Avatar

Patriots For America

Uphold the Constitution!

Act Now to reject a Constitutional Convention

Sat. Dec. 20, 12:47am EST

I may be the last to catch on to this possibility, but did you know that there is a real effort to call a new Constitutional Convention going on right now? Can you imagine what would happen if the crew we have in Washington right now were given the authority to re-write, or totally replace, our U. S. Constitution? 34 states have to call for a convention, and 32 are on the record already, including Tennessee. Ohio appears to be the target of the latest efforts, and neither New York or California have signed on yet, so this could really happen. From what I have learned from the Chuck Baldwin article at http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin480.htm, we need to be calling anyone we know in Ohio and work to stop their state legislature from passing a resolution calling for a Constitutional Convention.

In light of this possibility, I would like to call for a couple of actions from our members.

  1. Call all of your friends and family in Ohio and inform them about this.
  2. Read the article linked above and find out if your state is among those that have already called for a convention.
  3. Research the current status of your state's call for a convention.. it would appear some have rescinded thiers, but that may not matter.
  4. Get back on here and respond with what you have found in your state, we need as much information as we can get!

I have found some contact information for the Ohio legislature:

I will try to update this as I learn more.

                ~Joshua Boulée


!! *** UPDATE 12-23-08 *** !!

Thanks to Mike at the After thePorch blog (http://stevescomments.wordpress.com), I have more information for you on this.

  • Article V of the U.S. Constitution sets the rules for calling a Constitutional Convention.
  • 32 out of a required 34 states have called for a Constitutional Convention already. Some have rescinded their calls; however, there is NOTHING in Article V allowing calls to be rescinded, so they COULD be counted anyway.
  • The Ohio legislature is trying to be the 33rd state as you read this. The vote was delayed in the House on HJR8, the resolution calling for a convention there.
  • The Ohio Senate is still pushing to pass the resolution on their side, SJR9.
  • This effort is being pushed by the Republican members of the Legislature, on the misguided idea that they can limit the convention to adding an ammendment to require the Federal budjet to be balanced every year. The Democrats are opposed to it for the same reason.
  • Once a Constitutional Convention is called, no one can limit it. The original convention was called STRICTLY to ammend the Articles of Confederation, and delegates were sworn to that by their respective legislatures. The first thing they did was vote to hold all proceedings in secret. The second thing they did was to completely SCRAP the Articles and start over.
  • The ratification requirements can be changed by the Convention. They did it last time, from 100% approval to 75%. They could make it 50% if they wanted to.
  • There is no requirement that any state be represented. Congress has total power over appointing delegates; they can appoint anyone they want, from anywhere, or delegate that to individual states.

This is very real, and very dangerous. Here are some more links where you can get further information:

Modern Day Constitutional Convention Not A Good Idea 

        (Mike's post)

U.S. Now Only 2 States Away From Rewriting Constitution

        (WND post, includes Obama's stance on the Constitution)

Original American Policy Center Action Alert

        (Dated December 10, includes Ohio House contacts)

American Policy Center Update

        (Dated Decembet 12, includes both Ohio House and Ohio Senate contact information. Contains many questions raised in the comittee meeting)

Principled Policy Blog Ohio Con Con Series

        (6 part series on this by the vice-chairman of this Ohio public-policy think tank, one of the most vocal opponents in the House Judiciary Comittee meeting. The series is posted with the most recent first, so you'll need to scroll a bit to start at the begining)

That's all for now, I am still learning and will continue updating.

tags: constitution constitutional convention patriots for america ohio tennessee chuck baldwin action
Comments
Jeffrey Chupp Sun. Dec. 21, 01:23pm EST#1

please do keep us updated. this is interesting.

Gillian Myerberg Sun. Dec. 21, 02:18pm EST#2

Josh,

You can't honestly believe that the Constitution will become null and void, can you? It won't happen and it's just more GOP propaganda to get you all freaked out.

Where would the "new" 13 colonies be if not on the east coast?

Sadly, the first person I would call would be the late Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs-Jones to find out how true this really is, but I will also call the other Reps and Senators that I know and find out what the real deal is. I mean think about it, if NY and California haven't signed on, then this is another tactic to scare the country by the GOP kind of like the terror alert system. That was the dumbest scare tactic ever put into play.

I will also find out how real this is from Nadler's office. In fact I am going to send this to my friend who works with Jerry and see what they say. No offense but I can't believe this is accurate given the source. No offense but evangelicals create this propaganda and I just hope you open your mind and finally realize this.

It's actually very amusing to think that the Democrats are going to get rid of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and create new 13 colonies, where they would be I would love to know, when the Bush admin has broken so many laws of the Constitution it is gross.

Joshua Boulée Tue. Dec. 23, 02:33am EST#3

Gillian, this isn't coming from the GOP, so I'm not sure where you're going with that one. The "new 13 colonies" reference is, as I read it, an allusion to the fact that there are some states, Texas for one, that would never agree to join a new Union or sign on to a new Constitution. Either they would be allowed to secede (and I would move there) or there would be civil war.

Joshua Boulée Tue. Dec. 23, 11:58pm EST#4

I just updated this post and added a slew of new information and links. Please, read through it, then act!

Mike Davis Wed. Dec. 24, 01:29pm EST#6

Josh I also just found this about Wyomings attempt at a "con con".

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=83837">

Wyoming lawmakers oppose Constitutional Convention

White House nominee: 'It would be the end of the United States, and that's no hyperbole'

Wyoming previously called for a Constitutional Convention but rescinded the votes in 1999.

It is unclear whether even a formal vote to withdraw a request for a convention would have an impact or whether any limits could be imposed, according to constitutional expert John Eidsmoe, author of the book, "Christianity & the Constitution. But he encouraged such rescission votes, saying if nothing more, it certainly would dampen the enthusiasm for a convention.

Last week, a public policy organization0 issued an urgent alert that affirmative votes are needed from only two more states before a Constitutional Convention could be assembled in which "today's corrupt politicians and judges" could formally change the U.S. Constitution's "'problematic' provisions to reflect the philosophical and social mores of our contemporary society."

Mike Davis Wed. Dec. 24, 01:30pm EST#7

Here's the correct link

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=83837

Joshua Boulée Wed. Dec. 24, 04:55pm EST#8

Another website tracking this is http://www.peacechicken.com. I haven't had a chance to read through their material yet, but I love the name!

Gillian Myerberg Wed. Dec. 24, 09:26pm EST#9

Honestly, this is one of the funniest blogs that I have read on this site. I love how every state referenced is chock full of Republicans, but you say this isn't coming from the GOP. Frankly, I will gladly support Texas leaving the United States of America and taking George W and his cronies with them and never to hear from them again.

Joshua Boulée Wed. Dec. 24, 09:42pm EST#10

Actually, this push for a con con in Ohio IS being pushed by the Republicans. They want to add a balanced budget amendment to the Federal Constitution, but in that flimsy excuse for a reason are risking throwing the entire thing away. I am very happy the Democrats are fighting them on this! Neither party is anything I would claim any more, but I will help either one when they are in the right, as the Dems are in this fight.

Joshua Boulée Wed. Dec. 24, 09:44pm EST#11

The part that I said wasn't coming from the Republicans is the alarm bells being rung by Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party of Ohio, The Campaign for Liberty, the Libertarian party of Ohio, the John Birch society, and others. The Republicans are DEFINITELY the bad guys on this one, trying to sneak it through before anyone could catch on.

Mike Davis Fri. Dec. 26, 01:01pm EST#12

Actually it doesn't take a "con con" to add a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

MarkG Sun. Dec. 28, 04:18pm EST#13

A balanced budget amendment would limit government. That is good. The federal government cannot pay its bills without borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars every year. The Congress will not limit itself. That is why the representatives of the people in the state legislatures must do so. For any amendment proposed at a Constitutional Convention to become part of the Constitution, the amendment must be approved by 38 states. That is difficult and a solid safeguard. If you are concerned about a legislative body being able to propose amendments, the Congress has had that power for over 200 years. State legislatures have that power for their states. Please read Article V. of the Constitution. The founding fathers put it there to be used.

Mark

Joshua Boulée Tue. Jan. 13, 08:54pm EST#14

Mark G, the problem that could arise is the Convention Delegates could do like the last batch did..vote to act in secret, then vote to start over. The Articles of Confederation, which the first Con Con was called to amend, required 100% ratification...they changed it to 75%. There doesn't seem to be anything stopping a new delegation from dropping the requirement further.

Joshua Boulée Tue. Jan. 13, 11:27pm EST#15

There is a new article from Chuck Baldwin on the Con Con. Ohio's attempt to call for one died (for now), but now Virginia is trying to pass a new call. They called in the past then rescinded their call. here is the link: http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin484.htm

Add comment

You may use some XHTML formatted tags, including <strong>, <em>, <blockquote>, <ul>, <ol>, <a>, <cite> and <q>.

 
Close