Obama's Biggest Con ... A Constitutional Convention (must Read if true)

Human Events Magazine ^ | 8-15-2009 | United States Justice Foundation

[Cacique]

Below please find a special message from one of our advertisers, United States Justice Foundation. From time to time, we receive opportunities we believe you as a valued customer may want to know about. Please note that the following message reflects the opinions and representations of our advertiser alone, and not necessarily the opinion or editorial positions of Human Events or Eagle Publishing.

BARACK OBAMA AND HIS ALLIES ARE TRYING
TO CHANGE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:
HELP US STOP A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION! Dear Friend,

BARACK OBAMA AND HIS ALLIES ARE TRYING TO CHANGE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE AMENDMENT PROCESS -- IN FACT, THEY'RE TRYING TO REWRITE THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION -- AND THEY'RE CLOSE TO SUCCEEDING!

What would you think if an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was introduced by liberal Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, which repealed the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights -- taking away our right to Free Speech?

What would you think if an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was introduced by liberal Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, which repealed the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights -- taking away our right to Keep and Bear Arms? (A right that the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld!)

"That could never happen," you say. "No one would allow it!" Right? Well...

Did you know that there are TWO ways that our Constitution can be changed? And did you know that Pelosi, Reid and Barack Obama are using the less well-known way, without having to actually introduce amendments?

IT'S TRUE -- and WE have to stop it NOW!

One way to change the Constitution is to go through the amendment process -- a long and tedious process requiring two-thirds of both houses of Congress to pass an amendment, and then three-fourths of the states to ratify it.

That means a "super-majority" of our representatives at the National and State levels would have to be in favor of the amendment -- which safeguards us from the possibility of really "bad" amendments.

BUT... there is one other way that our Constitution can be changed... and it DOES NOT require all of those elected representatives to be in favor of it. It's called a Constitutional Convention, and all that it requires is 34 states to ask Congress to call one.

In fact, right now, all that is needed is for two more states to ask for a Constitutional Convention... and the basic law of the land could be changed forever by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid!

WE NEED YOUR HELP, RIGHT NOW, TO STOP BARACK OBAMA
AND HIS ALLIES FROM CHANGING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:
 Most people don't realize that Article V of the Constitution requires Congress to call a new Constitutional Convention (a "Con Con") if two-thirds (or 34) of the states request it. We've only had one other "Con Con" in our history: the one where the original Constitution was written in 1787!

The language of Article V is mandatory: it says that Congress "shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments" whenever requests are received from two-thirds of the states. Note that the word "amendments" is used in the plural. These are the only instructions we have about a Constitutional Convention. There are no other rules or guidelines.

We don't know how a Constitutional Convention would be apportioned, or how the delegates would be elected. We don't know what rules the Convention would operate under. We don't know whether changes to the Constitution could be proposed by a simple majority, or would require a super majority, of those attending. We don't know if the agenda could be limited or would be wide open to any proposal.

We don't know ANYTHING about how a Con Con would work -- which means that it will come down to Congress setting the rules!

And Congress is controlled by the most radically liberal Democrats in American history! Is that who we want to be in charge of a new Constitutional Convention?

Do we want BARACK OBAMA, NANCY PELOSI, and HARRY REID to completely rewrite our most basic document of law?

WE NEED YOUR HELP, RIGHT NOW, TO STOP BARACK OBAMA
AND HIS ALLIES FROM CHANGING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:The fact is, under the vague language of Article V, a Constitutional Convention cannot be limited. It would be wide open, and able to consider ANY change in the Constitution that was proposed!

Former U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger once said, "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."

The Stanford Law School Professor whose case-book is used in the majority of U.S. law schools, Gerald Gunther, said that, even if Congress tried to limit the Convention to one subject, the delegates could decide for themselves that the Convention "is entitled to set its own agenda."

This means that, even if supporters of a "Con Con" claim that the convention would only cover one issue -- whether it's a balanced budget amendment or removing the requirement that to be eligible to serve as President, one must be a "natural born citizen," or anything else -- there is NO WAY to stop the Convention from changing EVERYTHING that we hold dear in America!

Barack Obama and his far-left supporters would be able to get THEIR people appointed as delegates to the Convention, so that THEIR agendas would be the Convention's agenda, and THEIR plans for socialism in America would come to pass.

Say BYE-BYE to the First Amendment's freedom of speech -- Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity could be taken off the air.

Say BYE-BYE to the Second Amendment's right to bear arms -- a total gun ban could be the law of the land!

Say BYE-BYE to the Constitution's requirement that to serve as President a man or a woman must be a "natural born citizen"!

You KNOW that's what they'll do if given the chance -- and we're only TWO STATES AWAY from seeing a Constitutional Convention convened!

You see, Article V says that it takes a request from two-thirds of the states to force a "Con Con" -- but it doesn't say there's any time limit on getting to that total!

Thirty-two states have already issued a call for a "Con Con" over the last few decades, including Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.

It only takes 34 states to REQUIRE a Constitutional Convention be convened!

Some states, like Georgia, Virginia, and others, have since voted to "rescind" their call for a "Con Con" -- BUT no one is sure whether those "rescission" votes are actually Constitutional...so the danger is REAL!

WE NEED YOUR HELP, RIGHT NOW, TO STOP BARACK OBAMA
AND HIS ALLIES FROM CHANGING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:The United States Justice Foundation is launching a major campaign to STOP a "Con Con" from taking place -- WE MUST CREATE a tremendous outpouring of publicity and public scrutiny to be given to this danger, so that Barack Obama and his radical liberal allies can't "sneak this past us" without anyone noticing, until it's too late. Right now, our staff is conducting legal and historical research, and preparing legal opinions, to submit to every state legislature, if necessary, and we'll be offering to represent any state, or state legislator, in fighting the Con-Con based on those documents.

We're also going to be leading a grassroots effort to attack this issue at both the state and federal levels: At the state level, leading the charge in every state to either NOT VOTE for a "Con Con" (if they haven't voted yet) or to RESCIND their past vote in favor (if they have). And, at the federal level, we'll be mobilizing citizens across the country to contact their Representatives and Senators to DEMAND that they come out, NOW, and announce their support for a state's right to rescind, and that they won't support a call for a "Con-Con." In addition, we'll be calling on the Attorney General of the United States, and the Attorney General of each and every State that has passed a "Con-Con" resolution, to issue an official Opinion on the legality of rescission.

THIS DANGER IS REAL. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was called for the exclusive purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation. Once the Founding Fathers assembled in Philadelphia, however, they threw out the Articles of Confederation and wrote an entirely new Constitution, and even changed the ratification procedure so they could get it adopted more easily. The 1787 Convention is the only precedent we have for a national Constitutional Convention.

There's no guarantee that all of the changes to our Constitution passed at a Constitutional Convention would need to be ratified by 34 states this time -- if a "Con Con" can change our structure of government as defined in Articles I, II, and III, of the Constitution, then it can also change the Article V requirement that three-fourths of the states are needed to ratify any changes. The Convention of 1787 reduced the number of states required to ratify a change from 100% of the states to 75%, and a Convention today could "follow their example" and reduce it further, to 66%, or 60%, or even 51%!

WE MUST NOT LET THIS HAPPEN!


Sincerely,

Gary Kreep, Executive Director
United States Justice Foundation

P.S. President Barack Obama has already expressed his belief that the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted in the context of current affairs and events. Can you imagine what he and his supporters would DO to that document if given the chance to re-write it completely? Our Bill of Rights could disappear overnight!

In fact, all the way back in 2006, Obama already had his lawyers researching how someone could get around the eligibility requirements to serve as U.S. President -- these people simply don't CARE about whether we preserve the supreme law of the land!

Remember -- when the last Constitutional Convention met in 1787, the original goal was to amend the Articles of Confederation. Instead, delegates simply threw them out and wrote a whole new Constitution.

That's EXACTLY what Obama, Pelosi and Reid would do this time -- but this time, the result would destroy our freedoms.

---

Human Events | One Massachusetts Ave., N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001

 

 

[Cacique]

I received this in my email this morning. It's essentially a fundraising letter and I removed all links and personal information. However, I found the claim to be very disturbing if true. The liberals who are sworn to uphold the constitution. Are determined to destroy it one way or another. These people will never stop.

[Cacique]

ping

[screaminsunshine]

Wanted CZARS of all kinds to keep an eye on citizens who are attempting to do anything without proper permits.

[WVKayaker]

Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight!

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Do you have a list of the 32 states that have requested a Constitutional Convention?

I find it really hard to believe that there are 32 when 39 states in the country still have marriage nullification laws (for failure to consummate, indicating that the primary purpose of marriage is procreation) on their books.

Anything is possible at this point. I just find it hard to believe that the massive block of states between the two coasts would be supporting this.

[downwdims]

Go ahead and try it.

[Uncle Ike]

Why change what you can just ignore??

[70th Division]

Someone should send this to Mark Levin.

[Cacique]

Well, I suppose we will have to do our homework and try and confirm this. The USJF has been a reliable source in the past, but as I said, they may be enhancing the truth or stretching it. It is a fundraising letter after all. However, if true and I assume the claims probably are and we aren’t paying attention we may well find ourselves bushwacked.

[Daisyjane69]

I dare them.

Because they will be “shit out of luck” as my dad would say (at age 75!)

They will have NO ANSWER to the taxpaying patriots who will decide to “relocate” both themselves and their treasure in a single state. Gee I dunno, perhaps a state like Texas?

What a hoot it would be for these idiots to learn that the brand new constitutional rights they came up with would have to be paid by...............THEM! Once the “producers” left them high and dry.

LOL

It’s that old deciding whether you’re pulling the wagon or riding in the wagon thing. heh

[Diogenesis]

New Constitutional Amendment:
Hawaii to lose its statehood over this travesty.

---

Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 Report
"The Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii
In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were four different ways to get an “original birth certificate” on record.
BC1. If the birth was attended by a physician or mid wife, the attending medical professional was required to certify to the Department of Health the facts of the birth date, location, parents’ identities and other information. (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).

BC2. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then all that was required was that one of the parents send in a birth certificate to be filed. The birth certificate could be filed by mail. There appears to have been no requirement for the parent to actually physically appear before “the local registrar of the district.”
It would have been very easy for a relative to forge an absent parent’s signature to a form and mail it in.
In addition, if a claim was made that “neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.” (Section 57-8&9)
.... there is and was no requirement for a physician or midwife to witness, state or report that the baby was born in Hawaii.

BC3. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, a “Delayed Certificate” could be filed, which required that “a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing or the alteration [of a file] shall be endorsed on the certificates”, which “evidence shall be kept in a special permanent file.”
The statute provided that “the probative value of a ‘delayed’ or ‘altered’ certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.” (See Section 57- 9, 18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).”

BC4. If a child is born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult (including the subject person [i.e. the birth child as an adult]) if the Office of the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year.
(See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961.)
In 1955 the “secretary of the Territory” was in charge of this procedure. In 1960 it was transferred to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor (“the lieutenant governor, or his secretary, or such other person as he may designate or appoint from his office” §338-41 [in 1961]).

In 1982, the vital records law was amended to create a fifth kind of “original birth certificate”. Under Act 182 H.B. NO. 3016-82, “Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that the proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.”
In this way “state policies and procedures” accommodate even “children born out of State” (this is the actual language of Act 182) with an “original birth certificate on record.”

[Cacique]

ping

[narses]

So sad that the con-con con continues. Yes a convention can be called. Yes it can do whatever it wants once called so far as PROPOSING amendments, then the states - 75 of them have to approve same. No way will 75% vote to approve a gun grab or any other radical cr*p. This is a con-con con job.

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; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

[stephenjohnbanker]

“The liberals who are sworn to uphold the constitution”

Left wingers spit on the constitution. Obama just put La Raza on the SCOTUS.

[cameraeye]

He has said the Constitution needs to be revised. Be on guard at all times during his reign.

[edpc]

You would still need it to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. That would require 38 states or 43, depending on if you think there are 50 or 57 states.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

“Bushwhacked.”

Ironic you chose that term when for 8 years the lefts used that term against W to paint him as a destroyer of the US Constitution and an enemy of liberty.

Now look what they are supporting, outside of the CC.

[Cacique]

La Raza is Mexican, Sotomayor is Puerto Rican. Mexicans have no desire if they ever take over, to share power with the rest of us hispanics. Any idiot who has those delusions is an idiot of the first magnitude.

[Twofortea]

****

This is idiotic.

They would need 34 States to ratify this. They can’t even have that many States representative to recognize his effing birth certificate and Obamacare.

Stop making FR look like crazy camp.

[Cacique]

I meant the term in it’s original context as used in the old west. As in coming from behind the Bushes....

[SERE_DOC]

I would point out that if DC did do this, and throw out the existing constitution it would nullify congress's ability to remain a viable governing body, and would negate the possibility that they would remain at 98.6 deg. F.

And your other point..... "These people will never stop." I would disagree, at some point they will stop.

[Jim Noble]

The email is. essentially, false.

I'm speaking as a weak Con-Con proponent - that is, I favor one but I can be talked out of it.

Any amendments proposed by a Convention, however called and however constituted, must be ratified by 3/4 of the States (38, or 43 if we're using 57 states).

I think a People's convention could do a lot of good at clarifying some of the major conflicted issues that have arisen, especially free exercise of religion, RKBA, and privacy.

I don't think a fixed Convention could do much damage with the 3/4 requirement for ratification in place.

[Proud2BeRight]

They think we are an angry mob now......

[GeronL]

We have a school principal in Florida facing 6 months in jail for praying over his lunch. There is a guy in California who faces a year in jail for handing out pro-life literature. In Claremont Fla (or somewhere) the COPS are investigating those Obama Joker posters.

What first amendment?

[Cacique]

They have been at it since Marx and Engels published their manifesto in 1848. Oh they fail every now and then, but every new generation has it’s herd of usefull idiots they keep brainwashing into following them.

[b4its2late]

Someone should send this to Mark Levin.

Just ping him....

[Daisyjane69]

You’re 100% correct.

We conservatives don’t have to make them stop.

The Chinese, who now officially own us, will make the game stop. It will be on their time, on their own schedule, but make no mistake: they will stop the games.

Once the libs realize they can no longer buy votes without money................we win.

When those checks bounce....WE WIN.

[Cacique]

Well, at least it has opened up the debate. However, I don’t put it past the radical left of trying to get it done. Who would have thought in 2001 that Democrats would gain control of both houses and the presidency and would try to gain control of at least 1/4 of the economy?

[Cacique]

They are listed above.

Thirty-two states have already issued a call for a "Con Con" over the last few decades, including Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.

[sasquatch]

Here’s an attempt to get rid of Prop 13 and term limits in CA. Check the ‘leadership’ and you’ll find Fred Keeley...
a sign of true danger. McPherson is a rino and opposes term limits. Panetta used to be on it until he went to work for Omarxist.
http://www.caforward.org/

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

I know. I was just pointing out how the Left used “projection” for the past 8 years (terms like fascist and regime) to conceal what they had planned.

They are the ones doing the “bushwhacking.”

[stephenjohnbanker]

Obama was happy to have any hispanic on SCOTUS, as long as the candidate was a hard core left winger.

[jblann1]

This email is just as genuine as the “Obama asks moms to return to school” ad. Seen messages like this before in years past. The minute we all get in an uproar over this, something else will sneak past our radar because of this distraction.

[Art II Sec 1]

He’s already changed it.

A President no longer needs to be a natural born citizen.

One citizen parent and one alien parent at birth is fine.

“Natural born citizen” and “citizen” obviously mean one and the same thing.

Disagree? You’re obviously a racist who’s fixated on a document written by a bunch of “dead white European males.”

[SunkenCiv]

Remember all the horror over the Patriot Act? Loss of privacy??
self | 8/13/09 | vharlow
Posted on 08/14/2009 9:38:32 PM PDT by vharlow
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2316515/posts

[ladyvet]

[farlander]

Unfortunately they would then come AFTER the producers, as the commies have always done. Socialism and Communism requires enslavement of the producers, or it cannot exist.

It’d be war.

[krogers58]

I believe there is third way to circumvent the constitution that would be the most likely scenario. If the US ratifies these wacko UN sponsored treaties (i.e. no guns, international income tax, world court, etc) the treaty is able to be the supreme law of the land. It is stated in the constitution that the rights, therein enshrined can be overcome by treaties that bind us to their terms.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

It’s a Con Con CON! We don’t need ACORN and Bill Ayers helping to rewrite our constitution.

[landerwy]

Wyoming repealed their request.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=92771

[DuncanWaring]

a "super-majority" of our representatives at the National and State levels would have to be in favor of the amendment -- which safeguards us from the possibility of really "bad" amendments.

Considering the content of Amendments 16,17 and 18, I wonder what they consider a "really 'bad' amendment"?

[sweetiepiezer]

Be afraid, very afraid.
http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2009/08/compleat-list-of-czars.html

[DuncanWaring]

Ping.

[Islander7]

It wouldn't surprise me that 0bama may desire a Con-Con, but getting one is a different matter.

".......Obama has criticized Justice Clarence Thomas, regarded as a conservative member of the court, as not a strong jurist or legal thinker. And Obama voted against both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, two appointees of President Bush who vote with Thomas on many issues. Further, World Net Daily also reported that Obama believes the Constitution is flawed, because it fails to address wealth redistribution, and he says the Supreme Court should have intervened years ago to accomplish that. Obama said in a 2001 radio interview the Constitution is flawed in that it does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.

Obama told Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s. The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal....."

So, the Constitution is flawed and only 0bama can correct those flaws. Ha!

If he mentions calling for a Con-Con in this political environment he'd have a shooting Civil War on his hands.

He's dumb, but I doubt he is that dumb.

[Darren McCarty]

I think this is another case of a boy who cried wolf. State con-con's are a real wolf, but federal? When did each state "call" for a federal con-con?

I'm skeptical of this one.

[Repeal 16-17]

(1) The message is hyperbolic and provides no proof for what it claims. I will take it with a pound of salt.

(2) Liberals stopped using Article V after the defeat of the ERA and the DC Voting Rights Amendment. Now they try to use SCOTUS as a substitute for Article V; that way, the States have a harder time stopping them.

(3) Repealing any or all of the Bill of Rights would not be "taking away" any rights. Those rights existed before the Bill of Rights and would continue to exist after such a repeal. Repealing the Bill of Rights would preclude the federal courts from protecting those rights against the federal government. Such protection would have to come from the States and the People.

(4) How many of those petitions for a Con-Con were legit when passed (each claims a Con-Con is only to consider one type of amendment)? How many have been repealed or would be repealed before the convening of a Con-Con?

(5) In the extremely unlikely case a Con-Con did take place, it could only propose amendments (just like the Congress). Any such proposals would be submitted to the States for ratification and would need 38 of them to ratify in order to be adopted (just like those proposed by the Congress).

CONCLUSION: That message is a fundraising letter and so is trying to get donations via an exaggerating of the threat of a Con-Con.

[LomanBill]

The ultimate deciding factor will be which “constitution” the military obeys - the one they took the oath to, or the one invented by the Marxists.

My hat hangs on the former.

[Maceman]

It is stated in the constitution that the rights, therein enshrined can be overcome by treaties that bind us to their terms.

As far as I can see, there is no such statement in the COnstitution. Can you provide the language to support your assertion? I couldn't find it.

[Maceman]

It is stated in the constitution that the rights, therein enshrined can be overcome by treaties that bind us to their terms.

As far as I can see, there is no such statement in the Constitution. Can you provide the language to support your assertion? I couldn't find it.

[rockinqsranch]

It’s that place and time in the historical path of the progress of our Nation for there to be a Constitutional Convention for adjustments to be made to the Constitution to clarify, or strengthen some of the language in the Constitution to lessen the chances of successful Leftist judicial activism, and to ease the defense of founding intent.

It’s not the place and time in the historical path of this Nation for such a Constitutional Convention with unbalanced leadership in place.

What it is genuinely time for is a remake of the scene in Washington D.C. that would reflect the vision of the founders.

We have to stop what we are doing no matter what it is right now, and clean up the mess we’ve allowed to accumulate so we can progress unencumbered by the build-up of undesireable debris.