I just wrote the following message to my state legislators urging them to oppose any call for a constitutional convention.
To: Senator Greg Walker; Representative Sean Eberhart
Cc: Representative Eric Allan Koch; Representative Milo Smith
Subject: I urge NO on a constitutional convention
Thank you for your service to the citizens of Indiana.
Please vote NO on any resolution in the Indiana general assembly that petitions Congress to call a constitutional convention (as provided for by Article V of the U.S. Constitution).
I also urge you to vote YES on any resolution to rescind the 1979 resolution of the Indiana general assembly that favored a national constitutional convention.
I've become aware that several organizations are contacting state legislators to promote resolutions petitioning Congress to convene a constitutional convention, so this issue appears likely to come up in our general assembly, if it hasn't already.
Since leading constitutional scholars say a constitutional convention could not be restricted as to the amendments it could consider and propose, I am very concerned that such a convention could lead to proposing one or more amendments that could have a very harmful effect on our freedoms under the U.S. Constitution.
One need look no further than our own country's history to see that a convention called for the purpose of updating the Articles of Confederation ended up leading to an entirely new form of government instead.
With the current state of citizen knowledge of the precepts of liberty in the United States, the odds are not in favor of getting a better government than we have now if this situation should arise in our lifetime.
Although it would take three-quarters of the 50 states to ratify any proposed amendments, the biased news media and other opinion-molding institutions could easily help enable the ratification of undesirable amendments.
I understand that conservatives are split on this issue, but I am among those who feels that the risks posed by a constitutional convention far outweigh the possible benefits.
For more background information on this issue, I highly recommend the following items:
(1) "Beware of Article V," a 36-minute video free to view at
http://www.jbs.org/news-center/birchtube/69
This video was created specifically for helping state legislators understand the negative aspects of convening a constitutional convention.
(2) "Dangers of a Constitutional Convention," an article free to view at
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/1241
(3) "Another Endorsement of a Constitutional Convention on Glenn Beck," an article free to view at
http://www.jbs.org/us-constitution-blog/5638
Please be sure to vote NO on any resolution calling for a national constitutional convention for the purpose of amending the U.S. Constitution.
Sincerely,
Bill Starr
Columbus, Indiana
Wed, 30 Dec 2009, 1:16 pm EST
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The author uses old, discredited information. The fact is public record shows all 50 states have submitted 750 applications for an Article V Convention. The texts of the applications can be read at www.foavc.org.
As such, a sufficient number of applications already exists to cause Congress to call a convention. Congress refuses to do so in violation of their oath of office. Article V does not allow for rescission of applications once submitted.
The author speaks about a convention being able to propose amendments. Note he does not mention that Congress has the exact same power and authority.
As to proposing amendments to harm our freedoms, the author obviously has not read the applications. The applications clearly are intended to increase the rights of Americans, not reduce them. For example, the states have asked for a national referendum, initiative, recall amendment thus allowing the people to review actions by the government and make a final decision as to whether or not the government will impose that action on them.
His reference to the 1787 is incorrect. That is a myth as shown at http://www.nolanchart.com/article6449.html.
If you are looking at the videos mentioned, be sure to also look at the opposition videos posted next to them. They will expose the lies of the videos and if you take time to read the material at www.foavc.org, you'll see the statements by the JBS are all lies.
Mr. Walker comments about public record showing all 50 states have submitted 750 applications for an Article V Convention, however, what is not mentioned is the Article V requirements have NEVER been met. There has never been the required 2/3 or 34 calls for the same amendment which would start the process of convening and con-con.
The author here does sight scholars who prove a convention is able to propose amendments. Once convened the convention is a sovereign body. They can propose amendments and anything else they want to do. They can change all the rules- even the rules of ratification! Just as was done the first time. Despite Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation stating that the union created under the Articles was "perpetual" and that any alteration must be "agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State," Article VII of the proposed constitution stipulated that only nine of the thirteen states would have to ratify for the new government to go into effect (for the participating states). The conventions rule changes were never ratified before the ratification of the full new government. The delegates of a con-con are an independent legislative body that operates above the rules of the Constitution.
The dangers of the con-con is EVERYTHING rides on what convention delegates decide to do. We have no way to know who these delegates will be or what they will do.
A good point Mr. Walker does make is there is another way to amend the Constitution. The way our Constitution has always been amended, the Congressional amendment route. All the more reason to question why risk the expense and many unknowns of a con-con when changes can be made in a controlled certain manner. Unless the reasons desired are changes are many and radical and the desire is a new document.
There are many uncertain with a con-con. The problem is not what Article V says, it's what is NOT DEFINED. The last convention was conducted in secret. Will the next convention be a continuing body? There's nothing to guarantee anything except that there are no guarantees.
Make no mistake, just because you want the amendment doesn't mean you'll get it. The amendment called for in a state's resolution does NOT matter. The CALL is ONLY what gets it STARTED. Once the convention is convened, they can make any amendments they please. Article V states "shall propose Amendments to this Constitution", plural. And there's nothing to guarantee that the amendment called for will even be addressed. This is part of the reason that there's not more hard core efforts to promote a con-con. Just as a conservative might want a convention for a bba and behind the door plan for them to define marriage as a man and women, the liberals would be working behind the scenes planning additional changes of the opposite. Neither is ready to risk it all rolling the dice.
Interesting to me that Mr. Walker only talks against the JBS when the JBS information is based on factual history and leading Constitutional scholars. There are also other groups that expose the dangers of a con-con and work to keep the record straight. Eagle Forum has a good deal of information and there's some on World Net Daily, The America Policy Center, Stop the Con-con, and more.
Post a Comment