Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Hostage
We're talking about a Constitutional Convention and not an Amendment to the Constitution, put forth by the Congress.

The following from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, giving his opinion about a Constitutional Convention.

I think I'll take his opinion... thank you! LOL ...




Supreme Court of the United States

Washington, D.C. 20543

June 22, 1983



Chambers of
Chief Justice Burger 
Retired 

Dear Phyllis:

I am glad to respond to your inquiry about a proposed Article V Constitutional Convention. I have been asked questions about this topic many times during my news conferences and at college meetings since I became chairman of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution, and I have repeatedly replied that such a convention would be a grand waste of time.

I have also repeatedly given my opinion that 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. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don't like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress "for the sole and express purpose."

With George Washington as chairman, they were able to deliberate in total secrecy, with no press coverage and no leaks. A constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all for special interest groups, television coverage, and press speculation.

Our 1787 Constitution was referred to by several of its authors as a "miracle." Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new Constitutional Convention could not be worth the risks involved. A new convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subjects needing attention. I have discouraged the idea of a Constitutional Convention, and I am glad to see states rescinding their previous resolutions requesting a convention. In these bicentennial years, we should be celebrating its long life, not challenging its very existence. Whatever may need repair on our Constitution can be dealt with by specific amendments.

Cordially,
(Signature)
Warren Burger

Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly
68 Fairmont
Alton, IL 62002



http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/burger.htm

106 posted on 03/22/2010 8:29:01 PM PDT by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies ]


To: Star Traveler
Warren Burger wrote that letter before the 1992 law codified things.

By the way, Sandra Day O'Connor referred to Burger as "the dummy" behind his back. Things have changed since that letter.

110 posted on 03/22/2010 8:33:22 PM PDT by Publius (The prudent man sees the evil and hides himself; the simple pass on and are punished.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]

To: Star Traveler
I was there, on staff to FORMER Chief Justice Burger, when he wrote this misbegotten opinion letter. Burger had resigned his position on the court when he wrote this letter to Schafly. So this is the unofficial opinion of one, elderly man. It is NOT any kind of official statement.

This question was definitively answered by Congress itself in 1992.

Congressman Billybob

Don't Tread On Me (9/12 photo and poster"

""feeding Starving People;/a>

131 posted on 03/23/2010 6:05:16 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob (www.TheseAretheTimes.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson