Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,937 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
If this is true, then we are in a heap of trouble.....

http://www.newsbull.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=71963


U.S. Two States Away from Constitutional Convention

News Source: American Policy Center
Story Link: http://www.americanpolicy.org/


Story Text: APC SLEDGEHAMMER ACTION ALERT

From the American Policy Center
Tom DeWeese - President
70 Main Street, Suite 23
Warrenton, VA 20186
www.americanpolicy.org

Extremely Urgent Action Alert!


U.S. Two States Away from Constitutional Convention

This is the most urgent, most important action alert the American Policy Center has ever issued! The Ohio state legislature is expected to vote today, Wednesday, Dec. 10th, to call for a Constitutional Convention (Con Con). If Ohio calls for a Con Con only one more state need do so and Congress will have no choice but to convene a Convention, throwing our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights up for grabs. Ohio's vote today poses a grave threat to the U.S. Constitution. Please immediately call the Ohio lawmakers listed below. ACT FAST - time is of the essence!

I apologize! This malignancy most foul remained undetected by our radar until a good friend brought it to our attention yesterday. The hour is late, but WE MUST TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION!

It does not matter where you live. Ohio's vote today endangers everyone in every state in the Union, so we must pressure Ohio lawmakers to discard this disastrous legislative effort.

Thirty-two (32) other states have already called for a Con Con (allegedly to add a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution). 34 states are all that is required, and then Congress MUST convene a Convention.

The U.S. Constitution places no restriction on the purposes for which the states can call for a Convention. If Ohio votes to call a Con Con, for whatever purpose, the United States will be only one state away from total destruction. And it's a safe bet that those who hate this nation, and all She stands for, are waiting to pounce upon this opportunity to re-write our Constitution. We dare slumber no longer; we must take immediate action to preserve this nation!

Certainly all loyal Americans want government constrained by a balanced budget. But calling a Con Con risks a revolutionary change in our form of government. The ultimate outcome will likely be a new constitution; one that would possibly eliminate the Article 1 restriction to the coinage of real money or even eliminate gun or property rights. So what may look like a good idea to the legislators driving this effort - all Republicans - will certainly make them prey to the law of unintended consequences - at the very least insuring the U.S. will never have a balanced budget - while destroying what vestiges of liberty the government still allows.

You may have heard that some of those 32 states have voted to rescind their calls. This is true. However, under Article V of the Constitution, Congress must call a Constitutional Convention whenever 2/3 (or 34) of the states apply. The Constitution makes no provision for rescission. We've been told advocates of the convention are waiting to capture just two more states - Ohio, and one other. They can then challenge the other states' rescissions in the courts while going ahead with the Convention. Congress alone then decides whether state legislatures or state conventions ratify proposed amendments.

You may have heard the states can control the subject of any convention. In truth no restrictive language from any state can legally limit the scope or outcome of a Convention! Once a Convention is called Congress determines how the delegates to the Convention are chosen. Once chosen, those Convention delegates possess more power than the U.S. Congress itself; if it were not so they would not be able to change the U.S. Constitution!

We have not had a Constitutional Convention since 1787. That Convention was called to make small changes in the Articles of Confederation. As a point of fact, several states first passed resolutions requiring their delegates discuss amendments to the Articles ONLY, forbidding even discussion of foundational changes. However, following the delegates' first agreement that their meetings be in secret, their second act was to agree to debate those state restrictions and to declare the Articles of Confederation NULL AND VOID! They also changed the ratification process, reducing the required states' approval from 100% to 75%. There is no reason to believe a contemporary Con Con wouldn't further "modify" Article V restrictions to suit its purpose.

As former Chief Justice Warren Burger said in a letter written to Phyllis Schlafly, President of Eagle Forum:
"...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..." (emphasis mine)

We were blessed in 1787; the Con Con delegates were the leaders of a freedom movement that had just cleansed this land of tyranny.

Today's corrupt politicians and judges would like nothing better than the ability to legally ignore the Constitution - to modify its "problematic" provisions to reflect the philosophical and socials mores of our contemporary society.

The majority of U.S. voters just elected a dedicated leftist as President. Republicans are at their weakest right now! This is a horrible time to try such a crazy scheme. We cannot control the debate right now! Don't for one second doubt that delegates to a Con Con wouldn't revise the 1st 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. Additions could include the non-existent Separation of Church and State, the "right" to ******** and euthanasia, and much, much more.

Our uniquely and purely American concept of individual rights, endowed by our Creator, would be quickly set aside as an anachronistic relic of a bygone era; replaced by new "collective" rights, awarded and enforced by government for the "common good".

The problems our nation faces are not a result of deficiencies in our Constitution; rather, they are the direct result of our disregard for that divinely-inspired document of liberty.

There is no challenge faced by this nation that cannot be solved either by enforcing existing law, or in limited cases, by writing new law. We do not need, AND MUST NOT RISK THE LIBERTY OF THE UNITED STATES with, a Constitutional Convention!

Ohio must not vote for a Con Con! We cannot control the debate! And state #34 is likely sitting silently in the wings, ready to act with lightning speed, sealing the fate of our once great nation before we can prevent it.

Stop the Ohio bill and we can stop the Constitutional Convention.

ACTION TO TAKE

We need only stop the House bill, HJR8, sponsored by Representative Louis Blessing, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (there is a Senate bill too).

1. Call Chairman Blessing's office and tell his staff you oppose a Constitutional Convention and you want this process stopped.

Tell them this is the most dangerous time ever to call for such a convention.

Tell them no one can control the debate or outcome of a Con Con.

Representative Louis Blessing
Phone: (614) 466-9091
Fax: (614) 719-3583
Email: [email protected]

2. Call Representative Bill Batchelder. He is a very good man. I've known him for years. But he has been misled on this issue. The word is he is wavering. Your calls can convince him to withdraw his support. That can kill this bill.

Representative Bill Batchelder
Phone: (614) 466-8140
Fax: (614) 719-3969
Email: [email protected]

3. It is URGENT that you make your calls right now. The bill could be voted on as early as this afternoon (Wednesday).

I'm so sorry for this late notice. We just found out about this last night.

Please get this message out far and wide. This task requires our very best effort! E-mail and call your friends, family and neighbors. Network anywhere and everywhere possible. If you know someone who never takes action, encourage them to break that habit this one time. Our Constitution is under assault!

Visit the American Policy Center website


SEND THIS MESSAGE TO AT LEAST TEN MORE PEOPLE! APC is now offering you a quick and easy way to multiply your efforts and help win more battles! Simply click here to send this APC Action Alert to up to TEN of your friends! It’s fast, it’s easy and most of all, it’s extremely effective in KILLING OPPRESSIVE POLICIES!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
While I agree this is very dangerous, there is one slight thing, that the original author neglects to mention, either by not knowing Constitutional Law or intentionally not mentioning this fact.

Article 5 of the United States Constitution when talking about the Ratification of a Constitutional Amendment that is created by legislators or brought about by a convention must be ratified by at least three-fourths of the total states (37.5 or 38).

What does make it dangerous, is that they will have had 34 states to call on this convention, so if all states that bring about this convention and get 4 more states on their side, then it would pass.

I don't believe that in the case of the 2nd Amendment it would get past many states. After all 22 states did vote Republican in the election, but I digress that the $700 Billion Bailout did pass the U.S. House because of all the "Me-too" things offered to those who had originally voted against the bill in the first place, things that would have never passed the Senate in the first place, if it were not to buy votes from many Republicans. So I am worried in that case, what would be offered up to get the needed states/votes.

V/r
Seekerofknowledge

Oh, and this being my first post, hello from GA.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,937 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
What does make it dangerous, is that they will have had 34 states to call on this convention, so if all states that bring about this convention and get 4 more states on their side, then it would pass.

I don't think you get it.
This is a vote for a constitutional convention.
Not to ratify an amendment.

They are 2 states short of the goal.
Obstensively this convention would be used for creating a "balanced budget amendment" to be inserted into the existing constituiton.
This is completely seperate from the congressional/senate/state constitutional amendment process which you're thinking of.
If a constitutional convention is voted for by 34 or the states, then the congress must call for a constitutional convention.

If a constitutional convention happens, debate cannot be limited to any topic, or area--the whole existing constitution can be scrapped and a new one inserted in it's place. The whole scope and intent could be changed in secret. And it doesn't have to be voted upon by the states either--the state delegates could pass it alone. On a Friday you could have convention called, and by Monday--a brand new constitution... without a 2nd Amendment, or any of the amendments--or rights.

That's why I think this is urgent.

T
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
I don't think you get it.
This is a vote for a constitutional convention.
Not to ratify an amendment.
From Wikipedia:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Process: In order to call a national convention for proposing amendments, two-thirds of the state legislatures must pass resolutions requesting a convention for that purpose. Delegates to the convention would then be responsible for developing the proposed amendment to be submitted back to the states for ratification.

After an Article V convention, the amendment must be ratified by three quarters of the states. This could be done by the state legislatures, or the ratification process could resemble a referendum if (as was the case with the 21st Amendment) the people themselves elect ratifying conventions. Under this option, delegates could be elected to ad hoc state conventions.

Possible Scope: Constitutional scholars are divided as to how a national, amendment-proposing convention would function procedurally, and whether such a convention would be limited to the one subject for which it was summoned or whether delegates could expand the agenda as they might see fit.[13] Opponents of a convention assert "There is no consensus as to whether or not the convention would have the power to simply disavow the Constitution altogether and propose replacing it with an entirely new document, and that it is worth noting that such an outcome would be similar to what happened when the Convention of 1787 ended up writing the current Constitution. That convention was called for the purpose of revising the earlier Articles of Confederation, but it chose instead to abandon the articles in favor of a completely new document." However, these opponents fail to note that the 1787 convention was authorized by the Articles of Confederation, by an act of Congress, and by votes of the states; and that under this Act of Congress, any action taken by the 1787 Convention was invalid unless ratified by both a vote of Congress and the states.[14] As then, so now: Anything that emerges from an Article V convention is merely a proposal, without any force or effect until ratified by the states. Under Article V three-fourths of the states (presently 38 of 50) is the minimum necessary to ratify.

As I read it, even in the case where they want to change the Second Amendment, or banish it completely it still requires a 75% vote of both Senate and the House would still be required to make a change. It would then be a ratification of the Constitution of the United States.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,937 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 · (Edited)
You got it right. But it is a dangerous thing to do.
They cannot be limited in scope. Cannot.
Anything can be done. Start over fresh, or just make amendments.
Or eliminate them.

And with Barry O, and the communists being the majority, and a looming economic melt-down in progress, which will consume this country with hardship and chaos..... what do you think a likely outcome will be?

If you have any doubts what these vids... listen carefully to the first few minutes of the first video, and how the delegates are chosen and what they cannot be limited to. This is ****-scary!


VIDEO: Beware Article V: Message to State Legislatures
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:
 

·
Squawker
Joined
·
145 Posts
I agree entirely. A call to a Constitutional Congress was considered a few decades ago, when conservatives were looking to make some changes. But when they saw the damage that could occur, and how it could easily get out of hand, the thought died quickly. We need to have this thought die too. A Constitutional Congress is the most dangerous thing that this country could face. Because the Constitution of the United States, as much as I have cried over it's interpretation in recent years, is still the one thing that guarantees our freedom. And it could be tossed completely in the garbage with a Constitutional Congress. Takezo is absolutely right about this. It is dangerous. In such a Congress, everything is in play. Add whatever right someone wants, and toss out those clumbsy 10 amendments. Civil war is something that could easily erupt, as our rights are taken away. This has to be stopped.
 

·
one day at a time
Joined
·
2,478 Posts
You got it right. But it is a dangerous thing to do.
They cannot be limited in scope. Cannot.
Anything can be done. Start over fresh, or just make amendments.
Or eliminate them.

And with Barry O, and the communists being the majority, and a looming economic melt-down in progress, which will consume this country with hardship and chaos..... what do you think a likely outcome will be?
That is something I try not to think about. Its a scary thought. A whole new country. With the removal of the constitution that also means they could and most likely would change the 2 term presidency?! This means that obama will not go away. With the new computer voting process we all know they are and can be rigged to make who they want to win!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
I fear that the 21 Rep Governors will not do enough in choosing the right people as delegates to the Convention. Some of those Republican governors are left leaning anyways, California and Hawaii are the most prominent.

If they remove the 2nd Amendment, I will fight to the death against it. It will be a short-lived battle.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,937 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I fear that the 21 Rep Governors will not do enough in choosing the right people as delegates to the Convention.

Congress chooses the method of delegate selection, not the governors, or state legislatures.

Congress could throw the means of selection into the hands of the states, or determine themselves whom the actual delegates be. Only congress has the discretion.

Now with this congress and senate--what method and whom do you think they will choose?!

Go back to those vids posted above and watch them.

T
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Go back to those vids posted above and watch them.

I was working on my post when you put the videos up, and have been watching them.

The other scary thing is representation... California could have 5 delegates, while a more conservative state, like Texas may have 1. Or at least that is what I understood.
 

·
Destroyer of Ignorance
Joined
·
2,988 Posts
Nobody, and I mean nobody, can strip another of their rights as they are given to us by our "Creator". People may infringe upon them but the only way to lose your rights is to give them up by failing to fight for them.

So long as people recognize this fact, it is inconsequential what happens with this Constitutional Convention thing. Laws are only as powerful as the governments ability to enforce them. 80 Million firearms says a gun confiscation plan will fail miserably. Unfortunately, it will also probably cause the deaths of many patriots and many ignorant members of law enforcement.

The question is simple and has been raised before ... what will you do when it happens? You better make that decision now. When Johnny Law is standing in you house demanding your guns, it is not the time to be making that choice. Decide if you are truly willing to die for the REAL freedom of future generations. Are you that person? Are you capable of laying down your life for an idea? I fear I am that person. I just pray I'm able to spare my family any suffering as a result of my actions. None the less, when the time comes, I've already made my choice.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,937 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
With the new computer voting process we all know they are and can be rigged to make who they want to win!!!

You're assuming a lot--you're assuming there will be a voting process.
lol

T
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
645 Posts
This is what guns are for.

"What's that did some one say second amendment". "No, I think some one was talking about a God given right to bear arms against an oppesive govenment Joe"
 

·
Watchin tha world go by
Joined
·
8,151 Posts
a new con conv would be a boondoggle and cobbling of every special interest groups wants list --- and no guarantee that the amendments would remain.--- they could be written in - or left out as desired.

well if one is called and a state refuses ta ratify --- can we then break away because a new contract is being offered?

as far as i am concerned let em --- as fer me and more than a few here in the Republic of Texas --- we were a country before - and can be again

good riddance - and take yer tresspassers back with ya
 

·
one day at a time
Joined
·
2,478 Posts
With the new computer voting process we all know they are and can be rigged to make who they want to win!!!

You're assuming a lot--you're assuming there will be a voting process.
lol

T
:wow:wow:wow

Thanks now im more paranoid!!! LOL

You are right might be sucsession. That will be fun! A new monarchy sounds fun!!:headshake::whip::xeye:
 

·
one day at a time
Joined
·
2,478 Posts
I propose this: THE FREE REPUBLIC STATES OF THE SOUTH EAST (TFRSSE) comminwealth of NORTH CAROLINA foothills parish (CNCOFRSSE).

Has a nice ring to it!!!!!!

Of cource this will include the wounderful repblics of: FL., GA., MS., LA., SC., MO., AK.,VA., TN., WV., KY. We will accept AL., Only if the govoner,congressmen and senetors are removed from the republic forever.

Texas will most likely clame themselves as a Republic of Texas (ROT). They once were their own country they may refert back to this. Oklahoma may join this republic remaining OK. becoming a comminwealth (COOT). Kansas will make a power play and fail misserably joining the (ROT) in defeate for saftey thus becoming the Commeinwealth of Kansas (COK). They however will be our closest allie!! They would be able to inform us on the movements of the comunnist republic of califorina (CRC).

Then comes your Southwestern Union (SWU). AZ., CO., NM., UT., NV. would join to avoid being part of the (CRC). This will become established under the command of Macain!

Now is the OPEN COUNTRY ALLIANCE (OCA) this will consist of WY., ND., SD., MT., ID., WA., IW. Iowa will join due to finding that they can be a key free travel location for commerce. The (OCA) will keep to themselves a peaceful country. We will, as well as our close allies (ROT), (ROGL), (MAN) (OR.) (AK.) conduct commerce with (OCA).

Next is the REPUBLICS OF THE GREAT LAKES (ROGL). These will be MN., WS., MI. These Republics will conduct commerce with cananda mainly. The (TFRSSE) and (ROT) will purchasses automobiles from them.

Next the MIDWESTERN AFFILIATES of NATIONALIZATION (MAN) including IL.,IN.,OH. They will remain nuteral.

The NEW ENGLAND STATES will remain the UNITED STAES of AMERICA (USA)
The white house will be moved back to Baltimore. The Amero will be adopted and unaccepted by all the republics with acception to the (CRC). All millitary bases will become part of their republic with a 1 week option for soldiers to return to their own states. With eligability to reenlist in their republics millitary at rank.

The CRC is already established.

OREGAN will remain OREGAN. Being nuteral they have adopted independance. ALASKA with revert to its own territory electing Sarah Palin as president remaining Alaska as useale. Conducting commerce with canada and (OCA). Aswell as with the the rest of the free republics. HAWAII will revert back to kingdomship not haveing been affected by all this.

All republics will use the original constitution as the bases of their republics. With the exception of the CRC and USA!!!

:thumb:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,937 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
This is happening again.

It seems like they're tyring to sneak this in, just like the Federal Reserve Act was snuck in decades before.

There is a danger of this coming to be. Even though a con-con call was defeated several times in the past, there is a clear and present danger at this point in history--with a looming economic melt-down, chaos, devaluation of the dollar, looming bank holidays, and possible national default (all ariving at the same time when the final two states would vote)... the danger of a con-con is that the delegates to such a convention would be selected/or the process of selection would be strictly controlled by the incoming communist controlled congress, not the governors or state legislatures. Congress could choose to hold it in comptete secrecy--with secret hand-picked delegates if they wanted.

And I for one see no cooincidence in this popping up now, and the impending troubles.

It could be a runaway convention--just like the first constitutional convention in the late 1780's (which was supposed to be limited to amending the Articles Of Confederation). When delegates finalize any convention--nothing would be under legal review, not even by SCOTUS. They could go way beyond making amendments--and scrap the entire existing constitution and emerge with something totally new and alien, which would not be up for ratification by the several states. A con-con removes that provision. Nothing is set in stone. Nothing is governed by the existing constitution--this is only if they decided to make amendment to the existing constitution--if so these decisions go to the states for ratificaiton once done. The majority vote taken in the convention by the delegates would be the final say (unlike some people want to believe).

I really think you should look at the video links above and see for yourself. They explain all.


Constitution and Libertarian Parties of Ohio among those working to defeat a bill calling for US Constitutional Convention
December 11th, 2008 · 2 Comments
Found at PeaceChicken.com:

Good news: we were all able to testify against the bill today, and we gave them a response they weren’t expecting. There were 10 of us who spoke out against it, ZERO who spoke in support.

Members from Campaign for Liberty, Ohio Freedom Alliance, We Are Change Ohio, John Birch Society, Institute for Principled Policy, Constitution Party of Ohio, and the Libertarian Party of Ohio showed up in support, most of them testified.

After seeing how many of us came, Committee Chairman Blessing changed his mind and decided not to vote on it today. In fact, he acted like it was a mistake that the paper said “possible vote.” Teri (OFA, JBS, CPO) thinks it’ll probably be voted on at the next committee meeting (which will also probably not include further testimony) so we’ll need to keep watching. The Senate version was introduced yesterday as well, but last I heard it hasn’t yet been assigned to a committee. Still another thing to keep an eye on.

The committee had some questions and a couple repeatedly voiced concerns, enough so that I definitely think we have a good shot at getting this defeated.

Anthony from We Are Change Ohio recorded all of our testimonies and hopes to have a video put together by Friday, I’ll post it here as soon as I get it.
Everybody’s testimonies were GREAT, here are three of them:

Ohio House Judiciary Committee - HJR 8 Opposition Testimony
Frank Koch

Chairman Blessing and members of the House Judiciary Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today in opposition to House Joint Resolution 8.

As fiscal conservative, I’m in complete agreement that something must be done to limit federal spending and reverse our growing $10 trillion dollar debt currently enslaving our country and our children.

I stand before you not against fiscal responsibility, but against the method in which you plan to implement to limit the federal government. A Constitutional Convention is a very deadly tool to use because the states have little power to control which sections of the Constitution will be opened for manipulation. Article V of the Constitution says that only Congress, not the States, can appoint delegates to the Constitutional Convention. The fate of our liberties, freedoms, and rights will be in the hands of these few select delegates who could be ignorant of the law or in the pocket of special interests.

An unbalanced federal budget is caused from irresponsible leadership within Congress and not a flaw within the Constitution. In fact, an unbalanced federal budget is caused directly from not following the Constitution. We’ll be on the right track to fix our $10 trillion dollar debt if we started to cut the wasteful and unconstitutional federal programs such as Department of Education, Department of Energy, and Homeland Security.

Lastly, I would like to point out a potential Trojan horse within the proposed resolution that could render the resolution powerless. Within the resolution it states, “First, the amendment shall require the President to submit and the Congress to adopt only balanced budgets for all federal programs and agencies, except in times of war.” The statement “except times of war” may encourage the President and Congress to start and prolong wars as long as possible to escape the peacetime fiscal restraints. I ask you to please reconsider the wording of this resolution if you choose not to oppose the Constitutional Convention.

In conclusion, I find it quite disturbing how fast this resolution is being pushed through the House. One must proceed slowly and with extreme caution before even considering a radical action such as a Constitutional Convention. America, with a few strokes of the pen, can be transformed from a Constitutional Republic into a Socialist Dictatorship and we’ll be at the complete mercy of the delegates that will change the Constitution as to how they see fit. I, as a liberty loving American, am not willing to take that chance.

Ohio House Judiciary Committee - HJR 8 Opposition Testimony
Robert Owens

I want thank Chairman Blessing and the members of the committee for allowing me to speak today. My name is Robert Owens, I am a lawyer from Delaware, Ohio and I am an active member and leader in a number of Christian conservative organizations that embrace the time tested and proven concepts of limited constitutional government, free enterprise and individual liberty bestowed upon us by our creator. I urge you to vote no on HJR 8.

Here are some of the possible results of a “run away” article 5 convention as described of by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger:

1. Total civilian disarmament.
2. Socialization of industry.
3. Confiscation of private property.
4. Torture of citizens.
5. Suppression of the Press and of Religion

If you started this day unaware of the reasons and legal arguments of a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that talks of a “run away” convention and,

If you started this day unaware that a totally different ratification process than what you might expect is perfectly lawful and consistent with legal precedent, and

If you started this day unaware that if a article 5 convention is called in the next two years, Nancy Pelosi and her team would get to choose how delegates are selected, how they are paid, where the convention would be held and if the convention were to be held in public or in secret. And,

If you started today unaware that Ohio would be the 33rd state in the history of the republic to call for the convention and that 34 is the magic number to forcibly trigger Congress to call the convention. Then caution is urged.

If any or all of these facts were unknown to you, please do not risk giving Congress a blank check without doing all the research. We are talking about possible political suicide to the conservative movement. This move must be carefully examined, not hurried through a December session without scrutiny.

One point of irony should not be missed in this process. If Congress actually followed the Constitution, we would have a balanced budget and there would be no need for this committee to consider this resolution. What makes anyone think Congress would be limited by new rules if it does not follow the existing ones?

The proposed convention could have devastating effects upon our American tradition of being a free people. This tradition has made us the most prosperous nation and the most charitable nation in the history of the world.

Ohio House Judiciary Committee - HJR 8 Opposition Testimony
Laura Robeson

Chairman Blessing, members of the Committee, I’m here today to speak out in opposition to this bill because of its potentially massive and irreversible ramifications.

While I am certainly in favor of a balanced federal budget, this is not the right way to bring it about. It’s not an error in our Constitution that is resulting in our massive debt, it’s much more complicated than that, and holding a Constitutional Convention will not solve the problem. You would do better to support Ron Paul’s HR 2755 legislation which would abolish the Federal Reserve System and return the monetary power to Congress and the Treasury.

Not only the lack of necessity, but also the speed with which this is being shuffled through is very worrisome. Both the recent banking industry bailouts and the Patriot Act have shown us what can happen when legislation is rushed through before doing proper research and planning. How educated is everybody here on what a Convention really entails? Not since 1787 has there been one, and this was when the Articles of Confederation were completely thrown out. Who’s to say the same won’t be done with our Constitution?

30 states have passed bills similar to HJR 8 and 7 have since realized the danger and rescinded them.

In Alabama’s HJR 347 (2000), it says:
“There is great danger … in opening the Constitution to sweeping changes, the adoption of which would only create legal chaos in this nation and only begin the process of another two centuries of litigation over its meaning and interpretation.”

Idaho’s SCR 129 (1999) states:
“…the Constitution of the United States of America has been amended many times in the history of this nation and may be amended many more times, without the need to resort to a constitutional convention.”

And in New Hampshire’s HCR 12 (2003), it says:
“…the New Hampshire legislature urges all other states that have applied to Congress to call either a general or a limited constitutional convention to repeal and withdraw their applications.”

I strongly urge this committee to heed the advice of our fellow states and vote against this bill.

THANKS to everybody who came out today to testify, esp. those who drove quite a while to make it. I think we made a huge difference, much to their dismay — this isn’t turning out to be a walk in the park as they had hoped.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top