Posted on 02/22/2011 10:59:13 AM PST by Kaslin
Have you seen the television pictures of the tens of thousands of demonstrators at the Wisconsin State Capitol who are protesting proposed budget cuts for state employees? If so, you've had an advance peek at the sort of demonstrations that will take place if state legislatures are foolish enough to pass resolutions asking Congress to call a national convention to consider amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Barack Obama's political arm, "Organizing for America," swelled the crowds by busing in protesters from Wisconsin and from other states, too. A national convention to amend the U.S. Constitution would become the media event of the century, with 24/7 TV coverage, giving us every reason to anticipate that "Organizing for America" would flood the process of electing delegates and then demonstrate to hurl demands on their deliberations.
All of a sudden, as though someone gave the signal, resolutions are pending in several state legislatures to use the never-before-used power set forth in Article V to petition Congress to "call a Convention for proposing Amendments." This campaign exploits the frustration of many Americans with Congress's out-of-control spending, increase in the national debt (with much of it borrowed from China) and passage of laws, such as ObamaCare, that severely limit our freedoms.
Many state legislators are promising that a convention would be limited to consideration of only one specific amendment. No way. Article V clearly specifies that a convention is for the purpose of "proposing Amendments" (note the plural).
Furthermore, various state resolutions support different amendments. Some specify that the one amendment to be considered must be the Repeal Amendment (to allow states to repeal an act of Congress). Others want the one amendment to be Debt Limitation, others want a Balanced Budget Amendment, others want a change in the Electoral College, others want to abolish the 17th Amendment, and one proposal is for a list of 10 Amendments.
When the protesters assemble, we can be sure that many special-interest groups will be pushing their own agendas. You can bet that a once-in-a-lifetime convention will attract activists demanding union rights (like the Wisconsin demonstrators), gay rights, gun control, abortion rights, Equal Rights Amendment and Washington, D.C., statehood.
Calling a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution would be a plunge into darkness because the only rules to govern it are those specified in Article V. It takes two-thirds (34) of the states to pull the trigger, Congress controls and issues the call, and the convention must consider Amendments (in the plural).
Anyone who has attended a national political convention knows very well that the guy with the gavel exercises ruthless power. I've attended 15 Republican National Conventions plus many other national, state and district political conventions, and I've seen every kind of high-handed tactic and rules broken with the bang of the gavel, including cutting off mikes, recognizing only pre-chosen delegates, expelling unwanted delegates, cheating on credentials and rules, fixing the voting machines, etc., etc.
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a national hero for winning the case that persuaded a judge to declare ObamaCare unconstitutional, stated on the steps of the Capitol in Richmond on Jan. 17: "What about a runaway convention? Yes, it is true that once you assemble a convention that states have called, they can do anything they want."
That blows away the silly claims by advocates of a new convention, such as the so-called Goldwater Institute in Arizona (which was never known by Barry Goldwater), that the state legislatures can "define the agenda of an Amendments Convention," restricting it to a specific amendment or a single subject.
The Goldwater Institute cites Article V language that no state can "be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate" to allegedly prove that an Amendments Convention cannot "rewrite the entire Constitution." Au contraire. Saying that a convention cannot do one thing actually means that the convention can do everything else except that one thing.
Goldwater Institute spokesmen try to predict what procedures would be followed by an Amendments Convention, but in fact nobody knows what procedures would be used. Congress has defeated all bills that tried to establish rules, so we don't know how the delegates would be chosen, whether they would be paid, how they would be apportioned among the states, whether they would have to have a super-majority to vote out a new amendment, etc., etc.
Goldwater Institute spokesmen try to claim James Madison is on their side, but their history is as faulty as their arguments. Madison wrote: "Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first convention, which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a second."
All fun and games until we go Galt.
Ah... we’re living in doomed times, the US is doomed, the world is doomed... If you don’t believe in Jesus, ya might want to look into that “salvation thing” and the general Christian’s understanding of “end times”. Not all Christians believe the same thing mind you... if the path to Jesus isn’t straight and narrow, don’t get on it... if the message is that we must coalesce into a one world system, head for the hills... doom is upon this present world system.
Were gonna need a lot of rope!
It’s time to cleanse the nation of this fraud. Arrest Soros and Obama.
And we are going Galt.......for sure this time
If an opportunity for the left to affect the Constitution is attempted, it will be the right with military background going Charles Martel until there are none of them left. And any who get in the way of that will be deemed part of the left.
The long forecast peaceful collapse into communism was never in the cards. And it will be opposed with more force than hissy fits, holding breath and turning blue, running away to pout, or riots.
Schalfly gets it right.
“Many state legislators are promising that a convention would be limited to consideration of only one specific amendment. No way. Article V clearly specifies that a convention is for the purpose of “proposing Amendments” (note the plural). “
Check out freeper Travis Mcgee’s novels for what would really happen:
http://www.enemiesforeignanddomestic.com/
The whole thing could be rewritten, and there is no guarantee we would be the ones rewriting it.
And the reults would almost certainly be all out civil war. How about we just vote out the commies spending all the money?
With an name like Broken Arrow, I’d have expected you to go NUCLEAR!
Got bullets?
And any who get in the way of that will be deemed part of the left.
I agree with much of your post, however, with the certain disruption to our economy and shortages of essential items, it could become difficult to tell the good guys from the bad.
Consider all the internal threats we face, they didn't all go home on 9/12 and have had more than a decade to prepare the battlefield, our borders are wide open, etc. IMO, the next 9/11 will be a much better thought out and coordinated series of events.
At the moment, "they" have more experience causing chaos than we do manning up for more than a brief war on our home streets.
I have always figured the next natural progression of the Tea Party Revolution would be to push to convene a Constitutional Convention and I hope we do.
If such a Convention were called, the delegates would most likely be every member of Congress. Seeing as they get the call I just do not fathom them giving up the power to make the decisions.
Sure they can pass all sorts of amendments , but I am sure most passed would be along the lines of what is being pushed by the forces calling the convention. It really does not matter as the amendments would still have to be voted on from the States Legislators. So there is nothing overly to fear.
However, I suspect that if it became obvious that the States were about to call such a Convention into being. I would imagine that the Congress would propose just those amendments which were the driving force from the States in an effort to short circuit such a Convention’s need.
Any rate it is clear we need several amendments to place the beast genie of big government back in it’s bottle. So either way I am all for beginning the process of calling a Constitutional Convention.
I’m keeping an eye on the eastern sky these days, because I expect Jesus Christ and his heavenly host to split that sky wide open any day now. I’m looking for him! Of course, it may be night here when he arrives, and I may be physically asleep at the time. If so, I’ll just wake up in a different place than here. I’m scared of heights, so I hope it’ll be a quick trip up through the air to meet him.
Well my friend, fortunately for you, all fear will be abolished, and it’ll be like you’re body is a magnet and Christ is Iron, you’ll sail right up to him, and I guarantee, you’ll enjoy the ride!!
I have been saying for years that calling a Constitutional Convention or a convention to consider amendments would be possibly the worst thing ever done in the nation. Most people don’t get it until I explain the rules of such. We are heading down a dangerous path.
There have been over 700 calls of Constitutional convention by 49 States. They all fell upon deaf ears by congress which was unfortunately given the ministerial task of recognizing the calls and seting a date for the actual convention.
If we are to hold a Constitutional convention we will need each of the calling States to take count themselves and organize the Date and place of the convention themselves.
Of course not every State will attend such a convention, not every state attended the last convention.
But it is my believe that contrary to the warring of this article, such a convention could hardly make our situation much worse then it already is. That is to say our present situation is in the grips of a lawless(self-defined discretionary limited) Federal government.
Under the limits practically followed by the Federal government there is nothing they cant decided to do.
What good is a law that applys only so much as the only possible criminal chooses it to apply to themselves? It is of little to no good for us. The monster of government has broken his binding to the wall. Thou he still carry’s the chain, the chain is of no real restraint.
If we are to call a convention we must see to it that the delegates we send are almost entirely our owns and that the amendment they propose are simple in their nature and directed towards creating greater accountability of the central government to its constituent states.
Any act to in anyway expand the roll of power of that government as to in anyway suppress any segment of our population must be strictly prohibited.
Most important of all and most critical and fundamental to the success of any such limitation is the right of unilateral secession.
Without this right no other limitations upon the central government really matter.
Such a right is both inherit and essential to the rights of man as it is the only way to force men to recognize the consent of their neighbors to continued union is the only way to insure such union remains mutually beneficial rather then abusive.
“I have been saying for years that calling a Constitutional Convention or a convention to consider amendments would be possibly the worst thing ever done in the nation. Most people don’t get it until I explain the rules of such. We are heading down a dangerous path.”
More dangerous then doing nothing and continuing to live under a government that is effectively boundless(lawless)?
I would agree with respect to the current lot of our countrymen with so many so determined to wage war upon our most essential rights that a convention to provide them a forum is a truly frighting prospect.
Particularity if it is stacked with our current federal leaders.(It would be wise to prohibit any member of the convention from ever holding federal office under the new government)
Still the only way to be truly safe is to restore the inalienable right of unilateral secession.
Men particularly theses liberals must be be limited by their fear of their subjects withdrawing from their authority when their authority becomes more destructive to our rights then helpful.
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.