Tea Party Supported Freshman Legislator supports 2nd Con-Con Call too

We've warned of an Article V convention method as a means of 'proposing' amendment/s to the federal United States Constitution many times over. We've pointed out the precedent-setting of the original and to-date first and only convention convened merely by several states initially to 'amend' the Articles of Confederation which went farther once the delegates convened in the convention. A new Constitution was produced and sent to the states for ratification.

Who called that convention? The states. All it takes is for 34 states to issue a convention call for the purpose of proposing an Amendment, say, a Balanced Budget Amendment, and the convention 'shall' be convened.

From then on, it is up for some debate how such a convention would be convened.

But even if that aspect becomes settled, other aspects of a Convention will never be settled until after the delegates to the convention have acted in what is known as being representatives of 'the people.'

It is folly to assume a federal second Constitutional Convention 'can' be limited.

Our first convention was not so limited even though it was expressly convened for the purpose of merely amending the Articles of Confederation.

There is nothing at all to prevent delegates in a second Constitutional Convention from going beyond stated limitations put on the body prior to convening.

Some notable resources include Phyllis Shlafly, New American.

Beware of the following so-called Freshman legislator, (Senator Lee) and others who would consider the Convention method an option, maybe a remote option, but an option to be among those if and when the normal route of proposing an Amendment to the Constitution, Congress proposes and states ratify - fails to get off the ground.

Some of those names have to include: Sean Hannity, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Brian Kilmeade, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, John Stossel, and Rand Paul. See our sidebar info including the video wherein Judge Napolitano encourages Republicans and specifically Tea Party supporters to rally round a push on state legislatures to make the call for a second Constitutional Convention.

Freshman Senator Backing a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment
by Lauren Torlone | January 16, 2011

Print Email Share 391 Comments

Buoyed by strong Tea Party support during his campaign, freshman Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) has arrived in Washington and says he's determined to take significant steps to rectify the staggering U.S. deficit. Lee talked to Fox News on Sunday about his proposed constitutional amendment to balance the budget.

In order to propose such an amendment, several steps would need to be taken. The first option, which Lee says is the path he will choose, is for both houses of Congress to pass a two thirds majority vote. The second option would be a Constitutional Convention, which would also require a two thirds vote from state legislatures. The proposal would then need to be ratified.

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/16/freshman-senator-backing-balanced-budget

MUST READING

Have Senators Rand Paul and DeMint caved in to our Capitol Hill RINO Crowd?Posted by johnwk on November 23, 2010 at 6:18pm in Constitutional Issues
View Discussions
After listening to Rand Paul who was on Mike Huckabee’s show this weekend [Nov. 14th, 2010], I was shocked to hear him promoting the phony balanced budget amendment cooked up by RINOs in the 1980s and 90s, which they wanted to use to repeal our Constitution‘s apportioned tax method for extinguishing deficits. This RINO crowd of the 80s and 90s were even trying to convene a Constitutional Convention under the guise of adopting their fraudulent amendment, which would have put our entire Constitution up for grabs and be savaged by every snake and special interest group.

I fear Rand Paul has already been conned by these slithering snakes who cooked up the following fake and worthless balanced budget amendment, cleverly designed to supercede our founder’s method to deal with deficits, and which Rand Paul now supports:

`Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.

NOTE: The amendment can be immediately overrule by a three-fifths vote.

`Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.

NOTE: The very intentions of the amendment can be subverted by allowing Congress to borrow without providing specific taxes at the same time to extinguish the specific amount being borrowed.

`Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.

NOTE: This is a feel good provision. It sounds great and technical but is it? Have we not just learned with the recent health care proposals, how projected figures can be manipulated by our friends in government to portray legislation in which outlays and receipts are in balance when they are not?

`Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a rollcall vote

NOTE: Well, isn’t this just dandy? Taxes may be increased by a simple majority vote in each House to keep the budget balanced. How sweet of Congress to be so thoughtful to reduce their pain in raising taxes to keep the budget balanced, while making it more difficult, a three-fifths vote, to reduce spending which is really needed to balance the budget.

http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/forum/topics/have-senators-rand-paul-and