REPORT OF THE ABA SPECIAL CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION STUDY COMMITTEE

I have to disagree for the very reason that the conservatives can run the table at a convention. Save for one proposal everything that is the conservative movement has already been proposed by the states. The only thing standing in the way of the conservative agenda becoming the law of the land is conservatives themselves. Liberals have not been interested in the convention whatsoever and even now barely even discuss it. The reason is basic. The states are basically conservative in nature and thus reflect that in their applications. Amendments deal with issues which must be resolved using facts and logic something frequently missing in liberal positions on some issues. The first party that finally realizes the people want action not blockage is the party that will win election after election.

Right now conservatives need a new approach, a new direction to offer the people. Frankly I don’t see anything else that can be offered. Leadership is about taking risks and moving forward. Washington took risks and won a war he was not supposed to win. If he had given into his fears, we’d still be British. Examples like this in our history repeatedly. Fear is neither respected nor honored in our country and those who base and support or oppose an action based on it simply will fail in the end.

Being American is about winning. If people say holding a convention is impossible, I ask, since when has that ever mattered in America? We have problems to solve and we aren’t about to do it by doing nothing.

/We have NO leadership, we have no virtue, we have very little in the way of conservative activists which will be allowed to participate as delegates to that Constitutional Convention...

It will be populated by the usual suspects of moderate and RINO’s we have in the ranks right now...

I would rahter not have a convention, than allow these types of people to try and battle the liberal/Febian socialists which will be utilized as delegates from the political opposition...

It is a very dangerous combination, in my opinion...

To say the liberals are not interested in this process does not mean they cannot mobilize very quickly if need be...

But the bottom line is this...We have battles we need to win right now outside of this concept, and until those are resolved, this idea needs to be resisted at all costs...

We have bigger fish to fry right now...

Again, this is just the way I see it...It can and will be used against us, and until we get better “conservative and virtuous” leadership to effectively fight for originalist intent of our Constitution, I would rather not convene one to address these extraneous liberal ideas/agenda...

So I can count you on the list of those who want to “deviate” from the Constitution. The states have applied. The Constitution mandates a convention which means Congress must obey the Constitution and call the convention. You, because you fear the liberals, justify not obeying it on this basis. Your reason doesn’t matter. You want to give the government the authority to “deviate” from the Constitution. I use the word “deviate” deliberately. This was the word used by a government to ignore its Constitution in the legislation that let it do so. I’m there are other examples. But this one cost us: 1933, German Constitution.

You wish for no convention, the government to have the right to “deviate” from the Constitution. Are you really gut sure you want the government to do that?

After reading this excerpt from the ABA Report I realized Publius overlooked many parts of the ABA Report. Most likely he could not reproduce them in the Freeper format as they contain graphs, footnotes and so forth. So, I am now posting the ENTIRE report taken from the original Walker v United States brief which is where Publius got his copy.

Because there is a rebuttal to the report which was also in the brief, I am also including that for all to read. The bottom line here is this: The ABA report advocates “same subject” with Congress in full control of the process meaning it decides whether a convention is held at all and it determines agenda, voting and so forth.

The problem is there are many flaws in the ABA report which I pointed out. The most glaring is the report repudiates itself. The graphs I refer to show BY THE ABA’S OWN RESEARCH THAT AS OF 1971 THE STATES HAD SUBMITTED ENOUGH APPLICATIONS ON AT LEAST TWO AMENDMENT SUBJECTS TO CAUSE CONGRESS TO CALL A CONVENTION.

Therefore even under this bogus standard, Congress has been required to call for decades. The report then attempts to weazel out of this by saying the report is an “overview” and that Congress has the final determination. Now either Congress has to call or it doesn’t based on this “idea.” The difference now is the actual applications can now be read at www.foavc.org. So, look for yourself, read the applications and decide. By the way the numbers have done nothing but increase. If you believe same subject fine. The states have satisfied it. If you hold numeric count. Fine. The states have long satisfied it.

Point is: No call.

I’m also including, as there are a few footnotes linking to it a link to the entire brief in case anyone wishes to read the references footnotes.

The links are:

www.foavc.org/reference/ABAReport.pdf

www.foavc.org/reference/OverlengthBrief.pdf

Where did I say anything about deviating from the Constitution???

Congress, the Senate and many administrations have deviated from its originalist intent, much to our protests, but not much action to correct this trend for years...

Obviously you misunderstand my reservations about a Constitutioanl Convention, and that your assumptions give you liberty to insult those concerns...

Do not assume I give ANYTHING more than a concern that opening up such a mechanism to allow these liberals a chance to get ANY real changes, or weaken our Constitution anymore than it is already being challenged in the conventional conduct of government business...

My concerns are basic, and that allowing anything, or anyone to corrupt the founding document more than it already has been in recent history, is something for another day...I would rather stand pat and allow these psuedo government edicts to be destroyed by conventional means...

We obviously do not have anyone we elect now that has the stones to challenge the attacks now...And those attacks, in my opinion are manageable, without opening up the safe with the “white out” just to change things (for the worse, or the better) in the Constitution at this time...

(your words) “You want to give the government the authority to “deviate” from the Constitution.”

With what I stated above...Be very careful with your assumptions...

Just because I have concerns that a Constitutional Convention would be a can of worm I would rather not open up at this time, does not give YOU liberty to assume I am conceding ANY liberty to the knuckleheads screwing this country up right now...

You, in the comfort of your anonymity, can put me on any list you believe I should be placed upon...I do not answer to you, or anyone else...And if you believe for one second I am a similar cut to the people in 1933 Germany, who conceded to those “deviations” in their Constitution, you got bigger problems to deal with than insulting me with your assumptions...

These are my opinions, nothing more...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.