Posted on 12/09/2013 1:01:55 PM PST by Da Bilge Troll
Yesterday, approximately 100 state legislators from over 30 states met at George Washington's home in Mount Vernon, VA. The meeting's purpose was to begin drafting the procedural rules for a Convention of States. I was not present at the gathering (only state legislators were allowed to attend), but earlier in the week I had a face to face conversation with the leadership of the Mount Vernon Assembly.
We are beginning to reach critical mass in our efforts to use Article V of the Constitution to rein in the power of the federal government. The Mount Vernon Assembly is one of the major steps in that effort.
While the work of this group of legislators cannot be binding until actually adopted by a Convention of States, it will be critical to have this work done in advance and to have a majority of the states endorse it in advance. This will ensure the Convention itself can avoid prolonged disputes on the rules and can get right to work on the substance of drafting amendments that limit the power of Washington, D.C.
But there is another, somewhat unfortunate piece of evidence that shows this project is reaching critical mass. Conservative critics of this idea have recently increased both the loudness and shrillness of their long-standing claims that this approach is a dangerous threat to our country through a runaway "Con-Con."
Here is why their arguments are doomed to fail: 1. They are based on faulty history. The original Constitution was not adopted as the result of a runaway convention. Their entire argument is premised on this fallacy. 2. They have to convince state legislators that we can't trust state legislators.
You see, state legislators control the Article V process from beginning to end. The "Con-Con" argument requires state legislators to believe that we should be afraid of state legislators who might abuse their power.
But what's the alternative? These fear-based arguments leave us in the utterly precarious position of trusting Washington, D.C., to right itself.
No one should trust Washington, D.C., more than they trust state legislators. But, at the end of the day, the audience that matters most is state legislators. State legislators certainly trust themselves more than they trust Congress and the rest of the crowd in D.C.
The fear-based arguments are being overcome by the developing consensus of conservative leadership. Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, David Barton, and I all stand shoulder to shoulder to say that we can trust the Founders’ own solution. And that solution is found in Article V--we need to call a Convention of States.
Join us. Make history. Save liberty.
ping!
Who were these approximate 100 state legislators that were the only ones that could meet to lay down the rules for moving forward with this process???
Did those that attend the meeting caucus with their constituency first before heading out to make decisions like this???
I am really curious to see who from Texas went to this event...
If they go through with this, consider the Second Amendment gone.
Why?
Let’s do it.
“...consider the Second Amendment gone...”
-
Take your meds.
Great news. Thanks for the post.
Why is Roger Hedgecock being such a weenie about it? (Anyone hear his Friday show?)
Do you really believe that the commie DemocRATS are going to allow people to tinker with the Constitution without removing the things the ‘RATS don’t like? The Bill of Rights will be unrecognizable after this. JMO. No meds involved. Just a lot of knowledge about how the commies ALWAYS outsmart our side every chance they get. A constitutional convention? Big mistake! HUGE mistake!
Same article. Different source. Different FReeper. Ping.
Likewise, would like to know who’s involved in this.
If there were votes available from three fourths of the states it would be gone already.
There ain’t now, there won’t be then.
And anyway, such a proposal would be outside the purpose of the convention.
Educate yourself and stop being such a nattering nabob of negativity.
My main question is: which MO state reps attended? (I don't expect you to know; I'm wondering aloud.)
Lord, please lead them, shepard them. God’s speed to them.
First off bub, they can not remove anything unless three quarters of the states agree. Secondly, bub, what would you call the original constitutional convention? Was it a state convention? Or was it a federal convention? The answer is bub, it was a state convention. The states ratified the US CONSTITUTION AND CREATED THIS MONSTROSITY. SO THEY CAN MEET TO AMEND IT.
If you want the reality to this
“proposition”: How many current states have democrat party controlled legislatures? (I don’t know but I bet it is somewhere between 50 & 60.) If it is over 66 THEN you will begin to hear a media outcry for a “convention”.
If this convention happens, I’d love to see a couple of amendments proposed: 1. Term Limits. 2. No pay raised for Congress unless approved by the people during an election year. 3. All laws passed by Congress MUST apply to Congress with no special treatment or subsidies. and, 4. Return to selecting Senators through state legislatures. Not sure a balanced budget amendment is such a good idea. It only gives Dem majorities the ammo they need to justify tax increases to pay for their increased spending.
Thanks bub.
“I am really curious to see who from Texas went to this event...”
State Representative James White of East Texas.
http://www.jameswhiteforeasttexas.com/
Conservative Republican, ex-mil - check out his website.
Looks to be a good guy, but I have no firsthand info on him.
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.