Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Response pacleansweep: A reflection upon a Pa. convention

Previously, Net the Truth Online posted a comment concerning Sentinel, June 8, 2007 editorial, A reflection upon a Pa. convention

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/06/pa-convention-precedent.html

June 22, 2007
Re: A reflection upon a Pa. convention

You're asking a question that shows you continue to ignore what I have
cited how many times. Pennsylvania Constitution Article 1 Section 2. It
means what it say, it really really does. (Truth Net)

Why is it that there were no problems with the limitations of the
convention in 1967? (Russ Diamond)

Truth Net

Those delegates didn't choose to carry out all of PA Article 1 Section
2.

Funny about evidence v. testimony, still pondering...

As you know then from reading Robert F. Williams written testimony
entitled:

A LIMITED CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION IN PENNSYLVANIA? .

Footnote 32. "As the 1947 example makes clear, the line between
constitutional revision and constitutional amendment can be hazy.
Delegates at a limited constitutional convention may propose a new
document, even though certain issues were taken off the table before the
convention met." (Footnote 32 Williams)

To return to your question, the 1967 convention didn't propose a new
document, even though certain issues were taken off the table before the
convention met.

Why didn't they? Maybe those still living will come out and explain
their reasoning, thus settling the question for you.

Again, Article 1 Section 2 says what it means.

The incontrovertible fact is this: our PA Constitution is the supreme
law of the PA land.

Despite the adoption of such language limiting a convention, a huge door
opens wide for Article 1 Section 2 to trump the referendum and provide
delegates with legal ground to consider other than what they have been
limited to.

Also go back to Footnote 32 (Williams )the line between constitutional
revision and constitutional amendment can be hazy

Did you read all of the Hoar sections?

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pacleansweep/message/17308

{115} From all the foregoing we see that the legislature probably hasno
power to restrict either an authorized or a popular convention;whenever
it has succeeded, this has been due more to force ofcircumstances than
to legal rights. Even the power to imposereasonable restrictions is
doubtful...http://www.constitution.org/rsh/concon09.htm#09-03There is
another factor which makes PA unique and opens up the potential for
delegates to go beyond limitations.

It is odd you will continue to tout the precedent for a convention which
remained limited in PA history, but you refuse to consider the other PA
precedents.

Precedent - in Pennsylvania. 1873-74

(See Bruce Ledewitz reference discussed at PA Con-Con Limited Scope May
Not Be Possible

may-not-be.html>

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/06/pa-con-con-limited-scope-m\
ay-not-be.html
may-not-be.html>

The Pennsylvania 1776 constitutional convention is what I brought up
previously on my blog, Net the Truth Online.

So your statement is inaccurate:

This second section of his testimony is very instructive in >
differentiating between federal and state conventions (and previously >
on your blog, you've brought up the federal Philadelphia Convention > of
1787 to underscore your argument, so I think examination of the >
differences between them is warranted), but here are two pertinient >
points from the testimony to our discussion here:

I never brought up the "federal" Philadelphia Convention of 1787. I
pointed out that the PA Philadelphia Convention set a precedent for
future Pennsylvania constitutional conventions.

Since you have been mistaken about that, I am wondering whether you
either missed Williams footnote 32 altogether, or possibly you've
mentally blocked out the glaring "...Delegates at a limited
constitutional convention may propose a new document, even though
certain issues were taken off the table before the convention met.".

That is exactly what PA Constitution Article 1 Section 2 not only
permits, the law of the land remains the law of the land in the face of
enabling acts, the threat of intervention by the PA Supreme Court, or an
injunction brought by any citizen, or any other device to attempt to
prevent a limited Pennsylvania convention from turning unlimited and
proposing a "new document."

The courts are to abide by what is "constitutional."

Article 1 Section 2 stands before the PA Con-Con convenes.

An enabling act which limits delegates from carrying out again the
Constitution of Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania's Article 1 Section 2
could if challenged be found to be "unconstitutional."

Such a challenge to an enabling act has not yet occurred in the state of
Pennsylvania - but then again, Pennsylvania is noted for a lot of
"firsts."

Wouldn't it be interesting if there were just such a counter movement to
a "limited" convention afoot?.

Oh wait. I think I hear cheering from Democracy Rising PA

I wonder how many delegates to a PA Constitutional Convention will be
voted in by like-minded voters? Don't you?

Truth Net

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pacleansweep/message/17412


Russ Diamond response June 22, 2007

Re: A reflection upon a Pa. convention


--- In pacleansweep@yahoogroups.com, "Truth Net" wrote:
>
>
> You're asking a question that shows you continue to ignore what I have
> cited how many times. Pennsylvania Constitution Article 1 Section 2.
It
> means what it say, it really really does.

No doubt, but you are throwing tons of red herrings at this discussion.

Since the people, at the ballot box, affirm the limitations of the Act
and the people, by petition, nominate the candidates and the people, at
the ballot box, select the delegates and the people, at the ballot box,
either ratify or decline the convention's proposals, and the people,
thru today's media, will have easy access to the entire proceedings and
the people, through the courts, could challenge the legitimacy of the
proceedings, I believe folks will be very well informed about the whole
process and have lots of opportunities to intervene if things go awry.

And I have continually stated that I would be the first to act to
intervene if that happens.

You continually refer to Article 1 Section 2, but for some reason don't
seem to actually trust the people with the very power which is theirs
inherently.

Yes, indeed, the entire process must be watched like a hawk by ALL
Pennsylvanians.

Now that you have slipped the Democracy Rising reference in there, I
know exactly who you are and realize that you are one of the folks that
was banned from this forum before for making the outlandish claims that
PACleanSweep is somehow an instrument of George Soros & Co.

Believe me, I do not agree with Democracy Rising's 'wild west' desires
to have a total general convention. Tim & I have knocked heads on this
on numerous occasions. But I will tell you that Tim also now realizes
that NOT taking Article 1 off the table is a sure way to make sure we
don't get a ConCon.

Conspiracy theories are fine for those who wish to scare people, but
they just won't work here. Caution is certainly warranted, but hysteria
is not.

Cheers!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pacleansweep/message/17413


June 25, 2007 Truth Net response not posted guess cause Truth Net is part of a grand conspiracy-minded set of "the people."

No it's you who don't trust "the people" to desire to alter, reform, or abolish government.

The people don't stop being "the people" once they have voted in "delegates" and once they (may) have authorized a limited convention. That is what you don't seem to want to understand.

Our PA Constitution is very clear in Article 1 Section 2, but you continue to slant the section to suit you.

All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.

At all times an inalienable and indefeasible right - that is so clear, but unfortunately, to veil the potential for delegates in convention to continue to act as "the people" many theorize that limitations can be placed beforehand and all will be followed.

Our state also has precedent, and that is ignored as well.

As to your charge you know who I am and realize that you are one of the folks that
> was banned from this forum before for making the outlandish claims that
> PACleanSweep is somehow an instrument of George Soros & Co.

Again, you are mistaken. I have never joined this site previously, and have never been banned from this site.

There is no hysteria, just finding truth. And the truth you cannot deny is that a limited convention always and forever more will have the potential to become unlimited, during the convention process., precisely because of Article 1 Section 2.

What happens after the convention becomes unlimited is up for further discussion.

Truth Net


Original post Net the Truth Online

Found the same editorial today June 13, 2007 posted to the PA Clean Sweep message board with a comment inserted by Russ Diamond, and I commented on the board as "truthnet."

More will follow, including addressing the testimony of Robert Williams, A Limited Constitutional Convention in Pennsylvania?

Hint: Williams states: "Finally, it is important to point out that in a few states whose constitutions contain no provisions whatsoever concerning constitutional conventions, there are no requirements and no restrictions. This leaves maximum flexibility to the legislature and the people."...

PA Cleansweep note is Russ Diamond commentary on the Sentinel editorial...

June 11, 2007

Re: pacleansweep: A reflection upon a Pa. convention

Note from Russ: What happened with Article I in 1873 CAN be prevented
today.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pacleansweep/message/17302


Truth Net submitted 6-13-07 and posted on the PA Clean Sweep Message Board

Russ's note is left unexplained:

Note from Russ: What happened with Article I in 1873 CAN be prevented today.
How can delegates be prevented from going beyond limitations, once the delegates are "convened" in a convention and thereby within that convention setting have the power to establish their own "rules, and as well have a power exclusive to them?" That power being the ultimate according to the same section cited as the basis to call a convention.

Article 1 Section 2. All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.

In the PA Constitutional Convention, the delegates, the people, have the inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, OR ABOLISH, their government...

The PA Constitutional Convention may be limited upfront by a "legislative" enabling act, but while in the convention process, delegates can indeed go beyond any "restrictions" based on precedent of past conventions and even more pertinently, the concept of convention "sovereignty."

More importantly, the question arises whether (during the convention proceedings) delegates have to be constrained by "precedents" or actions of past conventions.If the delegates are to have the same power delegates in past conventions had, they should have the power to set their own "precedent," shouldn't they? That means a potential to ignore limitations in any area such limitations may be "preset" by "legislative" enabling acts.

A look to Hoar's discussion of issues surrounding convening of conventions reveals the statement:

{115} From all the foregoing we see that the legislature probably has no power to restrict either an authorized or a popular convention; whenever it has succeeded, this has been due more to force of circumstances than to legal rights. Even the power to impose reasonable restrictions is doubtful...

http://www.constitution.org/rsh/concon09.htm#09-03

ROGER SHERMAN HOAR CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS THEIR NATURE, POWER, AND LIMITATIONS
http://www.constitution.org/rsh/


Nobody has a crystal ball as to what will happen after the convention ends its deliberations and has altered, reformed, or abolished its government, either. If the "new" Constitution is sent back to the people for ratification, delegates would naturally lobby in support of their reasoning for going beyond the enabling act. The electorate could weigh in favor of the changes and ratify what was sent to them, even though they "authorized" initially, it could be argued, a limited convention, excluding Article I.

As far as the courts intervening during the convention, Hoar includes fascinating discussion and leaves more than a little room for doubt that courts would or could intervene.

If the electorate ratifies the new PA Constitution, it could further be argued the courts will not find any basis to overturn such ratification by "the people."
Furthermore, there is a potential for the delegates to choose a new method for ratification.

What this all boils down to is nobody can predict the outcome of a PA Constitutional Convention which has the power to alter, reform, or abolish its government.

(truthnet) (Net the Truth Online)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pacleansweep/message/17406

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pacleansweep/message/17308

Follow-up

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pacleansweep/message/17309


June 15, 2007

Re: A reflection upon a Pa. convention
Thank you for permitting the posting to go through without my being a
member. I have since joined and been accepted.

Before beginning to respond, would you please give the courtesy of
providing the specific resource for your statement which includes the
term evidence:

You've made a specific statement that "evidence" has been provided to
the Senate State Government Committee showing that such limitations can
be, and have been, enforced.

It would be important to the continuation of this discussion for you to
pinpoint the "evidence" that has been provided to the Senate State
Government Committee, evidence showing that such limitations can be, and
have been, enforced. More importantly, it would be helpful to pinpoint
evidence which shows that such limitations "have been" enforced, in past
conventions, conventions which occurred in the state of Pennsylvania.

By providing this information upfront, we can begin from the same base
of at least one resource which you provide.

Thank you for the courtesy.

As I respond, I will cite my resources in my posts, as I did in my
initial message.

You have stated:

There was a challenge to the convention of 1873, but it was filed too
late. The PA Supreme Court held (and rightly so) that it could not
overturn that convention's findings, as
> the sovereign people had already ratified them. But it also noted
> that a challenge filed in a timely manner would have been actionable.

As well, would you provide your resource for the statement that the
Court also noted that a challenge filed in a timely manner would have
been "actionable."

This is extremely important as the resource I cited contains pertinent
discussion on Court interventions - particularly in regard to a state's
existing provisions contained in its Constitution for "conventions', and
there would be a difference between what is and is not actionable in
theory and in reality.

Also, I plugged in the url to the link you provided but it came up page
not found

http://www.pacleansweep.com/concon07.html


Truth Net Online

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pacleansweep/message/17327


June 18, 2007

You've made a statement that "Evidence" was presented during testimony
to the committee.

Don't you think you should supply more specifics rather than a
generality? If not, why not?

If you are relying on one person's testimony to enable you to make such
unequivocal statements, then why not cite the individual and provide
quotes?

Specifically, exactly what testimony has been provided to the Senate
State Government Committee that reveals "evidence" showing that such
limitations can be, and have been, enforced.

What evidence provided to the committee supports your statement

what happened with Article 1 in 1873 CAN be prevented today

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pacleansweep/message/17309


Why not cite specifically, so the testimony and the basis of the
testimony may be checked?

I'm particularly interested in a supportive resource for the statement
evidence showing that such limitations "have been" enforced.

I'm interested to know if you are relying upon limitations other states
than PA have enforced, states whose Constitutions already contain
language pertaining to constitutional conventions. As you know, our PA
Constitution is silent thereon.

Roger Sherman Hoar's work provides enlightening discussion of just such
instances.

Another resource I will cite when I respond is the Pennsylvania
Constitution itself. And in particular, I will cite Article 1 Section
2.
Political Powers
Section 2.
All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are
founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and
happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an
inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their
government in such manner as they may think proper.

http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Constitution.html


Note I'm at this time asking for you to identify "evidence" you state
has been provided...

However, this is the complete paragraph..:

As a statute, it would be enforced by threat of court intervention
instigated by any PA citizen. That threat would loom over the
convention right up until the voters cast their ballots on whatever
proposals the convention puts before them. Evidence has been provided
to the Senate State Government Committee showing that such
limitations can be, and have been, enforced.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pacleansweep/message/17309


Please additionally clarify how a statute would be enforced by threat of
court intervention instigated by any PA citizen.

You use the term would be - what is your supportive resource that a
statute would be enforced by "threat" of court intervention?

Please provide the evidence for such, as you state has been provided to
the Senate State Government Committee.

Also, the link doesn't work. Page not found.

http://www.pacleansweep.com/concon07.html


Truth Net

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pacleansweep/message/17351


June 21, 2007

Re: A reflection upon a Pa. convention



I find it surprising you don't recall the man's name who you have
maintained provided evidence which supports your statement

what happened with Article 1 in 1873 CAN be prevented today

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pacleansweep/message/17309


You don't have to recall every single word that was said, just back up
your claim that "evidence" was presented to the committee which supports
your position - your position being that what happened in 1873 CAN be
prevented today. Surely, you hava a copy of written testimony from
Piccola's office yourself and can recheck to jog your memory of the
"gentleman" whose name you can't recall.

Now you're making another statement:

...I'm sure you could ask for an emergency
> injunction to stop the proceedings or at least stop the particular
> discussion which overreaches the limitations...

An emergency injunction - where is your evidence for that?

Truth Net

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pacleansweep/message/17405


Related

Officials hold 3d hearing on revamping Pa. governmentTwo state senators listened to expert witnesses discussing the need for a constitutional convention.
By Vernon Clark
Inquirer Staff Writer

At the University of Pennsylvania Law School, two state senators heard testimony yesterday on the convening of a constitutional convention for the reform of state government.

State Sens. Jeffrey E. Piccola (R., Dauphin) and Michael Folmer (R., Lebanon) held the third hearing on the topic, listening to the views of three speakers: an area lawyer and author, a Rutgers University law school professor, and the president of the local League of Women Voters...

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/pa/main_line_delaware/20070412_Senators_hear_ideas_on_a_constitutional_convention_for_Pa_.html
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)