Many of us believe the federal government has overstepped its boundaries in many areas, including regulations, debts, violating the rights of the states, ignoring the Constitution and the balances built into the system.[read_more] Some people like Mark Levin and Mike Farris see the solution as a Constitutional Convention using Article V of the Constitution,
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.
Those who support the Constitutional Convention (the Con-Con) believe such a convention will return power to the citizens and the states through many and varied Constitutional amendments. More here.
What happens if the Convention and the people pass a slew of new amendments and the federal government continues to ignore the new amendments just as they ignore the current Constitution? Why would our leaders honor the new amendments when they won’t honor or respect or enforce our current Constitution? What’s wrong with the current Constitution? Why not enforce the Constitution we have rather than throw the baby out with the bath water and start again?
As Delegate Bob Marshall says,
Once called by Congress, the Convention cannot be stopped or limited and will have complete authority to change any part of our Constitution! The only other convention, held in 1787, re-wrote the Articles of Confederation, and changed the ratification requirements from unanimous to three fourths! Yes, it gave us our present Constitution, but we had many statesmen of moral conviction who fought the War of Independence leading the nation at that time. Madison said he trembled at the thought of a second convention after witnessing the first!”
“The state legislators planning the Article V Convention rejected a motion that would have prevented Members of Congress, the US Senate, federal judges and governors from serving as convention delegates. They also tabled a motion to restrict the subject matter of the convention.”
Turning over our entire Constitution to a group of unknown delegates, lead by the unknown, should give everyone pause.
Scott Lingamfelter has introduced a bill that calls for Constitutional Convention of the states,
Makes application to Congress to call a convention of the states to propose amendments to the United States Constitution to restrain the abuse of power by the federal government.
A very similar bill has been introduced in the Senate.
The Constitution restrains the abuse of the power by the federal government but it’s ignored. Why would any new amendments change that? What would prevent the federal government from continuing to ignore Constitution even with a new amendment?
Who would control this Constitutional Convention? Who would run it? Who would be delegates? Is a Con Con necessary? Or would our current Constitution suffice if it was enforced? Do we really want to give a group of unknown persons the authority to completely change our Constitution? We need to consider a myriad of unintended consequences.
I trust the Founding Fathers more than I trust anyone today to be given the ability and authority to rewrite our Constitution. Our current Constitution has everything we need, IF we elect representatives with the courage to enforce it.
Lastly, Delegate Marshall says, and I agree,
“Please also urge your own state delegate and senator to OPPOSE ALL APPLICATIONS ASKING CONGRESS TO CALL AN ARTICLE V CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.”
Another excellent post on “The Looming Con Con” here.
Follow the money. I’m hearing that there are buckets of money being thrown at our Delegates and Senators in Richmond to vote for the Con Con. So much for ‘power to the people’.
For those on Facebook, more good information here.
The latest on the General Assembly actions here.
Don’t think it can get any worse, look, we know Obama is clearly a Saros lacky, so what is there to loose. Perhaps a good look at the acrtual process and history of the process will help. Also, the liberals are not beyond propaganda to discourage citizens from opposing those that they have influence over in Federal positions so do the home work and decide. the following site is structured as a Q & A http://www.conventionofstates.com/how_do_states_choose_their_delegates
I was asked, but why did the Founders put a provision in the Constitution for amendment, if it’s so dangerous? Didn’t the Founders foresaw a time when government might expand past is constitutional limitations and didn’t they created the Article V Convention for just the situation we’re living today?
I counter and propose that the Article V convention provision was added for a time when America would be a more perfect union. Are we, today, a more perfect union? Our Founders knew, and most know, that the Constitution is not perfect. But did, or could have the Founders envisioned a time in America when even the concept of a Creator would be dismissed and rejected? Could they have imagined that We the People would tolerate and accept the decision of a Supreme Court that the reading of the Ten Commandments is psychologically damaging to children?
Would the Founders have ever imagined that We the People would accept and tolerate a Congress that would make laws to establish a national religion known as secular humanism and a national public school system that expressly prohibits teaching the biblical free government principles such as truth, justice, freedom and love for others?
America has fallen so far from the tree of free government and a constitutional republic, would our Founders even recognize our nation as America?
The mass of our populace are shamefully ignorant of all precepts and concepts that are the basis of free government. The preamble of the Virginia Constitution reminds us that the basis and foundation of free government are God endowed rights! In a room of people today, even a room predominantly made up of the modern Christian, would any group, made up of a variety of Americans, even agree that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God and have a duty to serve God and fellow man?
Without duty to God, without a sense of what is right and what is wrong, no group congregating in America today has the mind, heart or soul to better the Constitution.
Perhaps Mike Farris and Mark Levin are pure hearts, with enlightened minds, and perhaps they have the aptitude to rewrite or amend the Constitution. But who’s to say they will even be chosen as delegates to a convention of the states (or whatever you want to call it)?! And even if these two were chosen to be delegates, yet hardly represent the vast majority of Americans, would this be the scenario that the Founders had in mind in an Article V convention?
Can you imagine what a group of atheists, politicians, lawyers and academics would do to this one-of-a kind historical legal miracle, a Constitution that continues to this day to protect us (through the fact, that it continues to exist and hence condemn those factions that are in direct violation of it)? The Constitution is awaiting the day that the People will use it to remove bad judges, bad politicians and all liars and thieves from public office. We don’t need to amend it, we need to enforce it!
I foresee a time in America when We the People will swing back to the precepts of free government (which begins (and ends) with a belief in a divine Creator). I foresee a time when We the People are educated and aware enough to do their job and once again establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, and a time when We the People once again will ordain and establish a Constitution for the United States of America. But in this ideological climate of ignorance, atheism, apathy and tolerated governmental corruption, constitutional violation and deceit, surely it’s clear, that the time is not NOW.
We must educate ourselves and our elected officials before we can understand the Constitution, let alone amend or rewrite it.
Supporting a constitutional convention, whether you call it a convention of the states, or an Article V convention or whatever you call it, any vehicle that allows Congress to amend the Constitution is lunacy.
Just consider the state of corruption, ignorance and depravity today. We have a supreme court that has declared speaking of a divine Creator as unconstitutional! We have an education system that teaches our children that science has proved that a Creator does not exist!
Are any of us aware that free government relies on the concept of a Creator and God endowed inalienable rights? Without a Creator – there is no foundation for free government. How many ‘delegates’ to this convention will speak of this??
In this filthy ideological atmosphere, we think we’re going to improve the most insightful document of our time (and any time of known history)?
Can we trust any group made up of know-it-all smooth talking lawyers, liberals, atheists, globalists, politicians and deviants to improve the constitution and the bill of rights? I pray a good percentage of those we elect, think not.
The only thing we can count on is that this initiative will give the anti-constitutionalists the opportunity to obliterate the very principles that continue to protect us from tyranny today. Our nation is on the brink of extinction through ignoring the constitution. Keeping this document intact, teaching its precepts and educating the electorate, is our only hope for America’s future as a free and noble nation.
Waiting in the wings for this to happen, among others: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/master_file/newstatesconstitution.htm
Remember the convention only writes the text of the changes, each one has to be ratified by the states. So if we can get a balanced budget amendment, and maybe a protection of private property, and all regulations must be passed by the house and senate, then maybe we can get our house back in order.
You can’t assume that you will be able to vote on amendments separately. The only other convention that is even remotely close to this was the one that created the Constitution, and the states were not allowed to pick and choose which parts to ratify. It was a “take it or leave it” proposition.
In fact, you probably won’t get to vote on the amendments at all. Article V designates the two possible methods of ratification as by the Legislatures of the States or State Conventions. So the very politicians that we are hoping to get control of will not only be the ones who are writing the new constitution, but they will be the ones voting on whether or not to ratify their changes.
Actually, you can’t assume you can vote at all since the convention, as Mr. Shaw mentions below, may change the ratification process and formula.
The first (and so far only) Con Con we have ever had changed the ratification method from unanimous (under the Articles of Confederation) to 3/4 to adopt the new Constitution. So, based on that precedent, the new Convention could alter the ratification method again.
And for another view going back to 2007… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_More_Perfect_Constitution
I found this interesting, groups supporting the Con Con include : George Soros, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Code Pink, Sierra Club, Florida Immigrant Coalition, Green Party, Humanist Community,MoveOn.org, New Progressive Alliance, People For A New Society and multiple Occupy Wallstreet groups from around the country. Check out this rather scary list of supporters, https://MoveToAmend.org/organizations
A lot of the discussion here has gotten into the weeds a fair bit. The main point, as I see it, is that Levin and Farris keep pointing to Article V as our “last resort” & claiming that it is “THE tool the Framers gave us against Federal overreach” to “reign it in”. These are lies. Flat out lies. The Federalist Papers are what Madison and Jefferson said to look at, in order to find out what the Constitution is meant to do. But you don’t have to read them all to find out what the Framers said about amendments and Article V. I did it for you here:
Great Articles, Everyone should read.
Actually, the “tool of last resort” which they gave us and which many of them articulated as such, is the 2nd Amendment.
So what? A majority of states have already requested a CC for various reasons like Balanced budgets or declaring corporations non-people. In fact if you added all the requests together, there are more than enough reasons to declare an unlimited Convention over a limited one. If the so called experts are correct about not being able to rescind a request or limit the scope of changes, the stupid politicians have killed the country.
It’s both stupidity and self-interest as they’re figuring that it will enhance their power. They’ll be stunned to see the 10th Amendment and any other resistance to the federal imperium swept away by the bigger fish in the pond.
Your bias is showing. It’s not a constitutional convention, it’s an convention to propose amendments. Quit the hyped up drama and fear mongering.
whatever name that’s been used and changed from several times to try to obfiscate it’s nature, it’s the same run-away power
You do realize that a convention can’t change a thing about the constitution. Only PROPOSE changes to it.
It can also offer a replacement – just like how we moved from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution.
And the replacement comes with its own new structure AND NEW requirements for ratification, that may be much lower than the Constitution’s requirements (the AoC required a majority to ratify, the Constitution, only 3/4), may not even ask the states and go directly to the people for a popular vote, may not ask the people or the states and go to Congress for ratification, may not ask any Americans, but seek to institute a new world order territory of the UN, seeking a majority of a quorun of voting members in the UN!
ANYthing is possible with no brakes.
This is why this method hasn’t been dared in the 225+ years since the one and only other states’ convention (who also convened with mandated restrictions from their states to limit themselves to AMENDING the AoC, but scrapped that restriction after the doors were locked and the curtains closed).
And purple elephants might fly out my butt. It was put into the constitution for a reason and it wasn’t to be ignored. And the reason it hasn’t been called is Congress hasn’t called for a convention because they don’t want the states dictating to them how they should behave.
Yes, ALL of the Constitution is there for a reason. The reason for Article V was so there could be a way to amend (e.g. correct) it. Like the 11th and 12th amendments. So, what’s wrong with the original Constitution, sir?
But to say that Article V was put there so we would have a way to “restrain Federal overreach” (as Levin and Farris claim constantly) is a flat out lie. EVERY instance of the words “amendment” or “amend”, within The Federalist Papers, is used to mean “correct errors.”
In fact, the Federalist Papers in which Madison details Federal overreach, and the proper state response to it, are 44, 45, and 46. No form of the word “amend” or “convention” is found. Not once.
How about a balanced budget amendment for starters.
Maybe a sunset clause amendment that nullifies every act of congress or the executive after ten year. No more voting out bad laws/treaties/orders, they just go away.
Or a limit on congressional/ executive pay to what the average citizen makes.
I see you neatly avoided answering my overall point. Bravo. That being the case, I must presume that your comment is responding to my initial question above. So, if I’m understanding you correctly, what is wrong with the original Constitution is the lack of a “balanced budget amendment” (what do you think Article 1, Section 8 is, sir?), the lack of a “sunset provision” for bad laws (what do you think Article 1, Section 1, in conjunction with Article 6 and amendments 9 and 10 are, sir?), and that it doesn’t limit the pay of Federal officers (what do you think Article 1, Section 6 is, sir?)
Perhaps you would care to name a defect of the Constitution that IS actually deficient in the document, sir?
You will recall that we do have another process for single-purpose amendments which has been used 17 times since the Constitution was originally ratified.
Name one thing Speaker Howell has done to benefit the middle-class or poor? If he is involved, in my opinion, it cannot be good for the middle-class. If he is not a Liberal, then what is? This is the same Liberal who gave us the largest tax increase in Virginia history, his HB 2313.
Politicians these day are LWI. “$egislating while intoxicated”, stone drunk on Corporate Cash. They have no business proposing, amending, proposing amendments, or anything else to the Constitution. Leave it alone.
If the GA needs something to do, pass $egislation putting Virginia elected officials under the same ethics laws as the Feds have.
Because you know and your elephant butt know what Congress is thinking. P.S. Your arrogance is showing.
Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger wrote to Phyllis Schlafly (Eagle Forum) warning against this. (They both oppose calling a Convention)
It’s this arrogance from the proponents of calling a Convention that pisses me off.
Look at the definition of a Constitutional Convention in Black’s Law Dictionary. “A duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the
people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising, or
amending its constitution.” This is EXACTLY a constitutional convention. You have been misled (at least) if anyone told you different. Please look at this in the light of the fact that those promoting it are denying the very definition of what it is.
Check out the flow of money. It is easy to see who is behind this.
A Constitutional Convention would be bi-partisan. These support an Article V Convention: George Soros, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Code Pink, Sierra Club, Florida Immigrant Coalition, Green Party, Humanist Community, MoveOn.org, New Progressive Alliance, People For A New Society and multiple Occupy Wallstreet groups from around the country. A more complete list can be seen at:https://MoveToAmend.org/organizations
And thats all the more reason to oppose it. Most people who claim to be proponents of limited government are constantly finding ways to expand its power. Do those calling for this seriously believe the outcome would be good with these organizations getting involved as well?
I don’t see a single individual or group there I’d be willing to support.
Whenever you have any situation or event it which the outcomes CANNOT be bound by the controlling circumstances of the process you have NO ability to predict any given result. Bob Marshall is quite correct and Mark Levin’s book The Liberty Amendments which kick started some of this shaky thinking is a very risky proposition that sounds attractive to many because of its common sense proposals but doesn’t spend much time laying out the dangers of implementation via convention. If the grassroots can’t predictably control its newly elected representatives who passionately lie to their faces regarding their political positions to gain office why would anyone believe you could control and manage convention representatives. A total folly.
Absolutely spot on. The part of this that scares me the most is not what Levin proposes in his book. He has some good ideas. What scares me the most is that no one seems to consider who would actually end up being the delegates to the convention. They are the ones that would propose and consider changes to the Constitution, and we all know that at the end of the day, there would be no principled conservatives selected to be delgates. They would all be leftist Democrats or squishy moderate Republicans.
… at best
There are worse out there, salivating at a chance to operate on America’s structure with a hatchet and welder’s torch.
I continue to hear what the “conservative” convention promoters have to say about a constitutional convention, including that it is NOT a constitutional convention, despite BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY defining it for lawyers, many of whom seem to be at the helms of these well-funded groups. One promoter even admits their package cannot safeguard the rights we consider inalienable: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCApyUYvuRE Could it be that some convention promoters want to have our rights granted by government rather than God?
Precisely! Given the current crop of politicians, shysters, lobbyists and internationalists (I’m being nice) one doesn’t need much imagination to see the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th 6th, 7th and 10th Amendments either disappear or be completely rewritten and replaced by the Kenyans “positive bill of rights” which will give the government near total control. I remain loyal and adhere to the oath I took long ago to the current Constitution and its defense. Loyalty to any new creature the proposed menagerie may create is an open question.
An Article V convention is the worst idea I have ever heard. You are literally opening Pandora’s Box and putting all our liberties at risk. It doesn’t matter how good Mike Farris and Mark Levin’s intentions are, the simple fact is they won’t be the ones voting for or against amendments as delegates to this convention.
Think about it. Who do you think will most likely end up choosing delegates to the convention? The General Assembly? The Governor? Do you think these people (the same ones who pay lip service to conservatism and vote for transportation tax increases), are going to send stalwart conservatives to an Article V convention? Terry McAulliffe will be a convention delegate before someone like Bob Marshall or Dick Black would. I daresay that Joe Morrissey has a better chance of being a delegate to an Article V convention than Mike Farris does.
Like they do all the time, the moderates of our party would join with the Democrats to make sure that any of us “right-wing nut jobs” who would try to craft truly conservative amendments would never get close to that convention, and that’s just in places like Virginia. In Democrat controlled states, you would see nothing but leftists being sent.
So Mike Farris and Mark Levin want to put our right to bear arms, our right to free speech, our right to unreasonable search and seizure, our right to a fair trail by a jury of our peers, our right not to be forced to testify against ourselves, and our right to be free from religious persecution, into the hands of a roomfuls of leftists, socialists, and moderate squishes??? ARE THEY CRAZY???
Good point. Mike Farris seems to think he will be handed the Constitution to rewrite. That seems as likely as I am to win the lottery. Many of the people who are not against the Convention used to be in favor of it until they really studied it and realized that this cannot be controlled. However, the pro-Convention people are super aggressive (often arrogant) about their position and they try to bully people into supporting it.
Not only are Pro Convention people very aggressive, they have tons of money behind them. Money talks, unfortunately.
Their trustworthiness has been built up with people for so long, people assume they must be right on this too.
I don’t know if it’s hubris that keeps these advocates from recanting, and/or if they’re really obstinately ignorant, and/or if they sincerely want to see the system burn to the ground, either content to live in ashes, or doubly naive to assume something better in this world’s climate would rise up in its place ~ and a derp goes for each option.
The Washington and Richmond establishment of both parties are steadfastly against a Convention of States. That should tell you something: they don’t want the federal government to cede power back to the states & people where it rightly belongs. “Run away” Convention is one of their fear tactics they use. Learn more – http://www.conventionofstates.com/faq
A serious question for you to consider and, hopefully, answer:
Levin and Farris keep claiming that their plan will “restore federalism”. How can that happen when almost every state’s budget is over 30% “Federal money” and their plan doesn’t even acknowledge that fact, much less address it?
While I agree that the Washington DC establishment does not want a convention of states, credit must be given where due. Speaker Howell voted for the Convention of States application stating, ““A convention of the states will allow the people and the states to amend the Constitution to place real limits on federal power.”
Uh-oh. The Speaker wants it. We’re doomed. Our delegates won’t stand up to him, ever.
Our current Constitution and our current Congress can place “real limits on federal power” but they won’t. That won’t change with a new amendment.
Why doesn’t the current Congress enforce the 10th amendment? Why can’t a new amendment be passed the way they’ve always been pass? We don’t need a Con Con to do it.
Not true they are the very ones who are pushing it, look at their votes. One Delegate yesterday told us he had received 330 calls/emails to oppose and JUST 30 in support of the bills. He said “OH I just don’t know what to do.” He voted in the House Rules committee to support the bills for an application from to Virginia to Congress to call a convention. Really, he doesn’t know what to do?? Wonder who provides the votes so he can keep his seat in the General Assembly. Seems he has more of a commitment to the Speaker, than to his voters. Maybe the Speaker should provide him his votes and his constituents just stay home next time.
A commitment to the speaker is more important than his constituents? That happens far to often!
I’ve beeen to that website, and they don’t have any real answers. Their arguments all boil down to, “Trust us. We’re sure it can’t happen.” They are flat out wrong. The simple fact is that a Constitutional Convention is uncontrollable. You can’t limit its scope and you cant control what they would change, because the convention adopts its own rules. You are opening up the entire Constitution to change by the very establishment people (and worse) that you are trying to control by having the convention in the first place.
Madison said exactly this in Federalist 49 – “With these advantages, it can hardly be supposed that the adverse party would have an equal chance for a favorable issue. But the legislative party would not only be able to plead their cause most successfully with the people. They would probably be constituted themselves the judges. The same influence which had gained them an election into the legislature, would gain them a seat in the convention. If this should not be the case with all, it would probably be the case with many, and pretty certainly with those leading characters, on whom every thing depends in such bodies.
The convention, in short, would be composed chiefly of men who had been, who actually were, or who expected to be, members of the department whose conduct was arraigned. They would consequently be parties to the very question to be decided by them.”
The whole premise is “trust us, the convention will do what you want”. How would we know that? How do we know that they won’t do what the other guy wants, the liberal?
Those opposed the Article V amendment process must know something I don’t. Do they somehow think that tomorrow we’ll awake and everything will have changed for the better? Ladies and gentlemen – we are the change. We are now fighting the “uni-party” which is comprised of a coalition of takers and oligarchs. None of you can tell me where this is going and how it will be controlled/end. You can’t do it! I have a prediction – tyranny, barbarism, and worse.
We don’t think it will go away on its own. We know there is much work to be done. This plan is not the answer. It is dangerous and foolish. For the reasons why, watch this video of my presentation to the Virginia Beach TEA Party.
Supreme Court Justice Burger wrote to Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum about the dangers of opening this can of worms. The devil is in the details and no where is it written how delegates will be chosen, the convention delegates could make their own rules at the convention, etc. If Obama doesn’t follow the Constitution now, what makes you think he’ll feel restricted by a shiny new one? Is it worth the risk that the liberals will disassemble the one we have? No.
The people of Virginia need to wake up and demand their Representatives in the General Assembly stop this madness or find another means of employment and don’t tell me they don’t make much money. Really. How much do you think power is worth, and all the attention they get from the public, plus all the perks. Really… If it was just the money they would have been gone a long time ago.
Scary, “The states petition for the convention. Once there are enough states, then Congress shall call a convention for proposing Amendments. Here is the tricky part; Congress will decide how the delegates are chosen. Congress also decides the method of voting. There is nothing that keeps Congress from choosing their own members as delegates. We could end up with Harry Reid, John McCain, Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, etc. States cannot place limits on the agenda of the Constitutional Convention when they sign onto it.”
I penned an article for The Coolidge Project a few weeks ago, showing the Framers’ thoughts on how to restrain the Federal government. Article V was not on their list. (I would link to it here, but only with your permission.)
This push for a Con-con is dangerous, yes. But it is an unnecessary danger. That’s even worse.
Please link to it. You are helping to educate everyone. Thank you!
Feel free to post a link to a relevant article. We just want to avoids tons of irrelevant link spam.
I may be wrong on this, but it is my understanding that the only role Congress has once a Con-Con is called is to set the place and time. The States decide who their representatives are.
On the contrary, the only role the states have is to request Congress to call a Convention.
Where can I find that the State’s only role is request Congress to call a Convention? From what I can find here ( http://www.alec.org/publications/article-v-handbook/ ) on pages 14 & 15 of section D, the States select their own delegates (representatives).
Regardless, I still don’t trust those in office today to adhere to any new Constitutional Amendment when they ignore the Constitution as is is now. Our only crisis is the elected leadership’s lack of will to enforce the laws we currently have.
Just read Article V. It does not matter what ALEC says it means, just read it. Congressional Resesarch Services issued a lengthy report explaining Congresses idea of how to handle it. It will not be in the hands of the states. Article V gives Congress the power to call the convention and Article 1, sec 8, cl 18 gives Congress the power to make all laws necessary and propoer for doing the things they have the Constituional authority to do. Congress will have a very heavy hand in this.