Virginia Withdraws Con-Con Application

Virginia has joined the ranks of states that have withdrawn their applications to Congress calling for a constitutional convention (con-con). The measure originated in the state’s House of Delegates, passing with widespread support, 82-10. Senate passage was by voice vote. Final action occurred on March 10, when the House voted on the resolution a second time due to minor changes added to the final resolution by the Senate. The victory is the product of diligent teamwork by members of the John Birch Society.

A con-con is a never-before-used method of proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Article V of the Constitution provides that when the legislatures of two-thirds (34) of the states apply to Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments, the Congress must call the convention. The danger inherent in the convention method of amendment is that the con-con has plenary power to propose any kind and number of amendments which it chooses. Neither the state legislatures which apply for the con-con nor the Congress which calls it can limit the subject matter of proposed amendments. A con-con could propose amendments that radically change the structure of both the federal government and state governments and jeopardize fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens under the present Constitution.

All proposed amendments, whether the work of Congress or of a con-con, must be ratified by three-fourths (38) of the states.

The Sons of the Revolution patriotic organziation sent out a warning how dangerous a Con Con can be. I did not really agree at first, but I am coming around. I would imagine that a Con Con is dangerous because it can be taken over by subtle leftist lawyers who can draft nice-sounding language that invites ratification but which the legal magicians of the left know will be interpreted in a certain way by activist judges.

A con con is really not necessary for activist judges to make up law out of whole cloth, but it makes their job of arrogating power to themselves a lot easier.

Look at how liberal and center-left activists have taken over foundations founded by right-wing conservatives, churches, colleges. Many institutions that used to be bastions of the right, or at least of traditionalism, are now completely taken by the left. Look at how Souter truned out to be much more liberal than Bush ever could have imagined. Earl Warren was a Republican.

Poll after poll shows that the American people want to amend the United States Constitution in two important ways, as soon as possible. The people want a balanced budget amendment, and they want an amendment to limit the terms of Members of Congress.

Congress, however, refuses to propose either amendment. Congress's stubbornness on these issues has stirred debate over whether the States should force Congress to call a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution, as they are entitled to do.

Article V of the Constitution sets forth the relevant procedure. If two-thirds (today, 34) of the State Legislatures apply for a convention to propose amendments, then Congress must call such a convention. If the convention proposes an amendment to the Constitution, then Congress must send the proposed amendment to the States for ratification. If three-fourths (today, 38) of the States ratify the proposed amendment, then it becomes part of the Constitution, even though Congress may oppose the amendment. There is no need for a vote to be taken in Congress.

The Framers provided this method for amending the Constitution without Congressional consent precisely because Congress could not be trusted always to propose necessary amendments. Congress would not be inclined to propose amendments limiting Congressional power, in particular.

On several occasions, Congress has been prodded to propose particular constitutional amendments by the threat that enough States would otherwise submit applications and force Congress to call a convention.

Indeed, the Republic once came within one State of having a convention to propose constitutional amendments. The issue on that occasion was whether Senators should be elected directly by the people of the States, or should instead be picked by the State Legislatures.

Under the U.S. Constitution at the time, Senators were chosen by the State Legislatures. Consequently, Senators were frequently chosen by political insiders making deals in smoke-filled rooms.

One hundred years after the Constitution was adopted, the back-room dealing became intolerable as political hacks were repeatedly chosen to serve in the Senate. Between 1891 and

1902, therefore, the U. S. House of Representatives, on five different occasions, voted to propose a constitutional amendment providing for the direct election of Senators. However, the Senate (which, of course, included many members chosen in back-room deals) refused to propose the amendment. The incumbent Senators knew that they stood very little chance of being elected by the people.

Since the Senate would not agree to the will of the people, the people began lobbying their State legislatures. Between 1901 and 1912, 31 States passed resolutions applying to Congress for a convention to propose an amendment for the direct election of Senators. Since there were only 48 States at the time, it took only 32 State resolutions to force Congress to call a convention. Thus, the movement for a convention was only one State away from its goal.

At that crucial point, on May 16, 1912, the Senate accepted the inevitable and agreed to propose a constitutional amendment concerning the direct election of Senators. Just over a year later, on May 31, 1913, the ratification process was complete, and the Seventeenth Amendment was added to the Constitution.

In similar fashion, Congress was pressured to propose the Eighteenth Amendment (prohibition), the Twenty-Second Amendment (term limits for the President), and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment (presidential succession) in part by the threat that enough states would otherwise apply for a convention to propose those amendments. While none of these efforts came very close to actually calling a convention, they were significant factors in convincing Congress to go ahead and propose the various amendments.

Of course, some people worry about what would actually happen if the States were successful in forcing Congress to call a convention to propose constitutional amendments. Some people fear that the delegates to such a convention might stray from their mission by proposing radical or unpopular changes, in addition to or instead of proposing the amendments that the people actually want.

Constitutional scholars are divided on whether a convention to propose amendments can be formally limited. In practice, however, States have distinguished between "limited" and "general" conventions when they have made applications. Also, in the course of counting applications to determine whether a convention must be called, Congress has ruled that dissimilar applications do not call for the same convention.

These precedents suggest that a convention could be limited to the issue specified in the States' applications for the convention. These precedents also suggest that Congress could refuse to release for ratification any proposed amendment that did not relate to the issue for which the convention was called.

Thanks for the extended reply. I am a teacher of American History and American Government. Your post pretty well mirrored my last set of notes to my classes.

What I don't currently know is: How many other states have also withdrawn their APPS? What is the current number of states with active apps to be considered?

I personally believe that a CON-CON is the worst thing that could possibly happen to the country at this crucial point in history. Have you ever read a book called "The Creature From Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin? If you had, you'd realize that this country has not been a Consitutional Republic in some time nor are we enjoying true capitalism as our economic system. In fact as a nation we are on the way down, no matter who stands in the White House or controls Congress. ~tinfoil hat beginning to glow and the little propeller on top is spinning madly~ A con-con would simply accellerate the inevitable, but I'd prefer to leave the planet in a more peaceful fashion and a later date if you see my point, here.

Why do you think that the socialists control the school systems? You're a freeper and freepers tend to be unusually astute on the subjects we are discussing. But it's not a joke when lawyers who search for a good jury are looking for "twelve people of ordinary stupidity who are easily molded." For cripes sake, look at the OJ verdict! Look at the William Kennedy verdict in Palm Beach! American Government and American history are (and have been) taught by liberals who specifically believe that feudalism (not just socialism) is the true destination for this country.

A Balanced Budget Amendment is a complete fiction, it can NEVER come to fruition and the members of Congress don't want it to happen. It would mean extinguishing debt and our entire system of Fractional Reserve Banking with the Federal Reserve at it's core is based on debt! Therefore, extinguishing debt will also extinguish the money supply.

Look, I just finished the book. It's all highlighted with notes in the margins and at the ends of the chapters. Now I gotta re-read it and make more notes. But I have taught economics from the texts for twelve years and never understood the subject as I do now. First of all, I have been teaching lies designed to put students to sleep (very successful here) and neutralize my own sense of curiosity on the subject. I never really understood fractional reserve banking; central bank theory; or the gold standard. I never understood the concept of fiat money.

The book reads like a detective story and is just as thrilling as that which was recently self published by our own Travis McGee: "Enemies Foreign and Domestic" except that this book provides a framework of workable truth by which his frightening scenario will come to pass. You can get it at Amazon.com.

~Tinfoil hat stops glowing, propeller slows~

Dollars to donuts a con-con would result in a Soviet-style constitution guaranteeing the people work, food, housing etc

Yep. It *might* have a Bill of Rights, but it would be totally meaningless since it would take the following form:

"The Right of the people to (fill in the blank) shall not be infringed unless the gov't passes a law to the contrary or unless there is a national emergency".

In my 3rd novel (way over the horizon, time-wise) the remnant fedgov will call a counterfeit con-con and "pass" a new constitution

A very real possibility, especially considering the massive influx of turd worlders that have no concept of individual Rights.

As for myself, I took an oath to the existing Constitution, and will consider any "new" Constitution null and void, and grounds for a "divorce" from the bozos that attempt to rule over me.

At least half of America will reject it as fraudulent

At least half of America, along with 75% of the pistols, 85% of the bolt action rifles, and 95% of the evil black rifles. I know who's side my money will be on.

The "Foreign" part comes in when the rump FedGov calls for foreign assistance to "restore order."

I hear those red-dot Aimpoints stand out really well against a light blue background :-)

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.