lot more to this article, but it was too long to allow me to post it. You'll have to use the link to get the rest: http://www.valdostateaparty.com/NO-Constitutional-Convention.html
NO Constitutional Convention
Five Myths concerning Article V
Myth #1: An Article V Convention or an Amendments Convention or a Convention of States is not the same type of convention as a Constitutional Convention (aka Con-Con).
Reality: Proponents of a convention agree that a con-con is dangerous but will quickly point out that they are calling for a [insert your favorite convention term here]1. In reality these terms are interchangeable. In the late 70’s/early 80’s a con-con fell two states shy of being convened due to the educational efforts of organizations (The John Birch Society, Eagle Forum, etc.) which explained the inherent dangers of a convention. Today, the idea of a convention is being repackaged to make the proposal look attractive to newly awakened and unsuspecting patriotic Americans. The easiest way to dispel this myth is to ask which part of the Constitution grants the authority for the convention being proposed. Regardless of the term used, the same clause in the Constitution is always referenced: "The Congress... on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments..." Don’t be fooled by the different terms, they all refer to the same type of convention.
Myth #2: States call the convention and/or have control over the convention.
Reality: This myth is destroyed by simply reading the text of Article V. The grant of authority to convene a convention is given to Congress. The states only have power to petition Congress. Once two-thirds of the several states petition Congress to call a convention then Congress is constitutionally required to establish the convention. Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 delegates to Congress the power "[t]o make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers [that is, in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 through 17], and all other powers vested by this Constitution...." The power to "call a convention for proposing amendments" is one of those "all other powers". Therefore, pursuant to that power, Congress may enact whatever "law[ ] which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the ... power[ to call a convention]"2. This exclusive authority would include (1) establishing procedures to summon a convention; (2) setting the amount of time allotted to its deliberations; (3) determining the number and selection process for its delegates; (4) setting internal convention procedures, including formulae for allocation of votes among the states; and (5) arranging for the formal transmission of any proposed amendments to the states3.
Myth #3: States can limit a convention to specific amendments or topics through their application for a convention.
Reality: Article V is broadly inclusive: "... on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, [Congress] shall call a convention for proposing amendments (emphasis added)...." It places no limitation on the number or scope of amendments that would be within a convention's purview. Any new convention must have the authority to study, debate, and submit to the states for ratification whatever amendments the convention considers appropriate. A limited convention would be constitutionally impermissible for the reason that no language is found in Article V that authorizes them. Consequently, the many hundreds of state applications for a convention to consider amendments on a particular subject are null and void4.
Myth #4: The ratification of any new amendments to the Constitution requires a minimal approval of three-fourths of the several states [assuming the minimal 75% threshold cannot be lowered].
Reality: The Articles of Confederation originally established the United States of America when all thirteen states ratified it in 1781. This was the first constitution for the united States and remained so until it was replaced by the current U.S. Constitution in 1789. Article XIII of our first constitution required approval by all thirteen states for any changes made to the Articles of Confederation. It read, in part:"...the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State (emphasis added)." This stipulation was not met when the Continental Congress proclaimed that the new Constitution had been ratified on September 13, 1788. When the new government convened for the first time on March 4, 1789, North Carolina and Rhode Island had not yet ratified the new constitution. One constitutional 'expert' erroneously claimed this precondition was met when each state merely called for a state ratification convention5, yet Rhode Island did not call for a state ratifying convention until January 17, 1790. Patrick Henry stated: "I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past." History provides an example of a future convention potentially creating a new constitution and bypassing the current ratification specifications.
Myth #5: A convention cannot change the whole Constitution [assuming there are limits for changes and that drastic alterations cannot be made to the current Constitution].
Reality: According to Article V the only prohibition against changes to the Constitution is "that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." Can the first amendment be changed? Constitutionally, yes. Can the second, fourth or ninth amendment be changed? Constitutionally, yes. Can the ratification process be changed? Constitutionally, yes. Apart from the one remaining prohibition mentioned in Article V, a convention can change every other aspect of the Constitution and it can change as much of the Constitution as the convention decides. Daniel Webster admonished: "Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again."
1. COS Project Team, Constitutional Convention vs. a Convention of States,http://www.conventionofstates.com/news/constitutional-convention-vs-convention-states-0, (Accessed November 12, 2013).
2. Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D., Prudent Fear of the Unknown Is No "Fallacy",http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin262.htm, (Accessed November 12, 2013).
3. Congressional Research Service, The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Contemporary Issues for Congress, p. 4.
4. Ibid., pp. 10-11.
5. Michael Farris, Through the Founder's eyes, http://www.hslda.org/courtreport/v21n4/V21N401.asp, (Accessed November 12, 2013
Emergency ALERT: Article V Constitutional Convention—Con Con
MESSAGE: Vote NO on SR 371 an application for an Article V Constitutional Convention for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Georgia receives 38.06% of its state budget from the Federal Government. If Georgia really wants the federal government to balance the federal budget then Georgia should send back all federal money coming into Georgia. Are you as a Representative willing to refuse the federal money and mandates? Unless you are, an application for a Constitutional Convention for a balanced federal budget is a sham. Article V does not limit a convention to one subject but states, “for proposing Amendments.” There is no way to limit an Article V Convention. In 2014, Georgia rescinded all its applications for a Convention for good reason (or write your own message — more info below).
CONTACT ALL Members Please call IMMEDIATELY
wendell.willard@house.ga.gov, barry.fleming@house.ga.gov, Stephen.allison@house.ga.gov, roger.bruce@house.ga.gov, johnnie.caldwell@house.ga.gov, stacey.evans@house.ga.gov, ladawn.jones@house.ga.gov, trey.kelley@house.ga.gov, edward.lindsey@house.ga.gov, ronnie.mabra@house.ga.gov, mary.oliver@house.ga.gov, larry.oneal@house.ga.gov, jay.powell@house.ga.gov, dale.rutledge@house.ga.gov, pam.stephenson@house.ga.gov, andy.welch@house.ga.gov, tom.weldon@house.ga.gov, rich.golick@house.ga.gov, joe.wilkinson@house.ga.gov
Call House Judiciary Representatives (all are area code 404) Willard, Ch., 656-5125; Fleming, V-Ch., 656-0152; Allison, Sec., 656-0188; Bruce, 656-0314; Caldwell, 656-0325; Evans, 656-6372; Golick, 656-5943; Jacobs, 656-5116; Jones, 656-7859; Kelley, 656-0287; Lindsey, 656-0177; Mabra, 656-7859; Oliver, 656-0265; O’Neal, 656-5052; Powell, 656-7855; Rutledge, 656-0109; Stephenson, 656-0126; Welch, 656-0213; Weldon, 656-0213;and Wilkinson, 463-8143.
Copy of Bill: http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20132014/132223.pdf
Article V of the U.S. Constitution 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 either Case shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures 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 the Congress…” Notice that Congress Calls the Convention and will set the rules…not the States.
Question: Why do we think that the Congress that ignores the Constitution now would be any more likely to abide by a new amendment to the Constitution?
This website lists the percentages of state budgets coming from the Federal Government. Highest Mississippi: 45.35% to Alaska 19.97%. This is why a Balanced Budget Amendment won’t work, because the Legislators, conservative or not, will not vote to reject federal funds and mandates.
http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/publications/detail/new-data-reveals-amount-of-federal-aid-to-states-in-2012
A Convention cannot be Limited: Former Chief Justice Warren Burger stated: “I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could mike its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don’t like its agenda…”
http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/concon/pdf/WarrenBurger-letter.pdf
Further Reading:
More Information from Eagle Forum: http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/concon/
Some Thoughts on Article V, by Tom DeWeese
This resolution passed in the Georgia Republican Party 11th District on January 27, 2014
RESOLUTION OPPOSING AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION OF THE STATES
WHEREAS a) There is nothing in Article V of the U.S. Constitution about a "unified subject rule;" b) Nothing in Article V says the applications from the legislatures of two-thirds of the states "MUST BE called for the same purpose." c) Nothing in Article V says "the subject matter limitation imposed by the states in their applications is binding at all stages of the process”, and,
WHEREAS, There has never been any law or court decision that says anything at all about the subject matter of state applications, and,
WHEREAS, No state (and no court) can force Congress to call a convention if Congress, in its sole judgment, decides that the two-thirds requirement has not been met, and,
WHEREAS, Article V does not say that (a) "State legislatures control this process from beginning to end," nor does it say that "Congress can only name the time and place," nor does it say that "State legislatures name the delegates and give them their instructions,” and,
WHEREAS, Article V allows states to submit an "application" which is nothing more than a petition to Congress; but only Congress has the power to actually call the convention, and,
WHEREAS, Article V does not give the states any power to regulate or control the convention after it is called, and,
WHEREAS, Article V does not say that (a) all voting at an Article V convention is done on the basis of one state, one vote, or that (b) it requires 26 states (or a simple majority of delegates) to approve anything, and,
WHEREAS, There has never been any law or judicial decision that says anything at all about how the voting would be conducted at an Article V convention, and,
WHEREAS, nothing in Article V sets forth who would be eligible to attend, how delegates are selected, what are the initial rules of procedure, who will be the initial chairman and how would the voting power be allocated or distributed and there is no precedent, law or court decision that answers these questions, and,
WHEREAS, the problems associated with an out of control government are due to an electorate who continue to elect politicians who do not enforce our constitution and there is therefore no reason to believe they would enforce conservative new amendments, now therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED that the 11th District of the Georgia Republican Party oppose any and all efforts to commence and conduct an Article V Convention.
Socialists and Soros Fight for Article V Convention
by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D. , January 15, 2014
A study reveals the identify of several progressive and socialist organizations using Soros money to fight for an Article V convention.
Mischief-Making about the Constitution
by Phyllis Schlafly
Attacks on the U.S. Constitution are coming from all sides. There are many pressure groups that just don’t like our U.S. Constitution, even though it is the longest lasting Constitution in history and has enabled us to prosper with 43 peaceful changes of government. Back in the 1970s, powerful and highly placed U.S. officials made a strenuous effort to change us into a parliamentary system of government. The global government-oriented Council on Foreign Relations has said that the provision it despises the most is the treaty clause, which requires the vote of two-thirds of Senators to ratify a treaty.
More recently, there have been several groups with intricate but conflicting plans to persuade us to hold a national convention in order to add major amendments to our Constitution. The New York Times opened its op-ed page to several liberal professors of government: one calls our Constitution “imbecilic,” another claims it contains “archaic” and “evil provisions,” and a third urges us to “rewrite the Second Amendment.”*
Out of exasperation with the flouting of the Constitution by Barack Obama and his acolytes, and the way Congress is letting them get by with these violations, several conservative authors and pundits are toying with the idea of calling a national convention to propose amendments to the Constitution, which they believe can put our country on a wiser path.
They want to use a procedure authorized by Article V of our Constitution. In the 1970s and 1980s, this was called a constitutional convention (which people dubbed a Con Con). Now they call it an Article V convention, but it is clear they want a convention that will make major constitutional changes.
However, they are fooling themselves when they suggest that Article V creates a path to bypass Congress by means of a “convention of states.” The only power the states are given by Article V is the opportunity to submit an “application” (petition) humbly beseeching Congress to call a convention. Hundreds of such applications have been submitted over the years, with widely different purposes and wording, many applications were later rescinded, and many purport to make the application valid for only one particular amendment such as a federal balanced budget or congressional term limits.
Article V states that Congress “shall” call a convention on the application of two-thirds of state legislatures (34), but how will Congress count valid applications when many say they are valid for a convention only to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment? We don’t know which applications are in the count, and so far Congress has ignored them anyway. The states have passed at least 400 convention applications; some say there may be as many as 600 on file.
If Congress ever decides to act, Article V gives Congress exclusive power to issue the “Call” for a convention to propose “amendments” (note the plural). The Call is the governing document which determines all the basic rules such as where and when a convention will be held, who is eligible to be a delegate (will current office-holders be eligible?), how delegates will be apportioned, how expenses will be paid, and who will be the chairman.
Article V also gives Congress the power to determine whether the ratification of amendments by three-fourths of the states would be implemented by the state legislatures or by state conventions.
The most important question to which there is no sure answer is how will convention delegates be apportioned? Will each state have one vote (no matter how many delegates it sends), which was the rule in the 1787 Philadelphia convention? Or will the convention be apportioned according to population (like Congress or the Electoral College)? Nothing in Article V gives the states any power to make this fundamental decision. If apportionment is by population, the big states will control the outcome.
Current advocates of an Article V convention seem to think they can get the ball rolling by having a convention called by the states. Of course, the states can have a jolly get-together anytime they want, but a “convention of states” has no power to amend the Constitution. Only a convention called by Congress has that power.
Article V doesn’t give any power to the states to propose constitutional amendments, or to decide which amendments will be considered (or not considered) by the convention. Article V doesn’t give any special power to the courts to correct what does or does not happen.
Everything else about how an Article V Convention would function, including its agenda, is up for grabs. Advocates of an Article Vconvention can hope and predict, but they cannot assure us that any of their plans will come true. And remember, there is no consensus among the various Article V groups about which constitutional planks they really want. Imagine Democratic and Republican conventions meeting in the same hall and trying to agree on constitutional changes!
If we follow the model of the 1787 Convention, will the deliberations be secret? Are you kidding? Nothing is secret any more. What are the plans to deal with protesters: the gun-control lobby, the gay lobby, the abortion lobby, the green lobby, occupy Wall Street, plus experienced protesters trained by Obama’s Organizing for Action, at what would surely be the biggest media event of the year, if not of the century.
There is no proof that the VIPs promoting an Article V convention have any first-hand knowledge of the politics or procedures of a contested national convention. Don’t they realize that the convention will set its own agenda and that states will have no sayso over which amendments will be considered?
A recent example of how a convention chairman wielding the gavel can manipulate what happens is the way the 2012 Democratic National Convention chairman ruthlessly called the vote wrong when a delegate tried to add a reference to God to the party platform. The chairman took the vote three times, and then declared the amendment passed even though we all saw on television that the “Noes” won the vote.
The whole process is a prescription for political chaos, controversy and confrontation. I’m worried about those who think they can do a better job than George Washington, James Madison, Ben Franklin and Alexander Hamilton.
Arguments of Convention Advocates
Among those who have indulged in public criticism of those who warn about the mischief of holding a “convention for proposing amendments” to the U.S. Constitution is Rob Natelson, who taught law and constitutional history at the University of Montana. Like many self-important professors, he writes as though he knows the answers to all the questions people have been raising about how a convention would be called, delegates apportioned and agenda set. He presumes to know what was in the minds of the Founding Fathers. He even predicts how the Supreme Court would rule in contested cases about a convention.
Natelson states that a new convention for proposing constitutional amendments would be bound to follow the example set by the several meetings of the states that took place before the Constitutional Convention met in 1787, that is, before Article V was written. He argues that all those gatherings of the states before the Convention that wrote the U.S. Constitution would somehow be a binding precedent on any future convention. He also assures us that a new Article V convention will follow the procedures used in an 1861 (Civil War era) convention of the states.
Of course, states can have a national meeting anytime they want to get together, but that does not empower them to write new language for the U.S. Constitution.
Natelson seems eager for the federal courts to decide any disputes about the rules and the agenda and other decisions of a proposed Article V convention. Article V doesn’t mention any involvement of the judiciary, but of course, anybody can file a lawsuit. Only a know-it-all professor would have the temerity to predict how the courts would rule.
Natelson scoffs at warnings that there could be a “runaway” convention, which means the convention could consider many amendments beyond the scope of state applications that try to limit the convention to one subject, such as a Balanced Budget Amendment. Mark Levin’s new book, The Liberty Amendments, urges an Article V convention to adopt eleven new amendments! That would be a “runaway” according to all those applications that deny a convention the authority to consider more than one amendment.
All the articles that tell us not to worry about the mischief and pitfalls of an Article V convention added together don’t add up to the eloquent letter and prestige of the late U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger. (Burger’s letter is reproduced in full below.)
His analysis is fortified by many really distinguished constitutional authorities, both Republican and Democratic, who say it is impossible to restrict the agenda of a new convention to amend the Constitution, including Gerald Gunther of Stanford Law School (whose textbook is used in the majority of law schools), Charles Black of Yale, Walter Dellinger of Duke, and Charles Alan Wright of the University of Texas.
I’ve attended 16 Republican National Conventions plus many other national, state and district political conventions, and I’ve seen every kind of highhanded tactic and rules broken with the bang of the gavel, including cutting off microphones, recognizing only pre-selected delegates, expelling unwanted delegates, cheating on credentials and rules, fixing the voting machines, refusing to count the votes accurately, etc.
And I attended conventions with only Republicans! Double the opportunity for mischief when delegates are from two or three parties. How do Sarah Palin and Al Sharpton work out a proposed plank?
* “imbecilic”: Sanford Levinson, New York Times, 5-28-12; “archaic”: Louis Michael Seidman, New York Times, 12-31-12; “rewrite the Second Amendment”: Zachary Elkins, New York Times, 4-4-13.
Read Chief Justice Warren Burger's letter here.
Many national organizations from all across the political spectrum oppose calling a Constitution Convention. These include the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Eagle Forum, Daughters of the American Revolution, Sons of the American Revolution, Gun Owners of America, National Rifle Association, The Conservative Caucus, John Birch Society, General Conference of Seventh Day Adventists, AFL-CIO, National Education Association, American Association of University Women, American Civil Liberties Union, People for the American Way, and American Association of Retired Persons.
"Resolved, By The American Legion in National Convention assembled in San Antonio, Texas, August 25, 26, 27, 1987, That it states its opposition to efforts to convene a Constitutional Convention for any purpose and specifically opposes the rewriting of the United States Constitution."
"Resolved, by the 85th National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, that we oppose any attempt to call a Constitutional Convention, as this would give our enemies from within and without the opportunity to destroy our Nation." Resolution No. 449, Adopted by the 85th National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States held in Chicago, Illinois, August 17-24, 1984.
"Resolved, That members of the National Society Daughters of the American Revolution oppose efforts to rewrite the Constitution by Constitutional Convention." Adopted by the DAR Continental Congress, April 1986, Washington, D.C.
"Resolved, By the eligible voting members at the 1992 Annual Meeting of the National Rifle Association of America held in Salt Lake City on the 25th of April, 1992, that we oppose any attempt to call for a Constitutional Convention for any purpose whatsoever because it cannot be limited to a single issue and that our right to keep and bear arms can be seriously eroded."
Good Advice Against an Article V Convention, by Phyllis Schlafly
The Father of the U.S. Constitution, James Madison, wrote this warning on November 2, 1788, against calling another general constitutional convention:
“If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides; it would probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric.
“Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America, and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned.”
Madison’s prophetic warnings against calling a convention to amend our Constitution are even more compelling today. Let’s examine his arguments.
A new convention would “naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress” to amend the Constitution. Indeed, that’s exactly what the Article V convention advocates want: a convention to bypass Congress and do what Congress won’t do.
A new convention would “give greater agitation to the public mind.” Indeed, a convention about amending the Constitution would attract dozens of groups agitating for various changes, creating a bigger media event even than a presidential election and dominated by Mainstream Media and theatrical demonstrators.
The election of convention delegates “would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides.” Of course, it would.
The convention would “probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters . . . heated men of all parties.” Think a repeat performance of the way the Obama crowd turned out voters in 2008 through his “Organizing for America.” Think ACORN, illegal voters and vote frauds.
The amendments convention “would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts . . . might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations” of our Constitution. A convention called under Article V would, indeed, be a magnet for individuals of “insidious” and “dangerous” views that could eat away at the foundations of liberty and a sovereign independent republic. These would include pressure groups seeking elimination of the Second Amendment, global governance through treaty law, deletion of the provision that requires a two-thirds majority of Senators to ratify treaties, the addition of new constitutional rights (such as same-sex marriage and government health care), elimination of the Electoral College, and other “insidious” and “dangerous” changes.
We could not presume that “the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony.” “Harmony”? You must be dreaming! Indeed, it would be a wild and raucous political event of world-class magnitude. Have you ever attended a hotly contested Republican or Democratic National Nominating Convention? Think the Democrats in Chicago in 1968 or Republicans in San Francisco in 1964 or Chicago in 1952. Now imagine trying to agree on constitutional principles and planks with the Obama demonstrators.
Madison trembled for the result of another convention in the “temper of America” in his time. We should, indeed, tremble for the result “in the present temper of America.” Think Obama’s proclaimed goal of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
Madison reminded us that the first Constitutional Convention “assembled under every propitious circumstance.” Those propitious circumstances included having George Washington as convention chairman. Somehow, we don’t see any George Washington or James Madison today, and we don’t want to put our fate in the hands of men who think they can improve on the work of George Washington and James Madison.
The Con in the Con-Con, by Nolen Cox
Calling a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) is high-risk “busy work” to solve a big spending problem of both political parties. The unconstitutional spending by Congress is facilitated by the leadership of both parties. Massive deficit spending is a terminal problem with catastrophic consequences. But equally catastrophic is calling a Con-Con in today’s political climate, to rip open the U.S. Constitution for revision by a few hand-picked state representatives.
A BBA can come in many flavors. A strong “clean” BBA would contain provisions to NOT raise taxes without a super-majority vote and a cap on federal spending to some external standard, such as % of GDP. A weak “dirty” BBA would not limit spending and allow revenues (taxes) to be raised to balance whatever spending budget Congress passes. On November 18, 2011, in a display of showmanship, the House of Representatives voted on a “dirty” BBA, and boy did they brag about that in their fundraising letters. Who even knows what kind of BBA a Con-Con would propose?
The idea of a Con-Con is a bad idea because of the risk of losing existing liberties and due process in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. There are numerous available remedies to excess spending but no way to replace lost liberties.
A Con-Con is not a real solution, but conservative “busy work” looking for a silver bullet to solve political problems. Conservatives are being used to build the Trojan horse for the liberals; a Con-Con has been a dream by liberals for decades.
Some see this as an inconsequential matter that we might gain from, and if the states do not like it they could not ratify it. Please consider what we witnessed in raw political-power-deals to convince senators to vote for Obamacare; unethical deals and the promise of money produced the votes to pass the bill. We would be extremely naïve to believe these type deals of arm-twisting and buying votes would not be present at the state level with those selected to represent us at a Con-Con. This is a condition our Founding Fathers did not deal with or expect we would be faced with when they wrote Article V.
It was because of corruption involved in the selection of U.S. Senators by some state legislatures that the Seventeenth Amendment was passed. The catastrophic consequence of that decision has converted U.S. Senators from guardians of their states’ rights to politicians swayed by lobbyists – foreign and domestic.
In today’s political climate of arm-twisting lobbyists, rampant corruption, a biased media and a dumbed-down electorate, it is naïve to think a Con-Con meeting of some state legislators will solve the problem of America’s debt crisis. The real solution will only come with diligent, hard work by grassroots patriots and replacement of entrenched politicians who are beholding to lobbyists for their reelection campaign money.
All fifty states depend on federal handouts; it’s about ¼ to ½ of most state budgets. Of Georgia’s budget, 42% comes from the feds. Just imagine the potential for deal making on a BBA, when most states would be facing bankruptcy if they failed to follow the dictates of fedgov. What makes anyone think dependent states will be different than voters dependent on handouts? It is folly to think we are going to have states all of a sudden vote on principle when they could be forced into bankruptcy by the lender. Some economic principles NEVER change: the borrower will be servant to the lender.
A runaway Con-Con would be irreversible by states. I am disappointed that in the face of such overwhelming logic and evidence that “conservatives” would support such a high-risk proposition that could completely change our form of government.
The timing on this national push for a Con-Con is suspect. Europe is slightly ahead of us in economic collapse and depression. The recommendations there are more and stricter United Nations (Common Market) guidelines, a common currency, more control, and less national sovereignty. When our economy melts down depression-style, we will probably be offered a similar UN type lifeboat solution.
Remember that Roosevelt injected the New Deal, massive socialism, devaluation of the currency and solidification of the Federal Reserve during the Depression. A liberal motto is “never let a crisis go to waste!” A Constitutional Convention is an opportunity for the fundamental, transformational change promised by Obama.
Is Article V in Our Future? by Phyllis Schlafly, August 28, 2013
Attacks on the U.S. Constitution are coming from all sides. The New York Times opened its op-ed page to several liberal professors of government: one calls our Constitution “imbecilic,” another claims it contains “archaic” and “evil provisions,” and a third urges us to “rewrite the Second Amendment.”
Out of exasperation with the flouting of the Constitution by Barack Obama and his acolytes, and the way Congress is letting them get by with these violations, several conservative authors and pundits are promoting the calling of a national convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. They believe a series of amendments can put our country on a wiser path.
The authority for such a procedure is Article V of our Constitution, so they are calling their plan of action an Article V convention. However, they are fooling themselves when they suggest that Article V creates a path to bypass Congress with a “convention of states.”
The only power the states have under Article V is the opportunity to submit an “application” (petition) humbly beseeching Congress to call a convention. Hundreds of such applications have been submitted over the years, with widely different purposes and wording, many applications were later rescinded, and some purport to make the application valid for only a particular amendment such as a federal balanced budget or congressional term limits.
Article V states that Congress “shall” call a convention on the application of two-thirds of state legislatures (34), but how will Congress count valid applications? We don’t know, and so far Congress has ignored them anyway.
If Congress ever decides to act, Article V gives Congress exclusive power to issue the “Call” for a convention to propose “amendments” (note the plural). The Call is the governing document which determines all the basic rules such as where and when a convention will be held, who is eligible to be a delegate (will current office-holders be eligible?), how delegates will be apportioned, how expenses will be paid, and who will be the chairman.
Article V also gives Congress the power to determine whether the three-fourths of the states required for ratification of amendments can ratify by the state legislature’s action or by state conventions.
The most important question to which there is no answer is how will convention delegates be apportioned? Will each state have one vote (no matter how many delegates it sends), which was the rule in the 1787 Philadelphia convention, or will the convention be apportioned according to population (like Congress or the Electoral College)?
Nothing in Article V gives the states any power to make this fundamental decision. If apportionment is by population, the big states will control the outcome.
Article V doesn’t give any power to the states to propose constitutional amendments, or to decide which amendments will be considered by the convention. Article V doesn’t give any power to the courts to correct what does or does not happen.
Now imagine Democratic and Republican conventions meeting in the same hall and trying to agree on constitutional changes. Imagine the gridlock in drafting a constitutional plank by caucuses led by Sarah Palin and Al Sharpton.
Everything else about how an Article V Convention would function, including its agenda, is anybody’s guess. Advocates of an Article V convention can hope and predict, but they cannot assure us that any of their plans will come true.
If we follow the model of the 1787 Convention, will the deliberations be secret? Are you kidding? Nothing is secret any more. What are the plans to deal with protesters: the gun-control lobby, the gay lobby, the abortion lobby, the green lobby, plus experienced protestors trained by Obama’s Organizing for Action, at what would surely be the biggest media event of the year, if not of the century.
There is no proof that the VIPs promoting an Article V convention have any first-hand knowledge of the politics or procedures of a contested national convention. Don’t they realize that the convention will set its own agenda and that states will have no sayso over which amendments are considered?
A recent example of how a convention chairman wielding the gavel can manipulate what happens is the way the 2012 Democratic National Convention chairman ruthlessly called the vote wrong when a delegate tried to add a reference to God in the party platform. The chairman got by with declaring the amendment passed even though we all saw on television that the “Noes” won the vote.
The whole process is a prescription for political chaos, controversy and confrontation. Alas, I don’t see any George Washingtons, James Madisons, Ben Franklins or Alexander Hamiltons around today who could do as good a job as the Founding Fathers, and I’m worried about the men who think they can.
A Floridian responds to a question from his state legislator about a Con-Con:
By Lloyd Bailey Jr.
If the Con-con is called, and when the convention is convened, there is no constitution in effect. The convention is not bound by any laws or chains. It tends to function as pure Democracy and even the method of ratification is not limited as history has taught. I ask you the question, where in the constitution are there limitations on the Con-con? The only guidance is in the very short Article V. There are no other references in the constitution that address the Convention. I have attached the Constitution for your convenience. Please read and highlight anything you find that limits the convention and return.
The solution is to enforce the constitution as written according to the design and intent of the founders. As we are currently observing, the House has the ability to shut down the Senate, Judiciary and the Executive through their control of the money and impeachment. All that is necessary to restore our Republic is to elect and maintain 218 congressional districts.
I emphasize, maintain because the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Eternal vigilance does not mean political action alone every two and four years. Eternal vigilance occurs when a concerned minority maintains a constant association with their state and federal representatives. Please note my reference to minority. Also, note that this responsibility primarily falls on the shoulders of the head of households in nuclear Christian families. We are not a Democracy and throughout history irate engaged minorities have been responsible for all changes in government direction. There is no easy way, and for too long citizens have taken their freedom for granted. Our venerable predecessors sacrificed their families, fortunes and lives fighting for our freedom. Unfortunately during our period of great economic prosperity and ease at the closure of World War II, Americans forgot history, rejected duty and migrated toward a path of selfishness and hedonism.
Education is necessary, as Alex de Tocqueville wrote the Americans understood history and their form of government quite well and were an exception in the world. There is an awakening in our country stimulated by our national loss of liberty and prosperity. I contend with God on our side we can restore our constitution and liberty but there will be suffering along the way. Senior citizens are not the ‘great generation’ but the most irresponsible generational failure in our nation’s history. Baby boomers also failed in the area of civic duty.
I end with a few quotes that are germane and insightful for our mission that is ahead.
“The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of the government. They, in a word, hold the purse -- that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure."
-- James Madison, "The Federalist" No. 58
Madison wrote a letter in which he emphatically warned against convening such a convention:
If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having greater latitude than the Congress.... It would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides ... [and] would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who, under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts ... might have the dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric.... Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a second, meeting in the present temper in America.
President James Garfield had this to say regarding congress:
“The people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature.”
Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Warren Burger wrote:
“I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don't like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress "for the sole and express purpose."
As has been proven the evidence against a Con-con is overwhelming. We are beating a dead horse on this issue and the time for action to rescind Florida’s call for the Con-con is NOW! Can we agree that when the people continue to re-elect the same liars and thieves, that we have a fundamental problem with the people and that these same ignorant masses will continue to fail until we build sufficient understanding amongst the people. The chains of the constitution are currently protecting the people from themselves.
Look in the mirror and ask the questions, have I done all that I can to preserve our Republic? Do I have a reliable source for information and education? What score would I score if given a test on the Constitution? In conversation with my neighbors and friends have I avoided conversations on Religion and Politics in deference to trivial matters? Do I run away from political conversations and have I sold my soul for manna? Have I become obsessed with sports and fashion?
Were it not for the chains of the constitution we would have long ago lost our Republic and in areas where we have lost our freedom and prosperity it is concomitant to our failure to enforce our laws (constitution). In our state of moral decline and ignorance, the last thing we should do is remove the chains on man’s evil nature. Most Amendments after the original Bill of Rights have not been for the betterment of our nation. We must demand that our employees in government obey the constitution and in areas with elected neoconservative Republicans, we must hold primaries to throw the rascals out. This involves work at the county party level by citizens of morality and virtue that recognize the true price for liberty.
We are currently teaching a course on the constitution at county REC headquarters called “The Constitution is the Solution”. This course is being taught all over the country and is the best course of study I have ever seen. We will teach lecture 5 of 6 modules next week from 7-9pm. Keith’s entire staff should be required to attend as well as every Rep in the area. This program will start again in the winter and will build the sufficient understanding that will be necessary to ford these perilous and uncertain times. Americans need to understand themselves and the enemies of freedom in order to remain free.
STOP THE CON-CON!
Lloyd Bailey, Jr.
Please read the following article that examines the proposed Compact for America.
How the Compact for America Threatens the Constitution
by: Joe Wolverton, II, J.D. , 01/10/2013
The constitutional convention proposed by the Compact for America Initiative would pose an unacceptably high risk of damage to the Constitution.
July 4, 2013. Chartered planes carrying delegates from all 50 states touch down in Dallas, Texas. Thirty-eight states are being represented by their governors with the remaining states represented by one to three state-appointed delegates. These delegates have arrived en masse at the Lone Star State for a historic one-day convention whose sole purpose is purportedly the perfunctory proposal of a balanced budget amendment (BBA) to the Constitution.
Upon arriving at the designated site, the delegates and their retinues settle in around the extraordinarily large conference table and make small talk while taking in the impressive view of the Dallas skyline.
“Ladies and gentlemen,” the designated chairman announces, “thank you for coming to this historic meeting and for being willing to stand up to the federal government’s runaway spending that is ruining our Republic.”
“As you all know,” he continues, “we have 24 hours to accomplish the one item on our agenda: the proposal of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, as already pre-ratified by 38 (three-fourths) of the state legislatures.”
With that brief restatement of the publicized and promised purpose of this high-powered confab, the chairman retakes his seat, awaiting one of the governors to move for a vote on the BBA and another to second that motion.
“Point of order, Mr. Chairman,” declares a popular southern governor endowed not only with charisma, but appeal to the powers-that-be in national political circles.
“I certainly agree that this is a historic meeting which is being held to rein in an out-of-control federal government that is ruining our republic. Furthermore, I would remind the chairman that our Founders envisioned just this situation in the Declaration of Independence when they stated:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
The popular southern governor continues: “The key part of this quote is, ‘That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.’
“Since the Founders agreed on this right of the People to alter or to abolish our government, and to institute new Government, they provided a procedure for holding a convention for ‘proposing amendments’ to our Constitution in Article V of the Constitution itself.
“Today we are gathered here as the duly appointed representatives of the People in just such an Article V constitutional convention. Based on the Right of the People to alter or to abolish our government, and to institute a new government, and in light of the longstanding out-of-control spending by the federal government, I move that the rules previously agreed to by state legislators in our states be set aside and that a new slate of rules for this convention be considered by the body. This new slate of rules would permit any amendment proposals that delegates believe would improve our government in such manner as they believe seems most likely to effect the Safety and Happiness of the People of the United States of America.”
“Second the motion,” comes the immediate reply from the ambitious governor of a western state.
“Gentlemen, the governor’s motion is out of order,” the chairman says, rising from his seat.
“With all due respect, Mr. Chairman,” says the southern governor confidently, “I have made clear that my motion is entirely justified by the inherent Right of the People as clearly proclaimed in our nation’s founding documents, the Declaration and the Constitution.”
“I object to this railroading of the rules and will not be a party to it,” the chairman demands. With that, the chairman and four likeminded governors walk demonstratively out of the conference room.
“The question has been put and seconded,” says the southern governor without delay.
“All those in favor, say aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. The body will adjourn into a committee of the whole for consideration of new rules and new proposals for amendments to the Constitution of the United States to be deliberated and adopted by this body.”
Some will say that this introduction is nothing more than a melodramatic doomsday scenario that could never happen. Sadly, they are wrong. This fiction could become fact very soon if a group of conservative activists gets its way.
This month, a group known as the Compact for America (CFA) Initiative will begin lobbying state lawmakers to propose in their respective legislatures a measure that would make that convention of delegates from 50 states gathered in Dallas a reality on July 4, 2013. Thirty-eight (or more, depending on how many states adopt the CFA legislative package) governors along with state-appointed representatives from the remaining 12 (or fewer) states would be delegates to a constitutional convention (con-con) supposedly called for the sole purpose of proposing a balanced budget amendment (BBA) to the Constitution. The problem is, there is no way to make sure the assembled delegates representing the People wouldn’t exceed that mandate to propose a BBA, and even if they did adhere to the mandate, there is no guarantee that the CFA’s Balanced Budget Amendment would improve America’s financial prospects.
Overview of the Compact for America Initiative
The CFA Initiative is composed of three parts: First, there is a multi-state compact petitioning Congress to convene a con-con with state governors of member states serving as delegates and notifying Congress that members of the compact have pre-ratified the BBA called for and defined by the CFA; second, there is a balanced budget amendment as defined by the CFA that would be added to the Constitution; and third, there is a congressional resolution that would call a constitutional convention when and if 38 states join the CFA compact, and then would automate the steps required to add the BBA to the Constitution upon receipt of a certified copy of the BBA evidencing that the convention has approved the BBA for ratification.
The “Compact for America Timeline” at the end of this article shows how the CFA leaders expect these three components to work together to amend the Constitution by adding a BBA.
A fair analysis of the three-pronged proposal of the CFA Initiative reveals the formation of a modern-day Trojan Horse that could sneak the opportunity to make radical changes to our Constitution right past the protections of federalism put in place by our Founders to prevent unwise and unnecessary changes to our Constitution and the liberties guaranteed by it.
Here is how the CFA website describes its goal:
The Compact for America Initiative (the “Initiative”) is a non-partisan effort to promote and seek the passage of legislation by the states and the U.S. Congress to ratify a balanced budget amendment into the Constitution of the United States in a way that has never been done before. The Initiative includes educating elected officials, citizens and residents of the United States and the several states of the novel use of an interstate compact agreement and the counterpart federal legislation to coordinate the use of Article V of the Constitution of the United States by state legislatures to originate and ratify a specific constitutional amendment that would require Congress to operate under a balanced budget.
Why the CFA Initiative’s Balanced Budget Amendment Won’t Work
Although calls for BBA con-cons are nothing new, the CFA Initiative is particularly frightening because of the ingenuity and insidious nature of the method proposed by its creators to alter the Constitution.
Before state legislatures vote for an Article V con-con proposal that could cause real and radical damage to our Constitution, they should first consider whether a balanced budget amendment is necessary and whether it would actually steer our Republic away from the fiscal problems we are facing.
The fact is that determined citizens and state legislators could rescue the United States from its financial peril without resorting to opening up the Constitution to tinkering by 38 or more governors and a sprinkling of state-appointed delegates, many of whom would be bought and paid for by special interests and corporations.
Thomas Jefferson wrote: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free … it expects what never was and never will be.” A fundamental requirement of vigilance is holding elected representatives’ feet to the fire by compelling them to honor their oath of office and not exceed the limits of their power as set forth in the Constitution.
Furthermore, there is no historical proof that a balanced budget amendment would drive Congress back to within its constitutional corral. Even the most conservative estimates indicate that about 80 percent of expenditures approved by Congress violate the U.S. Constitution. That fact wouldn’t change by adding an amendment to the Constitution.
Whether these bills spend our national treasure on unconstitutional and undeclared foreign wars, billions sent overseas in the form of foreign aid, expanding the so-called entitlement programs, or redistributing wealth via corporate and individual welfare schemes, none of these outlays is authorized by the Constitution.
And don’t forget, a committed, concerned, and constitutionally aware citizenry can balance our budget more quickly than any balanced budget amendment and without the danger of letting the wolves of special interests and their political puppets into the constitutional hen house.
Equally important to anyone considering the CFA’s proposal is the fact that rather than forcing Congress to adhere to spending money only in those areas specifically permitted by the Constitution in Article I (something the Constitution already does), the Compact for America’s Balanced Budget Amendment does nothing to restore the concept o