Florida Tenth Amendment Center
This is a post from Florida C4L. The key thought here is we do not need a con con. We need to obey the constitution as originally intended. This would solve so many of our problems.-Fl TAC.
Posted by barbourjohn on 03/19/10 08:57 AM at http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php
We are once again hearing a call for a Constitutional Convention among conservatives. (This seems to come up every decade or so and then the calls are rescinded.)
This time,as in the past. it is a call for a Balanced Budget Ammendment. While most of us agree that the U.S. government is too large and intrusive and that government is borrowing entirely too much,I do not believe a Constitutional Convention is the way to go. It is too risky and dangerous. See my article from June of last year. http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=19265
Watch this video to get the facts. http://www.jbs.org/action/birchtube?task=videodirectlink&id=68
I’ve also attached a letter at the bottom written by Chief Justice Warren Burger to Phyllis Schlafly back in 1988. Here he explains briefly why it is unwise. You can download it here: http://www.jbs.org/action/downloads/freedom-campaign-downloads/15-warren-burger-letter-to-phyllis-schlafly-re-an-article-v-constitutional-convention
Bottom line: There is nothing wrong with the Constitution. It doesn’t need revising. It just needs to be obeyed.
Also, there is nothing wrong with a
– say 5-10% of GDP. There are times when the government does need to borrow money as in a time of constitutionally declared war. Murray Rothbard says that we’ve had two just wars in our history. One of the purposes of the U.S. Constitution and federalism was to “provide for the common defense”. It also provides a way for foreigners and Americans to invest in America and get a safe return on their investments.
Point: We don’t need a central bank to accomplish this; nor fractional reserve banking nor fiat currency. The U.S. should be able to borrow from any sound bank. They could shop around to get the best deal.
Answer to two questions that are anticipated:
Question 1. Is not the greatest risk to the Fed’s side if a convention is called?”
No, the greatest risk is to the state’s side that will not have anything to say about what gets discussed and what the final outcome will be. They can even change the 3/4th clause at the convention if they want.
Question 2. “The safeguard for us seems to be in the 3/4 ratification does it not?”
This is what the states thought when they sent men to Philadelphia to amend the Articles of Confederation in 1787(they were relying on Article 13 of that document). Again, this is our only historical example of what might take place. Fortunately for us, the people that went to the Constitutional Convention were influenced by a fear of God (Including the idea that our rights come from God) and the recent Great awakening that had taken place among them when they were children(this affected the whole country- unlike our charismatic experiences). We do not have any of this. Instead we have people in our legislatures that believe we did not come from God (evolution), our rights are whatever we say they are (not proscribed by God’s Word- for example “gay rights”), and have a total disregard for the Constitution especially in the areas of Foreign and monetary policy.
You may say, well, some of the delegates might have had the same disregard for the Articles – this may be true. But the present disregard for the Constitution goes far beyond the need for national defense and a shortage of cash to run the national government. The truth is; there is nothing wrong with the Constitution. It just simply isn’t being followed. In the best case scenario they would make some more amendments, adding more laws that they probably will not follow. The worst case scenario is that they will totally abandon our Constitution and create one more in harmony with the UN and global government. This, I fear is more likely. In either case it is not worth the risk. The benefits are unknown and the risks are catastrophic.
Watch the video. I think he does a good job explaining it and giving plenty of expert legal opinions.
Andrew Nappi is the State Coordinator for the Florida Tenth Amendment Center. He lives in the Tampa Bay Area with wife Tammy and dogs Emma and Bud Lite.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Subscribe to entries
Subscribe to comments
All content © 2012 by Florida Tenth Amendment Center
I believe that a Constitutional Convention could take place and work if there was wide spread support amongst the state governments and both parties. Two ammendments that would pass, imho, would be one to eliminate Congress' ability to pass laws with unfunded mandates on to the states. The second would be to eliminate Congress' ability to withold funds, or blackmail, the states into passing any laws. These could get bipartisan support at the state level as this is the source of many of their problems, be they Democrat or Republican. The wheels are coming off of the local governements because of Federal intevention into areas that never used to be Federal cases, or issues.
As far as following what the Founders' intended, there was never any intent for the Constitution to be anything but a means by which the states could interact with each other in a profitable manner. A common market, common currency, common defense, common foreign relations, and common trade regulations between the states and other countries.
Until the late 1940's the Bill of Rights did not apply to state or local governments, but only to the Federal government. "Congress" shall make no law… Not "There shall be no law…" I am of two minds on this, as there would have been no Civil Rights movement without the changes in our application of the Bill of Rights. On the other hand, we are losing more and more power to the Federal government at the state, local, and personal level.
The Federal government should do nothing that the States cannot do for themselves, the State should do nothing that the counties cannot do for themselves, the counties should do nothing that the cities and towns cannot do for themselves, and no governement should do what the citizens can do for themselves.
Most of us believe in helping those who cannot help themselves and have little use for the lazy and quarelsome. – paraphrasing Thorton Wilder from "Our Town".
Bill Walker said: "Indeed, all of the objections and fears to a convention have come from one source and only one source: the John Birch Society"
This is absolutely correct. JBS is the source of the language "con-con" and the anti-constitutional convention rhetoric. They are a group of insane lunatics and should be disregarded.
The fact of the matter is that despite its risk, a Constitutional convention is a realistic step given the radical and extreme departure of our federal government.
C4L's involvement with JBS on this issue *really* hurts their credibility.
The Constitution mandates a convention call when the states apply in sufficient number to cause the call. The public record shows they have done so. See http://www.foavc.org. This author says we should follow the Constitution as it was originally intended. Article V is part of that original intent. He then says we should not follow the Constitution as originally intended because that would be "unwise." He cites material such as the Burger Letter which FOAVC has proven to be a phoney.
Indeed, all of the objections and fears to a convention have come from one source and only one source: the John Birch Society. An extreme right wing organization who even now are trying to prevent the Constitution from being obeyed as it was originally intended to be, that Congress would call a convention when the states demanded it.
How much worse are conservatives going to let this become before they realize between the liberals and the JBS they've had their shot and it hasn't worked. Amendments can be repealed assuming a convention has enough support to make one (two-thirds just like Congress not to mention three fourths for the states to ratify). Are we going to continue to let the JBS, an extreme right wing group, continue to make national policy for us on obedience to the Constitution as it was originally intended?
Just remember the only convention we've ever had did nothing but good for this country.
[...] http://florida.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/03/constitutional-convention-is-unwise/ [...]