~ Where the Sun Will Never Set on Our liberty ~
Jodi180 compiled the following stories on the proposed Convention of States. It was sent out in today's Tids, and I felt it needed to be shared here, since we have a lively discussion on this very topic. She does an outstanding job reading, researching and compiling her daily Tids. Jodi, you really rock!
(If you wish to get Jodi's daily "Tids' email, you can message her through the website and ask to be included in her distribution list)
First state passes Article V Convention of States resolution
Hey libs, it’s happening. The first state has passed a resolution to convene a constitutional convention and right the balance between the federal and state governments.
By a vote of 107-58, Georgia becomes the first state in the country to pass this historic resolution which is being promoted nationwide by the Convention of States Project (“COS”), a grassroots, non-profit organization founded this past August by constitutional attorney, Dr. Michael Farris, of Virginia, and Mark Meckler, founder of the political think tank, Citizens for Self-Governance. The same resolution has been introduced into 13 different state legislatures in 2014 with more to come. COS hopes to gain passage in 34 states in time for a convention to be held in 2016.
Meet the Nebraska director of the Convention of the States
Saturday, April 5, 2014
7506 Olson Dr
Papillion, NE 68046
Meet Cheryl Riege, Coalitions Director for the Convention of States Project. We'll discuss the Article V Convention and the upcoming Mount Vernon Assembly schedule for June 12-13.
I just spoke with NE Senator, Bill Kintner. He will join us on Sat, April 5 at noon, Old Chicago for an informal meet & greet luncheon. (our guest) We need your support there so please, all attend. Let's take this time to help Bill--a strong conservative--get reelected in May, first of all.
Next: He is open to going to Mount Vernon --now scheduled for June 12 & 13--and trying to get another conservative to join him. Please help us get conservative Nebraska represented in the Senate,first, and at Mount Vernon, second, by joining us at Old Chicago on Apr 5. Noon.
Cheryl Riege, Coalitions Director for the Convention of States Project, will also be there. We can strategize how to move forward effectively with our efforts to keep Nebraska sovereign and restore our Constitutional Republic.
Please, all, make an effort to be there. You all have so much to offer!
Many of you have much more knowledge of local Nebraska politics than I do. Here's a recap of my talk with Bill:
The Mount Vernon Assembly had contacted every state's Speaker to have them invite a couple delegates to the Assembly last Dec. But Bill explained that our legislature doesn't function that way. The Executive Committee makes decisions and it's run by mostly lefties. He said Nebraska legislators are more like "free agents." That's good and bad. A lot of deals are made, which is why we see high taxes...etc. But the good is that he may just go to Mount Vernon on his own. He'll email 16 of the conservatives on his list to see if anyone will go with him. He's thinking that they would drive there. (Now scheduled for June 12/13 after the May primary! So we need Bill reelected!)
He said he would keep me in the loop as to that plan. (Brandon and Travis, his aides, are very helpful) Perhaps we can help fund his trip to Mount Vernon and lodging, as Kevin suggested. On Sat April 5 we can also offer support and ask for suggestions on how to help him get reelected and what he needs to make Mount Vernon successful.
His overall view on COS/Mount Vernon is mixed, based on some of the naysayers like Schlafly et al. He felt encouraged that Morton Blackwell is for it...which is huge. Many of you will know more about him than I did. My pitch was that we needed to have all waterfronts covered so why not get involved--it's the rule-making stage at Mount Vernon? He also is taking an "all of the above" approach. I think we need to get COS to support him in this in small and big ways.
From my Nebraska Conservative group.
Article V of the Constitution: An Emergency Solution, Hidden in Plain Sight
Some people don’t believe it.
In school, we were taught, along with reading, ‘riting, and ‘rithmatic, how the Constitution is amended: an amendment must go before both houses of Congress and pass a two-thirds vote. Before it becomes a permanent part of the Constitution, three fourths of the state legislatures would have to ratify it.
But there’s another way to change the Constitution, and it’s hidden in plain sight in Article V, one that many of us have never even heard of. Here’s the text of Article V:
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, also 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…
Did you catch the second way to change the Constitution?
In addition to the way stated above, the founders put a little gift in Article V for us. In fact, George Mason is the one who made sure to include what some have called a “Constitutional Emergency Cord” to be pulled in case of government overreach. Mason urged his fellow founders, “It would be improper to require the consent of the National Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account.”
Knowing human nature, the founders knew the federal government would eventually grow like a fungus and try to cover every aspect of our lives. That’s why there’s a modern-day interest in Article V. Mark Levin’s book The Liberty Amendments brought it into the public eye, Glenn Beck has also been promoting it on his show, Hannity and Limbaugh are talking about it, and several well-known leaders – such as Tom Coburn, Michael Farris, Mike Huckabee, and David Barton – have publicly endorsed it.
This week, the Convention of States resolution is pending in multiple state legislatures. Many state legislators are standing up and calling for an Amending Convention under Article V. These brave legislators are fighting to take the power from the federal leviathan and return it to you, the sovereign citizen. But they can’t do it without your help.
And you can help.
If you’re in Florida, Arizona, or Georgia, your self-governance moment is now. Call, fax, and email your representatives. Go to Convention of States and get the details of who is on the relevant committees so that you can reach out to the right people and tell them to vote for the Convention of States resolution.
Now you know it’s there, and now is the time. Article V of the Constitution: a solution as big as the problem.
It is our moral obligation to use it.
Vid (5:18) Dr. Rob Natelson, esteemed Constitutional scholar and leading expert on Article V, puts the "runaway convention" objection to rest.
Why Can’t We Change
What’s a patriot to do? There is a remedy in the Constitution for the failure of the Constitution. It is found in Article V which describes the amendment process. This provides two ways to amend the Constitution: either Congress initiates an amendment or the States can call for a Constitutional Convention to consider amendments. The first method has resulted in 27 amendments. The second method has never been used.
Many people fear a Constitutional Convention. Many believe that it would open a can of worms and lead to the destruction of our limited government. Our limited government has already been co-opted by the Progressives and turned into a Leviathan which is quickly devouring every limit and every freedom in its path.
What we have is not working, and it hasn’t worked for quite some time. I believe Article V at least provides a method to attempt to return to limited government peacefully. Let’s give peace a chance. I believe that the principles of liberty can win in the marketplace of ideas. Let us engage in a debate to save our present and the future of our children. To continue the way we are going leads to a democratic totalitarianism of the majority.
If we could find the faith and the courage to call a Constitutional Convention for what should we advocate?
Another Big Name Just Officially Announced Their Support for a Convention of States
Wallbuilders founder David Barton has officially announced his support for a convention of states. The historian, who contemplated a Senate bid late last year, has spoken of the subject in the abstract before. But now that a convention is growing increasingly possible, Barton is “confident that this is the correct course of action.”
Though a convention of states has not been held since the nation’s founding, it has grown increasingly popular as a response to what many see as overreach from the federal government. Through Article V of the U.S. Constitution, states can propose amendments to the Constitution if two-thirds of states submit applications for such a convention. In December, nearly 100 state lawmakers gathered at Mount Vernon, Va., to discuss the process. On Tuesday, the Georgia state Senate became the first state legislative body to pass the current “constitution of states” application by a vote of 37-17.
Article V Convention: Dangerous Precedent, Dangerous Loyalties
The various purportedly unrelated efforts by self-professed conservatives, socialists, and progressives to call for a new constitutional convention are moving forward. Many otherwise well-meaning state legislators are falling for their common line that such a convention is the only way to save the Republic.
The self-professed conservatives, on one hand, insist that if a new convention isn’t held, the growth of the federal government will go on forever until all power is consolidated in Washington, D.C.
Their socialist and progressive collaborators, however, are pushing for an Article V convention as a means of finally changing all the things they believe are wrong about our form of government.
Remember, no matter how “conservative” or “constitutional” a group or individual claims to be, if their proposed amendments change the basic structure of the Constitution or alter even in the slightest the delicate balance of power provided by the Constitution, then you should realize that although their lips draw near to the Founders, their hearts are far from them.
Socialists and Soros Fight for Article V Convention
In his new book, Levin argues that such a convention is the last hope “to reform the federal government from its degenerate, bloated, imperial structure back to its (smaller) republican roots.”
Unfortunately, many otherwise well-educated and well-meaning conservatives have succumbed to Levin’s siren song and they have gone so far as to deny the constitutionality of nullification and to insist that an Article V convention is the only way to restore the balance of federalism in our Republic.
There is another uncomfortable aspect of the Article V movement that is not being discussed, however, but needs to be, particularly in light of the good people who have associated themselves with it.
Within the ranks of those clamoring for an Article V convention are found numerous extremely radical, progressive, and socialist organizations that otherwise would have little in common with the conservatives fighting on the same side.
Wolf-Pac is one of the groups that this reporter suspects many Levin listeners would be surprised to know is their compatriot in a call for a con-con.
In order to persuade Americans to join its cause, Wolf-Pac will:
…inform the public by running television commercials, radio ads, social media, internet ads, and using the media platform of the largest online news show in the world, The Young Turks.
The Young Turks? Most constitutionalists (and I imagine most fans of Mark Levin) don’t spend much time during the day watching the Young Turks, the YouTube-based news and entertainment channel that dubs itself the “world’s largest online news network.”
As unfamiliar as they may be with the Young Turks, it seems certain conservatives pushing for a con-con are even more unfamiliar with who pays the bills at this online purveyor of progressive ideology: George Soros. Dan Gainor reports:
In fact, Soros funds nearly every major left-wing media source in the United States. Forty-five of those are financed through his support of the Media Consortium. That organization 'is a network of the country's leading, progressive, independent media outlets.' The list is predictable — everything from Alternet to the Young Turks.
This should be enough to convince all true conservatives, constitutionalists, and friends of liberty to run headlong away from the ranks of the Article V con-con army, regardless of how popular and persuasive their generals may be.
It will likely surprise these devoted, but deluded, Article V advocates that Wolf-Pac is just the tip of the iceberg. These good people would be wise to take a look at this heavily abbreviated roster of their radical fellow travelers in the con-con movement, each of which is a registered “founding member” of the “Move to Amend” coalition.
Alliance for Democracy
Center for Media and Democracy
Independent Progressive Politics Network
Progressive Democrats of America
Vermont for Single Payer
Mind you, hundreds more groups “committed to social and economic justice, ending corporate rule, and building a vibrant democracy” are gathered under this umbrella.
This hardly seems to be a corps that most Levin listeners would be happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with in the fight for a “convention of the states.” In fairness, these allies likely don’t share their conservative cohorts’ love and loyalty to the Constitution.
It’s time these right-minded men and women know with whom they are associating.
The Lamp of Experience: Constitutional Amendments Work
Opponents of a Convention of States long argued that there was an unacceptable risk a convention might do too much. It now appears they were mistaken. So they increasingly argue that amendments cannot do enough.
The “too much” contention was first promulgated in modern times by apologists for the liberal, ultra-activist Earl Warren/Warren Burger Supreme Court. Specifically, these apologists feared a convention might propose amendments to reverse their favorite judicial decisions. Their tactic was to claim that an amendments convention, even if legally limited, could turn into a "con-con" that disregarded its limits, repealed the Bill of Rights, and restored slavery. (Yes, some of them really said that.)
The liberals who promoted this scenario must have been amused when some deeply conservative groups fell into the trap and began using the same argument to kill conservative amendments.
The "too much" line, however, has been losing its persuasiveness. New research shows it to be legally and historically weak, and Americans increasingly are pondering the very real dangers of not resorting to the convention process the Founders bequeathed to us.
I found this on the Friends of Article V Convention page. http://foavc.org/
Thanks for posting this. Packed with information. Once again, Jodi rocks! Tweeting this out
In the above information, it's important to note that much of the argument against COS is coming from the John Birch Society and articles can be found through The New American (a JBS publication). I've also heard that constitutional lawyer, Phyllis Schlafly is against COS. I found the following:
Phyllis Schlafly Stands Firmly With Roe v. Wade Justice and Against the People
After a long and brilliant career, Phyllis Schlafly has taken a terribly wrong turn.
Throughout her career she has accomplished so much good. But today, she stands firmly on the side of a huge, unfettered, unconstitutional federal leviathan, along with the icon of the pro-abortion movement, the late Chief Justice Warren Burger.
It makes sense that someone like Burger, who gave us Roe v. Wade, might oppose efforts to restrain a corrupt federal government. However, Schlafly’s opposition is a baffling deviation from her lifetime of activism. Based on a single letter from this activist justice, Phyllis Schlafly stands against the American people and their right and obligation to act to restrain the federal government through an Article V amending convention.
The Burger/Schlafly argument is on the wrong side of history—both factually and philosophically. Both contend that a Convention of States would be dangerous because it might go "runaway." In other words, such a convention might consider issues and propose amendments beyond the scope of authority granted by the states in their applications for a convention. This argument is actually based on defamation against the Framers of the Constitution. In fact, Schlafly has argued for years that the Constitution itself was the result of a “runaway convention.”
(keep reading at: http://spectator.org/blog/57135/phyllis-schlafly-stands-firmly-roe-...)
Thanks for adding that, Jodi. I heard her commentary on the radio (last year, maybe?) opposing this, and I couldn't find it. As the author states, she had done so much good for the conservative side, that many will take what she says as the way it is!
More against....and interesting article from the Patriot Coalition:
Their solution is to amend the Constitution. Really!
So, if we rewrite the Constitution the politicians who have been violating their solemn oath to support the Constitution will all of the sudden begin being faithful? This is like taking down a speed limit sign and putting a new one in its place because drivers are not obeying the limit. The problem is not the sign. The problem is that no one is enforcing the restriction.
In reality "We the People" are the traffic cop who is suppose to be monitoring our politicians and holding them accountable.
This is not only our patriotic duty but our moral duty if you believe that God had a hand in creating this Republic and the gifts of unmatched Liberty and prosperity the American people have enjoyed are gifts from God. The Founders establish a participatory government in which the citizens were an integral part. We are the mortar which holds it all together. And, we have been absentee owners.
Amending the Constitution is playing to our self inflicted ignorance and laziness. These folks are tacitly telling us not to worry or take responsibly for the condition of the government. They will simply change the speed sign and everything will be OK again and we can go back to the same ole life and not break a sweat or dirty our hands. If we do that we will get the same ole result.
The failure of our government is our failure. It is a result of our laziness and ingratitude for the great blessings we have enjoyed for over two hundred years. The problem is ours to fix and we would be foolish to leave it in the hands of those who corrupted it to begin with.
An Article V convention is not the solution and is not worth the risk.
Download this article here: http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/Convention-of-States-Wrong-Solutio...
What nearly all non-laywers do not understand --
If a law has been on the books for years and there are court decisions based on the law, then future court actions that punish future violations of the law will be guided by court decisions and actions of the past. However, if the law is repealed or changed, all of the precedent based on the law is no longer valid for use.
The Constitution is fundamental law. If an Amendment is carefully reworded, all precedent that is based on it becomes invalid for future use. Think about the ramifications.
Now I'm no lawyer....far from it, but I do TRY to think :)
Isn't what you're describing called 'case law'? Instead of trying cases based on the actual law, lawyers look back to previous rulings (which are judges' interpretations) for similar cases to make the argument?
If that's correct....I think that's a problem.
I'm still really torn on convention of states only because we all know what happens when politicians get together. It's never appears that the interest/freedom of the people is first and foremost.
First....bad groups write laws so long and difficult that 'you have to pass them to find out what's in them'.
Second....bad politicians pass laws without reading them.
I would be for a convention of states IF there were 2 issues that were very simply worded:
1. Balance the budget and limit federal debt.
2. Enforce the separation of power of the 3 branches.
A convention of states is a fightening proposition, but so is the direction in which we're heading and drastic times.....
As you can see.....I'm no lawyer!
IMO since you try to think, you are ahead of some lawyers.
Isn't what you're describing called 'case law'?
I do believe it is called case law. But, the point of describing it is: if the law that cases have been built upon changes, then the cases (in case law) can no longer be used in court because they are not valid under the NEW law. I.e., at least initially, after passage of a new law there are no case precedents to guide the lawyers and courts and the juries get to decide the merits of a case instead of the technical experts -- the lawyers and judges.
W/re your anxiety concerning the convention of states: I hear you and understand your concerns. You can begin to appreciate to some small degree what the founders must have felt as they put everything on the line for personal liberty as individual sovereigns.
Great thought about appreciation of what the founders felt, JB!
I know we must be bold, but the direction we take....either way...may be the step to our complete demise as a free republic.
I'm most positive that our founders asked God for direction....which is exactly what we should be doing at this point. I'm also most positive that most of our politicians think they are superior to and know better than the Almighty Father.
It is quite a crossroad where we are standing, isn't it?
Yes, we have to decide the path we want to follow. Most likely it is not black or white, liberty or safety, but some common ground that is acceptable to most and unacceptable to those on either side of "most".
Jodi, I'm at that crossroads too. I am uncertain, and there is a nagging feeling in my gut about this Convention of States. I have learned to trust those gut feelings, yet I hear conservatives I have respected promoting this. I also hear others saying 'no way.' Right now, I'll watch and read.
I too am afraid of this! I am also very afraid of where we are headed, as you are as well, Jodi! Without some kind of intervention, this country is going to be destroyed! It's already almost there!