Dated
I keep getting asked about this and people keep advocating it, so let's talk about it.
The issue is a Constitutional Convention, with the expressed intent being to return the United States to its Constitutional Roots.
Sounds like a good idea, yes?
Well, it quite arguably is, if you'd like to see the government return to its Constitutional boundaries.
The problem is that this "remedy" isn't a remedy and if it comes to pass what you want won't happen.
I know this for a fact and, if you think about it, so do you.
I know what you're going to say: How can you be so sure?
It's simple: There is nothing wrong with the Constitution as it sits now. The problem is that it's not followed.
Let's just take one example: The Fourth Amendment
It reads:
More @ Market Ticker
I don't any of you remember the article I wrote and posted about evils of a ConCon several months ago? It was in response to a wave of articles about Mark Levin and the Liberty Amendments. People were quick to think that a ConCon would answer all their problems. I said it would not, but in reality you could very well lose the whole US Constitution and have no say on the matter, nor your states.
ReplyDeleteThe article above does a great job in showing why a ConCon is not needed in relation to the US Constitution itself, as the US Constitution is NOT being followed to begin with. Therefore we can only assume that the people who actually want the US Constitution voided or at least drastically changed are the very ones behind calling for a ConCon. This is the reason I attacked and vilified Mark Levin as much as I possible could in closing my article. He simply is a 5th column secretly working for the other side. This can be said to be all the more true since his claims and stature of being so Constitutionally knowledgeable as well as being a talk show host and author/writer.
If requested I can repost my previous article showing the real evil of a ConCon, and how I learned about it first hand while helping in Robin Hayes as leader of the NC House.
Michael-- Deo Vindicabamur
Certainly. Thanks.
DeletePART 1
ReplyDeleteThe below is a response I wrote concerning the Liberty Amendments. Above all, KNOW this; The Liberty Amendments has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with making Amendments to the US Constitution. That is not possible with what Levin is calling for. He is nothing but a 5th column in waiting. Although he is showing his hand with his Amendment claims. Read the below which I wrote to another blog in response to Levin.
It was in response to Mark Levin and his call for a Constitutional Convention, although he starts right off by misleading the reader by calling it the "Liberty Amendments". I have personally been involved with opposing the assault on scraping and changing the US Constitution. There have been dozens of attempts to accomplish this since the 1990s and we still see them today as by Mark Levin and his Liberty Amendments, and now how other media hosts have also been calling for a Constitutional Convention.
The proof is in the pudding, it was mentioned how George Soros was supporting ALL calls for a ConCon from all the people calling for a ConCon. George Soros was also behind the push in the 1990s for a ConCon which will tell you a lot. The biggest of which is, if George Soros is pushing for something, anything, it is NEVER good for the average person, or most anyone else for that matter. That was a very good pointing out the problems with a ConCon and the deeper working behind the stage pushing for one. But I'll post my article about Levin again so people can get a better basic understanding of what it entails. Article below(From several months ago.:
Why a ConCon will not work:
I just got through reading about the Liberty Amendments. I’ll tell you right now, it is a SHAM! This is because there is Constitutionally no way that a Constitutional Convention (I was taught ConCon for short) will work. I’ve studied Constitutional Law while being privately tutored by professors, and I worked with Robin Hayes of North Carolina (Speaker of the House) in the late 90s in actually helping stop North Carolina from being one of the states calling for ConCon. I learned much from this experience, but mainly I learned that the Marxists will stop at no amount of deceit in pulling something off of this importance.
Marxists actually had several simultaneous stories going on for different states in order that each vote for a ConCon. They were assuring each state that there would be only a specific agenda to vote on in the ConCon.(Just like Mark Levin is saying today.) That mainly being that each agenda would be met by simply Amending the Constitution. This could be 1 Amendment or 20. Or it could end up changing the whole US Constitution. And that is the point, there are absolutely NO laws governing what the attendants of the ConCon can do in rewriting OR Amending the US Constitution. Granted, there is debate from the Marxists that they are limited, and can be limited by law, but it was my experience in the 90s under Robin Hayes that this was a smoke screen and that there are actually no guarantees as to limiting anything. There is simply no law or anything that can be passed as law forcing people in such a convention to do anything.
END PART 1
PART 2-- END
ReplyDeleteThe reasons are hard to explain, but you can figure it out by thinking on it. If a ConCon is held, the authority of the US Constitution goes into a sort of limbo as the transfer of power changes from one Constitution to the next.(Or as any Amendments or changed or added, being the same thing as rewriting the Constitution.) This power solely rests with those delegates in the ConCon while they are in session. They can write anything they wish in it and then exempt themselves or change the whole Constitution without so much as the states having the authority to opt out.(Meaning there is now no law to hold them accountable for the changes they made.) Also meaning after it is rewrote it can be added as being final with NO state suffrage or having any further say in the matter. And this is because the states no longer have the authority to say no by opting out, meaning they cannot secede from what they would consider tyrannical laws resulting from a rewritten Constitution. (Opting out also means seceding from the union!) Stated another way; a new Constitution can prohibit any further votes against it as it would be considered automatically accepted by the states calling for the ConCon in the first place. And the states can’t opt out by rejecting it because they are not allowed to exercise their sovereignty as independent states, since 1865. Because, to say no only means you don’t agree, NOT that you can leave the union. (It’s like a Coup D’etat on paper.)
Rhode Island was the last of the original 13 States to accept the US Constitution. It had consistently refused to join under various reasons, and she could not NOT be made to accept or join the new Constitutional Union even though she was a member state of the Articles of Confederation and one of the original 13 colonies. She only accepted and joined the union when the other states claimed they would no longer trade with her and impose tariffs on her goods. This is no longer possible since Lincoln's War. He took the power away fromt he states and gave it tot he central government, something the Founding Fathers desperately feared would happen, specifically the anti-Federalists.
Another extreme example being; Assume the states are allowed to vote on acceptance a ConCon and then 1/2, 2/3 or 3/4 of the states rejects the results of the ConCon? That is according to the numbers, IF they change to the new Constitution; but why have the states vote after voting for the ConCon is what I am saying, if the majority of states imposes their will on a minority? They gave their assent to change it when they voted for the ConCon and the writers of the new Constitution does not have to allow for the state vote afterwards, and there are no controls over this. (You can mandate or force them to vote certain ways because they can change it when they change the Constitution, nor can any dissenting state withdraw from the union because of it.) Another way to look at this is, a new Constitution being automatically legal, the only vote a state would have is to reject accepting it, though the vote would carry NO Federal weight because the states don’t have the power to reject Federalism, or to be sovereign, because secession is now illegal. What are those states going to do? Therefore everyone is stuck with it because the states are no longer sovereign.
It’s a very dangerous thing a ConCon. So dangerous I wouldn’t trust anyone today in politics to oversee such changes. In the late 90s it was down to three states until a ConCon could be called. NC was one of those 3. Know what Robin Hayes ended up doing with the Bill? He stuck it under his desk, so-to-speak, never letting it come up for vote, because most likely it appeared it would have passed. You have no idea at what we went through for several months…..
I'm still waiting to find Mark Levin so I can cremate him. He's on my most wanted list. You people have NO idea what kind of *fellow* this guy really is. And it is NOT good, not at all...
Michael– Deo Vindicabamur