Note: This is a rushed draft of a column... this will be tweaked and updated as time allows and circumstances develop...
Last Revised — December 21, 2008 10:43 PM EST
Once again, the American people are blissfully ignorant of the fact that they are about to lose everything we celebrate as a people, and as a country. Our way of life is threatened in a manner that most of us can only imagine. I'm not referencing the loss of jobs, the crashing economy, the devastation of an inflated and deflated dollar on American life. I'm writing about the very document that defines our government, outlines its limitations, and attempts to protect our God-given rights. Unbeknownst to the teaming masses, we are dangerously close to our Constitution. In fact, we are only two states away.
The legislature of the state of Ohio has recently introduced House Joint Resolution 8 and Senate Joint Resolution 9 which calls upon the Congress of the United States to open a Constitutional Convention for the ostensible purpose of adding a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Under the U.S. Constitution, Article V provides two methods for amending the Constitution. The first is that 2/3 (or 34) of both houses of Congress would propose an amendment and then 3/4 (or 38) of the of the states have to ratify it. This has been the method that has been used every time, thus far. The second method for amendment as defined in Article V, is that 2/3 (34) of the states "apply" to the Congress to open a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments. As we've stated, this method has never been used and there is a good reason for it.
A Constitutional Convention is a clear and present danger to our republican form of government. There are various state Supreme Court rulings that have held that a Constitutional Convention is a direct representation of the people and the Convention would have absolute authority to do whatever they want, and that there would be no controlling the outcome.
In a letter dated June 22, 1983, United States Chief Justice Warren Burger concurred:
I am glad to respond to your inquiry about a proposed Article V Constitutional Convention. I have been asked questions about this topic many times during my news conferences and at college meetings since I became chairman of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution, and I have repeatedly replied that such a convention would be a grand waste of time.
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."
With George Washington as chairman, they were able to deliberate in total secrecy, with no press coverage and no leaks. A constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all for special interest groups, television coverage, and press speculation.
Our 1787 Constitution was referred to by several of its authors as a "miracle." Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new Constitutional Convention could not be worth the risks involved. A new convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subjects needing attention. I have discouraged the idea of a Constitutional Convention, and I am glad to see states rescinding their previous resolutions requesting a convention. In these bicentennial years, we should be celebrating its long life, not challenging its very existence. Whatever may need repair on our Constitution can be dealt with by specific amendments.
A Constitutional Convention could very likely be the end of all remnants of our republican form of government. All of the protections of the Bill of Rights could be eliminated.
There are those, even in the patriot community, that have suggested that the Constitution is worthless. Their arguments are that it is being ignored by the government, or that Article VI says that treaties nullify it. Neither of the aforementioned arguments are true.
Without getting into a long-winded dissertation on the subject, the Supreme Court has ruled on Article VI that treaties do not supersede the Constitution. Regarding the argument about the Constitution's ability to protect our rights in the face of a hostile government... Ask yourself the question: If the Constitution was really worthless, then why is it that the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations are pulling out all of the stops to get rid of it?
There were two separate attempts in the 1990's to push for a Constitutional Convention for the purported purpose of adding a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Thirty-two states had earlier passed resolutions calling for a Con Con for the purported purpose of adding a balanced budget amendment. That left us only two states away from the necessary 34 states required to open a Constitutional Convention. Due to a handful of patriotic Americans who understood the dangers, the two attempts in the 1990's were stopped.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that we, the people of the States of America united, possess an unalienable right to keep and bear arms. They made this ruling after a very lengthy examination of the language of the second amendment. For those who think the Constitution is a worthless document, I ask: Are you ready to surrender your second amendment rights to the next administration?
Our Constitution is the supreme law of the land, second only to that of God, the true lawgiver. It is true that the government routinely violates the Constitution on a daily basis. But that is what criminal governments do. Criminals break laws. If they followed the law, they wouldn't be criminals.
How, then, do we deal with the criminals that violate our laws? Do we throw out the laws that define them as criminals? Or do we throw out the criminals to uphold the laws?
Allowing a Constitutional Convention is akin to allowing the criminals to define the laws with which they will comply.
As we've stated, if 2/3 of the legislatures of the several states apply to Congress to open a Constitutional Convention, Congress must comply. The number of states that are needed is 34.
It is important to note that three states have rescinded their calls for a Con Con, but there is questions as to whether those rescissions would be taken seriously. Advocates of a Convention have, in the past, stated that if they received two more states, they would challenge the rescissions in court, while continuing with the Convention.
If Ohio passes a resolution calling for a Con Con, we would only be one state away. Every American needs to think hard about the ramifications of teetering so close to losing our form of government.
How dangerous is a Constitutional Convention?
In 1787, the only Constitutional Convention America has ever experienced, it was a frightful scene. Jackie Patru writes,
In 1787 the founders had convinced the people a Conference of States should be held for the purpose of "making some changes" in the Articles of Confederation. The delegates to the Conference in Philadelphia were under strict instructions from their respective states and the Congress to meet 'for the sole and express purpose' of revising the Articles of Confederation. As we know, they did much more than that. They threw out the Articles of Confederation and drafted a new constitution.
The 55 men present at that conference locked the doors – and even nailed the windows shut – to the public and the press, and proceeded to draft an entirely new document which replaced the Articles of Confederation. Many believe that what our founders did was providential; however, it hardly seems wise to trust the special interests of today with powers that could be used "lawfully" to re-write or worse... replace our Constitution.
At the Conference of States, the delegates created a Committee of the Whole, passed a resolution repealing the Articles of Confederation and continued on with what became known as the first and only Constitutional Convention. Can you imagine hearing, "The Constitution for the United States of America is hereby dissolved."? It happened that way in the 1787 Convention ... it could happen again.
The Con Con resolutions that are currently pending in the Ohio legislature must be tabled immediately. Every American who cherishes the last remnants of their freedom, must bombard the Ohio legislature with phone calls, faxes, hand-written letters sent through postal mail. We must urge them to table the Con Con resolutions which are HJR 8 and SJR 9.
A list of names and contact info will be posted shortly.
In the meantime, Jackie Patru will join Nancy Levant and myself on Govern America this Saturday morning to discuss these developments and the associated dangers. Please tune in.
2 comments:
I would like to correct Mr. Weeks on several factual errors made in his post. But, as he has made one major factual error, correction of that should suffice.
Mr. Weeks states it requires 34 states to apply for an Article V Convention call in order to compel Congress to call one. He is correct. He is not correct on the rest of his figures. The public record shows all 50 states have submitted over 650 applications for a convention call.
He is incorrect when he says a convention if called would be able to overturn rights and write a new constitution. The Constitution contains express language which prohibits this and even if a convention were to propose such an action, all proposals must be ratified before they can take effect. In sum, a convention has no more power than a common committee meeting which makes a proposal but the decision as to whether to accept the proposal rests with an entirely different group,in this case the states, who must approve the proposal by 3/4th vote.
The actual texts of the applications can be read at www.foavc.org. We invite you to read the truth and learn about this important part of the Constitution.
You might also ask why has Mr. Weeks not done his homework. Why has he stated the facts incorrectly when they are easily obtained public record? What is his motivation for doing so? Why does he want to change our form of government where the people can change the Constitution without government interference to a system where only the government controls everything? Why does he want us to fear our Constitution? What does he gain by doing so?
All of these arguments have been made before and all of them have been debunked.
It takes 34 states calling for a Con Con on the same subject to mandate congress to open a convention. True, other calls have been made by the various states, but not for the same reason.
Bill is incorrect (deliberately misleading?) when implies that an Article V convention could not potentially open up the entire Constitution to be re-written. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the only Con Con we've ever had in America was in 1787 when the framers were given instructions to make changes to the Articles of Confederation. Instead, they used the occasion to toss out the Articles of Confederation. Luckily, we ended up with our present Constitution. We WON'T be as luck if we allow it to happen again!
Mr. Walker is attempting to cast doubt upon my knowledge and integrity. Yet, it is Mr. Walker who is arguing in favor of a process that would amount to playing Russian roulette with the very document that defines the American form of government and the rights of the American people. Why?
I urge the readers to check out the information at Sweet Liberty in the Constitutional Convention section regarding this very important issue. Don't let obvious phonies and the controlled opposition deceive you into allowing your rights and form of government to be taken away. After seeing some alternative Constitutions that have been written and are waiting in the wings, all I can say is you'd better be vigilant at protecting the one we have.
Post a Comment