U.S. now only 2 states away from rewriting Constitution

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | December 12, 2008 | Bob Unruh

[Man50D]

A public policy organization has issued an urgent alert stating affirmative votes are needed from only two more states before a Constitutional Convention could be assembled in which "today's corrupt politicians and judges" could formally change the U.S. Constitution's "'problematic' provisions to reflect the philosophical and social mores of our contemporary society."

"Don't for one second doubt that delegates to a Con Con wouldn't revise the First Amendment into a government-controlled privilege, replace the 2nd Amendment with a 'collective' right to self-defense, and abolish the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments, and the rest of the Bill of Rights," said the warning from the American Policy Institute.

"Additions could include the non-existent separation of church and state, the 'right' to abortion and euthanasia, and much, much more," the group said.

The warning comes at a time when Barack Obama, who is to be voted the next president by the Electoral College Monday, has expressed his belief the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lens of current events.

Tom DeWeese, who runs the center and its education and grassroots work, told WND the possibilities stunned him when he discovered lawmakers in Ohio are considering a call for a Constitutional Convention. He explained that 32 other states already have taken that vote, and only one more would be needed to require Congress to name convention delegates who then would have more power than Congress itself.

[trumandogz]

A “Con Con” would be a Circus and a Disaster.

[DieHard the Hunter]

Scary thought. I do not like to think of the havoc that this could produce. Canada devised its Constitution in haste, and is now repenting at leisure. But this has scope to be infinitely worse.

[Star Traveler]

Some previous discussion here — already...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2146787/posts

[Star Traveler]

You said — “A “Con Con” would be a Circus and a Disaster.”

—

A Constitutional Convention is a second option to the other method of “proposing amendments” to the Constitution.

Note that it is for “proposing amendments”... as the states still have to *ratify* whatever the Constitutional Convention proposes as an amendment. It has to be submitted to the states for that same 3/4 of the states to approve before it is put into effect and changes the Constitution.

So..., just like an amendment that the Congress proposes and 3/4 of the states may or may not approve — likewise — a Constitutional Convention proposes an amendment which 3/4 of the states will approve or not approve.

It still has to go through the same “approval process”...

[Star Traveler]

The request for a Constitutional Convention is the second method by which the Constitution has for proposing amendments. It was put in there in case the Congress would not act to propose an amendment. This is the second way it is done.

Now, any amendment is still required to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.

And besides that, this particular call for the Balanced Budget Amendment (since Congress has not put it forth) is being done by the “second method” for proposing amendments to the Constitution. And, as I said (and as the Constitution says), it still requires 3/4 of the states to approve for ratification.

[Star Traveler]

An older article addressing the issue...

The Balanced Budget Amendment: A Limited Constitutional Convention

http://www.publicpurpose.com/bba.htm

Addresses the concerns that one would have a “runaway constitutional convention”....

[Star Traveler]

Anyone can look at this information about Article 5 of the Constitution...

A starting reference to Article 5 of the Constitution and some discussion...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

You can go from there and look at other sources.

[Star Traveler]

This issue is not like many people think it is... It has been *in progress* for over 20-30 years and so started *many years ago*...

It is true. It happened about 20-30 years ago. There’s no time limit for how long the states have to take to request this Constitutional Convention. It can go on for another 20-30 years and if another two states request it — it’s a “done deal”.... That’s how it works.

There was even a Constitutional Amendment that took about 200 years to pass. The last state ratified it 200 years later and that Amendment went into effect.

So, it’s not all like you think...

[Star Traveler]

You said — “Scary thought. I do not like to think of the havoc that this could produce. Canada devised its Constitution in haste, and is now repenting at leisure. But this has scope to be infinitely worse.”

—

It’s no more havoc than any other Constitutional Amendment has been. It still has to go through the 3/4 of the states ratifying anything before an amendment is approved.

This method is *one* of the *two ways* that the Constitution provides for a Constitutional Amendment — therefore it *is* a “Constitutional process”...

It’s Article 5 of the Constitution...

[WKUHilltopper]

Brink of treason!! But then again, nobody in Congress seems to give a damn about the Constitution now anyway. We’ve got a President and Sect’y of State that are not Constitutionally eligible, so why not trash the entire thing? Bastards!!

[DieHard the Hunter]

> It’s Article 5 of the Constitution...

What you say is true (I checked) — however, I don’t feel too much more at ease. I think you might agree that these are “interesting” times (in the Asian sense of the word) in the United States, and that there is some lingering doubt as to the eligibility of your POTUS-Elect — at least in some circles. Equally, there seems to be some willingness in some circles not to insist on clearing this matter up decisively.

So already it is possible that your Constitution isn’t being insisted upon as vigorously as it could be.

Once again, Canada comes to mind as an instructional example. Technically, to re-patriate the BNA and to replace it with a Constitution, they needed unanimity amongst the 10 Provinces. In the event, 9 said “yes” and 1 said “no” (Quebec). So they did it anyway, leaving Quebec out of the Canadian Constitution!

So to my mind it probably doesn’t matter what amending formula your Constitution has: if there is enough mood to change it, they will change it by hook or by crook.

Probably by crook.

[NavVet]

We have a Con Con every time the Supreme Court hears a case.

[Star Traveler]

You said — “So to my mind it probably doesn’t matter what amending formula your Constitution has: if there is enough mood to change it, they will change it by hook or by crook.”

Well, you can only have (i.e., the general public, at large) what everyone really wants and will really support. In that sense, the Constitution is *only* a piece of paper — and, as such, it depends upon those who support it. If there are not enough who still want it, then it will not be around anymore.

There is really nothing “sacred” about the Constitution, because it takes the *continual support* of the people, in general, and at large. If it’s not there, then the argument can be made that “politically speaking” the people *want it changed* from the way it was before....

[Jeff Gordon]

It can go on for another 20-30 years and if another two states request it — it’s a “done deal”.

Several states have rescinded their votes for this convention.

[Star Traveler]

You said — “Several states have rescinded their votes for this convention.”

The Constitution does not recognize any rescinding of their vote. It only “counts” (by the Constitution’s own wording) the requests for a Constitutional Convention...

It’s sort of similar to one of the Constitution’s amendments that was approved, just recently, *after two hundred years*. Most people would have considered it a “dead issue” after two hundred years — but the Constitution didn’t...

[Evil Slayer]

Per the article....

"You may have heard that some of those 32 states have voted to rescind their calls. This is true," the warning continued. "However, under Article V of the Constitution, Congress must call a Constitutional Convention whenever two-thirds (or 34) of the states apply. The Constitution makes no provision for rescission."

[P8riot]

So to my mind it probably doesn’t matter what amending formula your Constitution has: if there is enough mood to change it, they will change it by hook or by crook.

Probably by crook.

And Lord knows they have enough of them in DC to do it.

[MarkL]

Neal Boortz has been on a rant about getting a constitutional convention, in order to get rid of the 16th and 17th amendments and to implement the fair tax. He says that "all" you need to do is get the states to pass a carefully worded, limited resolution that will ONLY allow the con-con to do these things, and nothing else. However, in a discussion I had a number of years ago with a man who had actually argued a constitutional case before the SCOTUS, I was told that once a con-con convenes, there are no limits that can be placed on it in theory, and when you consider that in many cases you're dealing with people who refuse to accept and follow the rules laid down by the current consitution, in practice.

Mark

[Sherman Logan]

"Don't for one second doubt that delegates to a Con Con wouldn't revise the First Amendment into a government-controlled privilege, replace the 2nd Amendment with a 'collective' right to self-defense, and abolish the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments, and the rest of the Bill of Rights," said the warning from the American Policy Institute.

Like the NRA couldn't get one house of the state legislature to refuse to ratify. This is utterly and completely a non-issue.

For an amendment to pass it requires not only overwhelming support nationally, but also that this support be more or less evenly distributed geographically. Controversial issues will never ever get this support.

That's why the only truly controversial amendments to ever pass were the 13th thru 15th, which passed only because Congress extorted ratification, using arguably unconstitutional methods, from southern states.

I would much prefer to see amending the constitution made easier, if we could at the same time somehow limit the ability of the Court to amend it by fiat.

A Constitution which cannot be amended to settle controversial issues encourages end-runs around it, which is exactly what we have. The people and the states have been bypassed, and the most critical issues are decided for the entire country by one person, the swing voter on the Court. In recent years, Justice Kennedy has in some ways been the most powerful man in the country.