Chris Moore Program
http://www.kdkaradio.com/pages/5664021.php
Yes, he supports it and has several proposals in the works. His website is: Friends of the Article V Convention.
When we heard his name mentioned and the subtitle of his book, Fixing the Republic without Over-Throwing the Government, we knew immediately he'd want the Article V Convention.
The key wording in the subtitle is "without over-throwing the government."
But that is exactly what an Article V Convention could do - overthrow the government, peacefully and without a shot being fired. Our republican form of government guaranteed to the states could be replaced with some other form of government guaranteed to the states, or no guarantee.
Another entirely new and different Constitution of the United States could be proposed by the delegates to the convention. Based on the first Constitutional Convention, called to revise the Articles of Confederation, the second could not only do likewise, replace the Constitution, not merely revise, or amend, delegates could also propose a different method of ratification.
The author ended his commentary with a statement that appeared inaccurate: Congress calls the Convention. A caller found reason to disagree in that the required amount of states make the call, once the number is reached the convention should be automatically convened.
The author changed the wording in his reply just enough to satisfy. He said Congress convenes the Convention once the required amount of states call for the convention.
It was a picky and technical point and we understand why the author wanted the overall point he was making to resound.
Congress must convene the convention upon the last required state making the convention call.
Hirschhorn believes there are a requisite amount of states who've already made the application for a call for a convention, and Congress must call or convene the convention, immediately.
There may still be room however even given the wording of the Constitution for debate as to who actually calls the convention together.
The Congress,... 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, 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;...
The following site covers some ground worth reading but beware it is wiki.
http://wiki.lessig.org/Talk:Article_V_Convention
Though the U.S. Constitution Article V is worded as such, we'd go with Congress... on Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall convoke a Convention for proposing Amendments...
as the more appropriate interpretation. We don't think the Article V means Congress has any role whatsoever in an Article V Convention called as such by the two-thirds of the several states.
This exclusive right to call a Convention by the states is exlusive to the states via Article V. And that is why the debate surrounding a convention call when the last required state submits its application for a call is so important.
As important is the theory that the Congress can limit the convention by any legislation or regulations.
Stanford Law School Professor Gerald Gunther testimony to Judiciary Committee
... statutory or Congressional limitation of a convention is "profoundly unconstitutional" and it is "snake oil to tell the country that Congress can limit or bind the convention..."
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=19851022&id=ChsiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=paYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3371,495738
We've warned of the dangers of a Second Constitutional Convention for years. We've posted material in the blog and in our sidebar for your information.
Hirschhorn wants a Constitutional Convention for a number of proposals. On the Pittsburgh Now program, he noted he didn't believe elections were effective in combating the entrenched two party system and its corruption. Campaign contributions are out of whack. So let's have a second Constitutional Convention.
We've also been watching Judge Napolitano. Please review our posts and sidebar material.
We made a post on freedomwatch as a.k.a. Dare Berringer
http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16625-freedom-watch-show-ideas/suggestions/209966-danger-of-a-second-constitutional-convention
also see
Numerous links
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-X-FedConC.html
Also see our latest post regarding a private citizen's (Thomas W. Sulcer) call for a Second Constitutional Convention which apparently has been an effort for some years now.
Con: Private Citizen Summons July 2010 Con-Con
http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2010/02/con-private-citizen-summons-july-2010.html
By the way, what a brilliant idea to sell or give away copies of your own book. Invite everybody to this Second Constitutional Convention and provide copies of your book for sale or review!
What a motivator to get the thing done, even if you have to publish it yourself.
When this talk arises seemingly far more now with the advent of the Tea Party (whose origins we've commented upon in other posts) we let our fingers fly to search for as much more information as possible than we've already provided about the dangers of a Second Constitutional Convention.
We highlight Greenley's piece elsewhere, and do so again, clipping those sections as well which reference other John Birch Society/The New American offerings... It's not a plug to buy, buy, buy, it's informational.
Constitutional Convention Backers Want to Hijack the Tea Party Movement
Written by Larry Greenley
Thursday, 30 April 2009 13:49
...A con-con would be convened by Congress in accordance with Article V of the Constitution, if 34 or more state legislatures petition Congress to call such a convention “for proposing amendments.” The dangerous aspect of a con-con is that there’s no way for the state legislatures to ensure that the constitutional convention would restrict itself to consideration of the specific amendment(s) that the state legislatures have based their con-con calls on. Therefore, a constitutional convention could consider and approve a wide range of amendments, never contemplated by the state legislatures who started the whole process. Whichever amendments approved by the constitutional convention that were ratified by three-fourths of the states would become part of the Constitution. Thus, given the huge influence on public opinion exerted by the biased media and political elites, the con-con process could very well result in radical changes in our Constitution which were never intended by the state legislators who called the con-con in the first place.
Here’s “Beware of Article V,” a video the John Birch Society produced in 1999 to help state legislators to understand the high risk to our Constitution involved in petitioning Congress for a con-con. It’s also valuable for informing concerned citizens about this issue. I highly recommend readers of this article take the 36 minutes required to view it or at the very least sample it.
http://www.jbs.org/index.php/freedom-campaign/4820
Constitutional Convention Backers Want to Hijack the Tea Party Movement
Written by Larry Greenley
Thursday, 30 April 2009 13:49
...The staff and members of the John Birch Society, as well as the large number of state legislators of both parties that our members have worked with over the past 20 years, are very familiar with how seemingly attractive the concept of a con-con can be until further study reveals the high degree of risk involved.
The “Beware of Article V” video embedded near the top of this article has been our most effective resource for convincing state legislators against petitioning Congress for a con-con. We recommend that you show and/or give the “Beware of Article V” video (free to view online; DVD available to buy online) to the organizers of tea party events in your area. It is especially important to help them understand the dangers of a con-con as they are planning for speakers and action agendas for the July 4th tea parties...
http://www.jbs.org/index.php/freedom-campaign/4820
We've been following Glenn Beck on the matter as he has yet to publicly announce he absolutely would not support a Second Constitutional Convention.
Years back, Patrick J. Buchanan also supported a convention in one of his books. We confronted him when asking a question during a press conference for one of his runs for the Republican nomination for President. He responded he had recently met with the Phyllis Schlafly organization and retreated from his position. We asked another question which was reported on in a Tribune-Review piece at the time.
Net the Truth Online
Joel S. Hirschhorn at November 22, 2009 Article V Convention: No Reason to Fear Liberals (or Conservatives)
November 22, 2009
Article V Convention: No Reason to Fear Liberals (or Conservatives)
In my many efforts to educate Americans about their constitutional right to have an Article V convention I have regularly encountered the fear that liberals would control the convention and produce awful results. Let me carefully make the case why this fear is completely unjustified and why patriotic Americans that are not constitutional hypocrites should support the nonpartisan effort of Friends of the Article V Convention.
An Article V convention is too important to oppose. If you love and respect the Constitution, then the honorable thing to do is support our efforts to make Congress obey the Constitution and give us the first convention. After all, the Founders and Framers knew that inevitably Americans would lose trust in their creation of a strong central, federal government. So they gave us the convention option and, with one exception, gave the power to run the convention to the states. That one exception was that they required Congress call or convene the convention once the one and only specified requirement in Article V was satisfied. With some 750 applications from all 50 states, that two-thirds of states requirement has long been met. Members of Congress have disobeyed the Constitution and their oath of office to uphold it...
http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/006780.html
Please review the site and read the posting by Stephen Daugherty at November 22, 2009 04:00 PM
Note, we don't condone Daugherty's support of a 34 state call for a Convention, no matter if the required states get together on one major amendment or call for the Convention. The convention delegates can not be guaranteed to remain limited to any one amendment. therein is the danger.
Nonetheless, Daugherty's position is interesting and we'd recommend him to Chris Moore, host of Pittsburgh Now to present his positions on the issue.
Net the Truth Online
clip
Comment #291307
Let me carefully make the case why this fear is completely unjustified and why patriotic Americans that are not constitutional hypocrites should support the nonpartisan effort of Friends of the Article V Convention.
As opposed to the patriotic Americans who are constitutional hypocrites?
To be a hypocrite, you must say one thing, but through your actions indicate something else.
I have said, consistently, that I believe the constitution calls for thirty four or more states to agree in concert for the convention to go forward.
An Article V convention is too important to oppose. If you love and respect the Constitution, then the honorable thing to do is support our efforts to make Congress obey the Constitution and give us the first convention.
Too important to oppose? Everybody believes that about something. I believe healthcare reform is too important to oppose. Even so, a bill must go through Congress’s rules, and be passed constitutionally.
It is poor argumentation, then, when speaking about an Article Five Convention, where agreement of two-thirds of the states is called for, prior to the calling of the convention, to say that we must do this because you think it’s too important to oppose. That doesn’t enter into it.
I love and respect the constitution, and disagree with your interpretation, which in turn compels me to strongly disagree with your argument.
I believe Congress already obeys the Constitution in this, so it need not be asked to do any more.
After all, the Founders and Framers knew that inevitably Americans would lose trust in their creation of a strong central, federal government.
Care to show me where that is written? Truth is, some never trusted it at all. And some trusted it above all other things. The variation was regional, and one thing the framers and founders were on guard against was one group of states revising the agreement to favor themselves. The constitution was a compromise between different regions, with different land areas and different populations. The Framers did a lot of balancing out of such interests.
I believe the high thresholds, as Hamilton would later say, would require such efforts at Amendment or at a Constitutional convention be aimed at the general interest, not merely the interest of a few states. It would have been awful hard of this threshold to have any teeth, if we did things Joel’s way, since there were so few states to start with. I don’t think the federalists, the folks who favored the adoption of this document, intended for the amendment process to be a happenstance occurence of addition.
Everywhere else where they ask for a threshold, they’re asking for a considerable consensus before a power is granted, or put into action. This was required for a veto override, and it’s required for the twin brother of the convention clause. Why, with similar language, is such a real consensus not required for the convention method? After all, the states will have to attend this darn thing, they might as well be in better than majority agreement that it’s necessary, or otherwise it’s not going to move things anywhere anyways.
So they gave us the convention option and, with one exception, gave the power to run the convention to the states. That one exception was that they required Congress call or convene the convention once the one and only specified requirement in Article V was satisfied. With some 750 applications from all 50 states, that two-thirds of states requirement has long been met. Members of Congress have disobeyed the Constitution and their oath of office to uphold it.
Yeah, I remember looking at your applications and finding recissions (in other words, people saying “disregard the convention calls”), duplications, among other things.
Funny thing, this build up. It could only happen if it never occured to any state that its rights were being trampled on. Maybe they, too, believe that the threshold has to more or less be met together, by the willing agreement of States in common purpose. You’re tilting at windmills for an ungrateful set of damsels in distress.
http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/006780.html
See the John Birch Society information
Phyllis Schlafly
Tom DeWeese site report follows
Thursday, January 15, 2009
BEWARE OF CALLS FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION---THE WORST NIGHTMARE OF OUR REPUBLIC By Fred Kelly Grant
Apparently, another attempt will be made in this session of the Ohio legislature to secure a legislative call for a constitutional convention, purportedly to seek a balanced budget amendment. If you live in Ohio, use every means of communication at the disposal of you, your family, your friends, and those you hardly know, to urge members of your legislature to drive a stake through the heart of this menace to the Republic.
In December, 2008, an effort was turned away in the Ohio House by well prepared, wise witnesses who pointed out the dangers of such a convention. If the legislature, by some strange turn of events, should this time passsuch "call", then do as Frazier once warned a fleeing suitor of Rebecca on Cheers, "Run, run, as fast as you can" and seek cover from the fall out. In all the years of our history, including the threat to the Republic posed by the Civil War, has there been such a pernicious weapon to be launched atour Constitutional form of government.
There are some myths that are posed by those who seek a constitutional convention. They can, and must be dispelled, by those who can still read and understand.
First, if enough legislatures call for a constitutional convention to consider a balanced budget amendment, the nature of the convention will be limited to that amendment. Balderdash. That is an absurd conclusion. History itself shows that the conclusion is delusional. When the members arrived in Philadelphia in the 1780s, they arrived for the purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation, not for the purpose of drafting a constitution. The delegates were there with instructions to find a cure for the currency problems which plagued commerce among the states, to find a way to fund a standing army, to find a way make uniform rules of interstate commerce, and to find a way to lay a tax on the states---all without creating a stronger central government. In my early days, I spent hundreds of hours toiling through the journals of the congress which drafted and enacted the Articles of Confederation, in order to write an Honors Program Paper "The Genesis of the Articles of Confederation" as, what I thought would be, the culmination of my constitutional history specialty at the College of Idaho. But, no,that led only to another Paper detailing the drafting of the Constitution asa substitute for the Articles of Confederation.
So, I am not guessing and I am not quoting some other scholar when I say toyou that the first Constitutional Convention in this country ran roughshodover the limited purpose for which it had been called. If anyone tells youthat a constitutional convention can be restricted by its "call", ask him orher to explain to you why the first Convention veered completely and totallyaway from the reason for which it was called, and from the directions the states gave the delegates. If he or she attempts to explain it, ask him or her whether they have read the journals. Ask him or her to explain why the delegates boarded up the hall so that passersby could not hear the deliberations. Boarded up the hall in the miserable heat of Philadelphia, boarded up a room which is virtually stifling on a summer day even today. The delegates were sworn to secrecy, and no one outside the hall knew what was being conceived inside until the deed was done. Keep in mind also that once the contents of the Constitution were known, ratification was not an easy task. There was not a great swell of desire for a strong central government; just as at the time of the Revolution there was not a sweeping desire for independence throughout the colonies.
So, our first and only constitutional convention proved that delegates to a constitutional convention are not bound by any directives given to them by a state. They are free as a bird to amend the basic document in any way theywant. They could, today, do the same to our Constitution as the delegates in the first convention did to the Articles of Confederation.
Second, the proponents claim that the Congress has ignored the call for a convention because their convoluted counting of various calls through the years add up to sufficient number to require convening a convention. Core to this argument is their belief that a state cannot rescind a call once made.That claim is also without merit in the law.
The question of whether a state can rescind a call is a matter for the state to decide. In Idaho, for example, the Attorney General in careful and circumspect manner has rendered the opinion that the legislature can rescind what a prior legislature has done, just as it can repeal an act passed by a prior legislature. If this were not the case, a legislature which rendered a call for a constitutional convention would be binding every successor legislature to that call. So, the first legislature would be rendering the legislative authority of future legislatures void as to any matter related to a constitutional convention. Such power is not allowed under Idaho law, just as it is not allowed under federal law. One Congress cannot bind a successor, rendering it without authority over any particular question of legislative authority.
So, every state which has rescinded any call for a constitutional convention made by a prior legislature has negated the impact of that call, and the Congress cannot lawfully consider a state call if the state has rescinded it. No court will decide otherwise, because such decision would allow today's legislature to forever fix the law on an individual subject. Fortunately for those of us who fully believe in the Constitutional Republic which we enjoy, the Congress knows that to be the law.
Third, the proponents seem to believe that we need a constitutional convention to save our Republican form of government. Nothing could be further from the truth. When I read the rhetoric in support of a constitutional convention to "save our form of government", I, like Alice believe that things get "curiouser and curiouser" as I live longer and longer. In all reality, can there be anyone who really believes that a convention made up of delegates chosen by God knows what method in each state will strengthen our form of government?...
http://tomdeweese.blogspot.com/2009/01/beware-of-calls-for-constitutional.html
Another warning 2 States Away From Constitutional Convention Call
http://www.rense.com/general84/consttit.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment