Posted on 12/11/2008 5:28:28 AM PST by GWMcClintock
This is the most urgent, most important action alert the American Policy Center has ever issued! The Ohio state legislature is expected to vote as early as Dec. 10th, to call for a Constitutional Convention (Con Con). If Ohio calls for a Con Con only one more state need do so and Congress will have no choice but to convene a Convention, throwing our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights up for grabs. Ohio's vote today poses a grave threat to the U.S. Constitution. Please immediately call the Ohio lawmakers listed below. ACT FAST - time is of the essence!
(Excerpt) Read more at christianworldviewnetwork.com ...
“My Rights are not “up for grabs”. Anyone trying to do any “grabbing” is in for a pretty bad shock.”
I agree. I am and will remain free one way or another.
See 49, for what an actual con-con might look like.
This time, there is no morally-reprehensible widespread conduct in the South that the North could use to form a moral crusade against it. “Confiscate the guns” doesn’t quite have the ring of “Free The Slaves”, on top of which, minorities have greater opportunity here in the South (as a whole) than anywhere else anyway.
The liberals should be *happy* to see us go. They don’t want us anyway.
The funny part is I've seen this on the writing on the walls about the bailout of the newspapers and media (though subsequent ownership of the media by the goverment... I didn't think about it being that overt) The rest though... it really scares me.
(The ironic part I'm a communication major hoping to graduate before all hell break lose and hoping that I won't have to suck it up and work for a newspaper of the liberal kind. I don't that's going to happen, but oh well.)
Law and Antilaw Copyright © 1995 Constitution Society. Permission is granted to copy with attribution for noncommercial purposes. From Constitution to Emergency Rule The establishment of the U.S. Constitution in 1789 and its Bill of Rights in 1791 was a fundamental innovation in jurisprudence. It introduced the first constitutional republic, with a written constitution that superseded the Common Law that preceded it, while incorporating that part of the Common Law not in conflict with it, and provided that all subsequent statutory law and official acts must be based on its provisions and not in conflict with it. Any statute or official act not so based, or in such conflict with it, was to be considered unconstitutional, and null and void from inception. Unfortunately, despite the nominal commitment to compliance with the Constitution, legislators and officials have failed to comply with it in many instances. Most of these instances were justified as necessary to deal with perceived crises, especially war and depression. Some of these instances include the Dick Act of 1903 and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. But perhaps the most important was the Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933, and particularly its amendment to the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, and its ratification of such executive orders as the Proclamation 2040 by President Roosevelt issued on March 6, 1933, sometimes called the Emergency and War Powers order. This act, codified as 12 USC 95(b), effectively declared the Constitution suspended and conferred dictatorial powers on the President, a situation which continues to this day. Following this there was a long train of unconstitutional legislation and executive orders, made possible by intimidation of the federal courts. Although some reference to provisions of the Constitution was made to justify them, especially an expanded interpretation of "interstate commerce", it is argued [by some] that what was really done was suspension of the Constitution as the "Supreme Law of the Land" and the extension of the "Law of the Sea" over the land, making all federal courts admiralty courts, under the executive authority of the President. The "Law of the Sea" is a branch of Common Law under which the President and admiralty courts exercise essentially dictatorial powers, akin to martial law. Under this assumed authority, the U.S. Congress, the President, and the federal courts have extended their powers and jurisdiction far beyond the limits imposed on them under the Constitution, in violation of the 10th Amendment.
Senate Report 93-549, written in 1973, said "Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency." It goes on to say: "A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of National emergency.
In the United States, actions taken by government in times of great crisis have ... in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of National emergency."... "These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule this country without reference to normal constitutional process. "Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens." The problem, of course, is that the Constitution does not provide for its own suspension, under some Rule of Necessity, only for temporary suspension of the right of habeas corpus, nor does Congress have such emergency and war powers or the power to delegate them to the President. Such a doctrine of "emergency rule" is a legalistic façade, perhaps providing a defense against summary judgement by a lawful court, but not providing true legal authority. The Constitution is not just the Supreme Law of the Land, but of all operations of the institutions it establishes, as agents of the People, including those at sea and those involving the laws of nations, forbidding them to exercise any powers not specifically delegated to them, in any field of action. A difficulty for this regime is that the vast majority of people in and out of government are unaware of such emergency rule. As far as they are concerned, the Constitution is still in full force and effect. Many of them continue to take an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Some of them are aware of their role as militiamen, as defenders of the State and its Constitution, with a duty to not only obey the Constitution and constitutional laws, but to do what they can to enforce them as well, singly or in concert with one another.
For more information contact: Constitution Society 6900 San Pedro #147-230, San Antonio, TX 78216, 210/224-2868V
my god...i was thinking the same thing! i was just watching Batman last night and this thread is the scene where the Joker tries to shoot the mayor and everyone is running around screaming...hahah!! wow...
I predicted this scenario 2 months ago regarding the repeal of the 22nd amendment limiting the Presaident of the maximum of two terms. This is even go farther than I thought.
The left will NEVER let you “go your separate way”.
WE would let them go in a heartbeat if they asked.
But their whole ideology centers around them “knowing better” and controlling your life.
If conservatives tried to secede from their control, they would use the full force of government, including military power, to make sure you couldn’t get out from under their control.
Is there an expiration date for each state that calls for a CC, or does it last forever?
for instance, lets say NJ called for a CC 4 years ago is it still viable, or does it sunset after a period of time?
Nor are mine, my FRiend, nor those of my family, nor those of my church.
does each state get one vote at the Con-Con? I would like to know how it all works. I would like to take out the part just because a woman drops her baby in our dirty the kid is automatically a citizen.
Well, that’s good to know. Anyone have more details on the laws/procedures regarding a convention?
I have always expected a future Supreme Court would just rule the constitution unconstitutional and rewrite it the way they do everything else. Then,, we would watch as all the Dems celebrated and talked about the boldness of the court,, talking heads would weep on camera,,, RINO’s and a lot of other Republicans would just throw up their hands and say “We may not agree, but we respect the courts opinion.”
A Constitutional Convention would be a REALLY BAD THING in the current situation.
The idiots would probably find that all people (including illegal aliens) have a right to food, shelter, medical care and entertainment, then try to re-write the Constitution to to include this.
They would probably also put in a “Hate Crimes” (aka “Thought Crimes”) provision as well. Hate Crimes would, no doubt, include denying Global Warming and insulting Islam.
I’d hate to see what the Envirocommies would write into the new Constitution...
Naturally, self-defense and the RKBA would NOT be rights any longer.
Nope. No convention. Bad idea.
A con-con is the nuke of platforms to Amend or junk the entire document.
Here is a quote from the textbook that I use in my Honors American Government class on the subject:
The Constitution provides that a national convention requested by the legislatures of two-thirds of the states can propose a constitutional amendment. Congress has received some 400 convention applications since the Constitution was ratified; every state has applied at least once. Less than 20 applications were submitted during the Constitutions first 100 years, but more than 150 have been filed in the last two decades. No national convention has been held since 1787 and many national political and judicial leaders are uneasy about the prospect of convening a body that conceivably do as the Constitutional Convention did -- create a new form of government. The state legislative bodies that originate national conventional applications, however, appear not to be uncomfortable with such a constitutional modification process; more than 230 state constitutional conventions have been held.
Yeah... They try that anywhere outside a novel and there will be gun-fire. That’d push the fringe over the edge so fast it’d be a “tsunami” all right, one that leads right into CWII.
As far as I can tell from a quick looksee, this originally came from here:
http://www.americanpolicy.org/sledgehammer/twostates.htm
So far, I haven’t been able to see a list of which State legislatures have actually voted for a Con Con. So, my BS detector is arcing.
The Constitution’s primary function was to establish and subsequently severely restrict the powers of the federal government. It has failed to do this, primarily because it has been betrayed by those sworn to uphold and defend it. Maybe a Constitutional Convention would be a good thing, if only we are able to accept the reality that the US Constitution is almost completely irrelevant anymore.
Everyone from these states should contact their representatives and tell them to rescind their state’s call immediately.
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.