Posted on 03/16/2014 5:13:58 PM PDT by VitacoreVision
Oklahomans committed to liberty united to defeat the the money spent by con-con supporters.The Inside Story of How Oklahomans Beat the Con-Con
“Whenever our affairs go obviously wrong, the good sense of the people will interpose and set them to rights.”
— Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789
As we reported last week, the Oklahoma State House of Representatives decided not to vote to apply for a constitutional convention (con-con) under the authority of Article V of the Constitution. Put simply, the votes needed to approve the con-con application were not there, and the project is now dead in Oklahoma, at least until next year's legislative session.
This is a crucial victory in the struggle to protect the Constitution and the fundamental liberties it protects from the possible ravages that could result from a second constitutional convention, or, as its supporters call it, a "convention of states."
Dr. Mike Ritze, a key member of the constitutionally minded bloc of the Oklahoma House of Representatives who successfully derailed the con-con locomotive in the Sooner State, told The New American that the fight was close and the hour was late, but in the end a majority of his colleagues decided “they did not want to open the Pandora’s box of a con-con.” Ritze supports state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws as the far safer approach for reining in the federal government.
While Ritze was one of the leaders of the victorious battle against the con-con, there were many devoted constitutionalists fighting with him and the full story of their successful campaign against the con-con deserves to be told.
In January, State Representative Gary Banz filed a resolution (HJR 1083) with the Oklahoma State Legislature asking the state to apply for an Article V convention.
Immediately after filing his call for a con-con, Banz scheduled several events in Oklahoma featuring appearances by several of the leading spokesmen of the Convention of the States (COS) movement. The goal of the meetings was to give the COS presenters time to convince audiences that an Article V Convention is the only hope for saving the Republic (see my article here for a refutation of that claim).
Not only were COS luminaries brought in from out of state to get the con-con resolution passed, but several key members of the delegation of state legislators who attended the recent Mt. Vernon Conference to lay the groundwork for a COS were also working to get Oklahoma on-board. (Information on the purpose of the Mt. Vernon Conference and the power behind it can be found here.)
As legislators, COS leaders, and influential members of the Mt. Vernon meeting traveled the state making their ultimately futile case, Oklahomans aware of the significant and potentially fatal threat to the Constitution posed by a con-con got busy exposing this fact to their fellow citizens.
Members of The John Birch Society, the Eagle Forum, and other constitutionalist organizations attended one of the COS presentations on January 26 at the American Legion Hall in Del City, Oklahoma. The incorrect information they were provided gave them the ammunition they needed to go on the offensive.
On February 4 and again on February 11, about 30 citizen activists descended on the state capitol in Oklahoma City, informing legislators of the risks associated with calling for an Article V convention of the states, including giving legislators historical examples of how such a convention could quickly exceed its mandate and cause irreparable harm to the Constitution. They also reminded their elected representatives of the undeniable fact that Congress doesn't recognize current restrictions on their power and would be unlikely to change their ways if new amendments were added.
Next, on February 18, the Oklahoma House Judiciary Committee met to vote on the con-con resolution. The measure passed narrowly, 8 to 7. The forces of liberty were starting to see the opposition weaken.
How were constituitonalists able to so successfully convince legislators to not call for an Article V convention, especially in light of so much money that was spent by the COS and their legislative allies? The inside story as told by a volunteer leader of the John Birch Society in Oklahoma who was instrumental in the victory:
For the next several weeks thousands of emails and calls from members of the John Birch Society in Oklahoma and like-minded friends went to Oklahoma State Representatives’ giving reasons why they should oppose HJR 1083. I even took a copy of the minutes from the 1787 Philadelphia Convention over to the house of the co-author of HJR 1083, Representative Lewis Moore, and showed him the recorded comments and votes surrounding the development of Article VII of our current constitution and the lengths they were willing to go even at the expense of what was previously committed to by the states. Representative Moore responded by removing his name as a co-author of HJR 1083 and agreed to vote against it.That is truly an inspiring story and one that energize constitutionalists in other states currently embroiled in their own fight against an Article V convention!
As for Oklahoma, on March 11, after taking an informal poll of members of the state House of Representatives to measure the support for the con-con resolution, the Speaker of the House, Representative Jeff Hickman, informed Dr. Ritz that HJR 1083 would not be brought to the floor of the House for a vote.
Victory!
Although the news out of Oklahoma (and other states where the con-con is being defeated) is encouraging, the fight isn't over. As Thomas Jefferson also said, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
Let's all be ready and willing to pay that price — by working to stop a con-con, and by insisting that our elected officeholders enforce the Constitution as opposed to changing it. In the case of state legislators, enforcing the Constitution against unconstitutional federal power grabs means nullification, the approach recommended by Oklahoma state Representative Mike Ritze among others.
What evidence do you have in hiding that shows any indication whatsoever that a convention would do anything but play into the hands of those that would eliminate all of our rights?
No, you think they were wrong.
I want to keep the constitution they gave us; you don’t.
So you think the founding fathers deliberately put Article V in the constitution but for no apparent reason, eh?
Play your childish strawman game with someone that has the same straw filled head as you.
“... play your childish straw-man game with someone else...”
-
I figure about as much from people like you.
You have no argument; you are all about the bluff and the bluster.
If you seriously believe there are 38 states in this Union that
would vote to accept a proposed amendment to the constitution
that would doom “whatever it is that you think they would doom”,
then you are far beyond the hope of the John Birch advocates,
or any of the state’s nullification advocates,
or any of the Article V Convention advocates,
or anything else, for that matter,
and you might as well just go bury your head in the sand.
I’ve had my eyes wide open for most of my life, Apparently you believe in dreams.
It’s your head that is in the sand.
So, what is your solution, or great and wise one?
Read comment at 32. If you won’t read Levins book then answer your phone. You are keeping Alex waiting
Don't know Ed Wolfe.
Research links on the Article V process and the Liberty Amendments:
Convention of States - Alabama Way to go Alabama! A good introduction.
'Convention of states' to rein in government? Another great summary explanation.
The Case for an Article V. Convention. Fantastic explanation of Article V convention to the Mass State Legislature.
I would recommend watching the above three videos first and then:
Convention of States Lots of information here.
A Summary of Mark Levin’s Proposed Amendments by Jacquerie
Chapter 1 of Mark Levin’s Book, The Liberty Amendments
Mark Levin, Constitution Article V, and the Liberty Amendments
Article V Project to Restore Liberty
Rep. Bill Taylor introduces a Convention of States
Mark Levin Article V, Liberty Amendments youtube video hub
Three hour video of C-Span interview with Mark Levin
Gaining Steam? Nearly 100 Lawmakers Descend on Mount Vernon to Talk Convention of States The beginning.
Convention to Propose Amendments to the United States Constitution
The Other Way to Amend the Constitution: The Article V Constitutional Convention Amendment Process
Friends of Article V Convention Links
Ulysses at the Mast: Democracy, Federalism, and the Sirens' Song of the Seventeenth Amendmentby Jay Bybee. Repeal the 17th!
Article V Convention: Path of Least Resistance By Robert Berry
The Final Constitutional Option
Article V Handbook - for State Legislators
State Legislators Article V Caucus State Legislators, Join up at this site!
Send this list of links to your State Representatives and Senators here: Contact your State Legislators.
Sample Letter to state Representatives regarding the Convention of States Project and also, Talking Points. Both from Here.
Excellent Article V Letter to a State Assemblyman by Jacquerie
Let’s all work together to get this going.
The Federal Government is broken. We owe it to The Founders and ourselves to attempt a rational Article V amendment process. If it doesn't work, or is hijacked, then fine, it's on to what we're all expecting anyway, revolution. It's your call America.
Thank you for your snide reply.
I have read the article and about another 50 just like it.
Yes it is controlled by the state legislatures. That would be the same legislatures that are elected by the people who elected Barack Obama twice. The same legislatures that pass wacky gun control laws and other outlandish liberal legislation.
Thank you for your concern but my original comments still apply.
Not knee-jerk at all.
Congress is infected with spineless cowards that care noting for this country.
Obama hates this country and is on a course to tear it apart.
He’s got to go.
NOW.
There is no room in your sand; your empty swelled up head takes up all the space there.
Congress is full of weaklings for sure, but impeachment won’t work just like it didn’t with Bubba. Loser’s poll numbers are in the 30’s now. Strike articles of impeachment they’ll shoot back up to 60% just like with Bubba. Congress will the respond to their constituents and will acquit him...just like Bubba.
We’d be much better off tying Loser’s hands with R majorities in both houses of Congress and legislate away all of his Ex. Orders.
I do agree, Loser has been the very, very worst if not the most criminal President we’ve ever had the misfortune of electing.
Quite right, but it is the Left that has everything to lose at an amendment convention.
We have an arbitrary, despotic government in which the prez determines the law. There are no restraints. A stroll through the Bill of Rights will show very few clauses remain in force. Leftist courts have rewritten the constitution such that it bears no resemblance to a government for a free people.
There is a burr under the saddle for the Left, and it is Article V. We have the power to restore republican freedom. Future generations will shake their heads in wonder if we don't take advantage of our framers' bequest.
Don't assume the states will send majority Leftist radical delegates. Over half of the states opposed Obamacare in court. All have to put up with p!ssant DC bureaucrats pushing them around.
As the Tea Party has demonstrated, there is more than a mere whiff of resistance in the air. There are pent up, patriotic frustrations that await release. The next assembly of states will be held in mid-June. Their press release may be the spark that launches freedom's restoration.
I enjoy your posts and have read the handbook this time out and several other articles but the process requires congress to act and it will ignore anything done by the states. first the petitions. ignored! no counting until they get to 34. the press won’t report anything about it. There could be 34 million. ignored. Also the communications template is already cast. The Media, socialists, libs, eGOP, even the Rand Paul and Fox News Bill O REally will call it a CON-CON. it is already labeled as such and the arguments go like this: “we know we have issues but we don’t believe this country needs to re-write the constitution. We in congress believe we can fix XXXXX”
Why prejudice such a question in order to bias the independent reader of my reply?
28 of the current 50 governors are Republicans. I didn’t bother to count the number of Republican-majority state legislatures there are. It is most likely that Republicans will pick up an even larger majority of state houses in the next election cycle. Any amendments must be ratified by a super-majority of the states.
Consider issues at the state level that could act as “proxies” for the rights that we all should hold precious. For example, notice how many states have objected ObamaCare by refusing to set up a state exchange. More to the point, consider how many states in recent years have expanded the rights to carry a concealed firearm. Notice what happened on Colorado when that state rammed through a restriction on firearms, the number of people who signed the recall petitions were greater than the number of votes the recalled state Senators had received in the general election.
Then there are state actions to outright nullification of federal firearms laws and NSA spying.
None of this is “in hiding”. It is in the news quite frequently. Moreover, in any ratification vote, each state gets one vote irrespective of the number of Electoral Votes it has. So, while Kalifornia is solidly liberal and has a lot of Electoral Votes, it cannot outvote Wyoming or Montana. All of this works to giving weight in any ratification vote to the conservative side.
Lastly, any ratification will be a few election cycles in the future, most liberal states in the northeast are losing population and thus as a result of the next census will lose more seats in the House of Representatives to the advantage of states like Texas.
On my part, and touching on your concerns, if the only Amendment that was proposed was to sharply limit federal spending by limiting governments ability to create near-infinite money and debt out of thin air, we would go a long way towards protecting our panoply of rights. Near-infinite money buys near-government and near-infinite bureaucracy. Cut the money and government must of necessity shrink too.
You obviously lack a clear understanding of an Article V convention.
It cannot be limited to one amendment, and once opened would be permanently open according to most competent constitutional scholars. (There is no clear process to adjourn such a convention)
The 17th Amendment removed Senators from their proper function and disempowered the states relative to Washington.
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.