Only a Couple More States to Con-Con Call?

U.S. now only 2 states away from rewriting Constitution
Critic: 'This is a horrible time to try such a crazy scheme'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 12, 2008
12:25 am Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WorldNetDaily


A public policy organization has issued an urgent alert stating 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."

"Don't for one second doubt that delegates to a Con Con wouldn't revise the First Amendment into a government-controlled privilege, replace the 2nd Amendment with a 'collective' right to self-defense, and abolish the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments, and the rest of the Bill of Rights," said the warning from the American Policy Center.

"Additions could include the non-existent separation of church and state, the 'right' to abortion and euthanasia, and much, much more," the group said.

The warning comes at a time when Barack Obama, who is to be voted the next president by the Electoral College Monday, has expressed his belief the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lens of current events.

Tom DeWeese, who runs the center and its education and grass-roots work, told WND the possibilities stunned him when he discovered lawmakers in Ohio are considering a call for a Constitutional Convention. He explained that 32 other states already have taken that vote, and only one more would be needed to require Congress to name convention delegates who then would have more power than Congress itself.

clipped for continuity

Read more: U.S. now only 2 states away from rewriting Constitution http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=83364#ixzz1EtDkga2r

DeWeese said the Constitutional Convention effort was begun in the 1980s by those who wanted to rein in government with an amendment requiring a balanced budget for the federal agencies.

"Certainly all loyal Americans want government constrained by a balanced budget," the alert said. "But calling a Con Con risks a revolutionary change in our form of government. The ultimate outcome will likely be a new constitution, one that would possibly eliminate the Article 1 restriction to the coinage of real money or even eliminate gun or property rights."

He noted that when the last Constitutional Convention met in 1787, the original goal was to amend the Articles of Confederation. Instead, delegates simply threw them out and wrote a new Constitution.

"We were blessed in 1787; the Con Con delegates were the leaders of a freedom movement that had just cleansed this land of tyranny," the warning said. "Today's corrupt politicians and judges would like nothing better than the ability to legally ignore the Constitution - to modify its "problematic" provisions to reflect the philosophical and socials mores of our contemporary society."

DeWeese then listed some of the states whose legislatures already have issued a call: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

"You may have heard that some of those 32 states have voted to rescind their calls. This is true," the warning continued. "However, under Article V of the Constitution, Congress must call a Constitutional Convention whenever two-thirds (or 34) of the states apply. The Constitution makes no provision for rescission."

The warning also suggested that the belief that a Constitution Convention could be directed in its purpose is misplaced.

"In truth no restrictive language from any state can legally limit the scope or outcome of a Convention! Once a Convention is called, Congress determines how the delegates to the Convention are chosen. Once chosen, those Convention delegates possess more power than the U.S. Congress itself," the warning said.



Read more: U.S. now only 2 states away from rewriting Constitution http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=83364#ixzz1EtDJX5wx

Phyllis Schlafly: Warning On Article V Constitutional Convention

Collection Phyllis Schlafly works include among the founder of Eagle Forum's works

The Constitutional Convention (Con Con) Series [10 boxes] contains materials from the Constitutional Convention battle, especially during the 1980s. Mrs. Schlafly led the opposition to a Constitutional Convention to propose a Balanced Budget Amendment.

http://www.eagleforumarchives.org/PS-Collection.html

A warning to states about a Con-Con
Posted: February 22, 2011 1:00 am Eastern
Phyllis Schlafly

Have you seen the television pictures of the tens of thousands of demonstrators at the Wisconsin State Capitol who are protesting proposed budget cuts for state employees? If so, you've had an advance peek at the sort of demonstrations that will take place if state legislatures are foolish enough to pass resolutions asking Congress to call a national convention to consider amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Barack Obama's political arm, "Organizing for America," swelled the crowds by busing in protesters from Wisconsin and from other states, too. A national convention to amend the U.S. Constitution would become the media event of the century, with 24/7 TV coverage, giving us every reason to anticipate that "Organizing for America" would flood the process of electing delegates and then demonstrate to hurl demands on their deliberations.

All of a sudden, as though someone gave the signal, resolutions are pending in several state legislatures to use the never-before-used power set forth in Article V to petition Congress to "call a Convention for proposing Amendments." This campaign exploits the frustration of many Americans with Congress' out-of-control spending, increase in the national debt (with much of it borrowed from China) and passage of laws, such as Obamacare, that severely limit our freedoms.

Witness the birth of self-government in this inspiring portrayal of the Constitution's genesis, "A More Perfect Union"

Many state legislators are promising that a convention would be limited to consideration of only one specific amendment. No way. Article V clearly specifies that a convention is for the purpose of "proposing Amendments" (note the plural).

Furthermore, various state resolutions support different amendments. Some specify that the one amendment to be considered must be the Repeal Amendment (to allow states to repeal an act of Congress). Others want the one amendment to be Debt Limitation, others want a Balanced Budget Amendment, others want a change in the Electoral College, others want to abolish the 17th Amendment, and one proposal is for a list of 10 Amendments.

When the protesters assemble, we can be sure that many special-interest groups will be pushing their own agendas. You can bet that a once-in-a-lifetime convention will attract activists demanding union rights (like the Wisconsin demonstrators), gay rights, gun control, abortion rights, Equal Rights Amendment and Washington, D.C., statehood.

Calling a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution would be a plunge into darkness because the only rules to govern it are those specified in Article V. It takes two-thirds (34) of the states to pull the trigger, Congress controls and issues the call, and the convention must consider Amendments (in the plural).

Anyone who has attended a national political convention knows very well that the guy with the gavel exercises ruthless power. I've attended 15 Republican National Conventions plus many other national, state and district political conventions, and I've seen every kind of high-handed tactic and rules broken with the bang of the gavel, including cutting off mics, recognizing only pre-chosen delegates, expelling unwanted delegates, cheating on credentials and rules, fixing the voting machines, etc., etc.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a national hero for winning the case that persuaded a judge to declare Obamacare unconstitutional, stated on the steps of the Capitol in Richmond on Jan. 17: "What about a runaway convention? Yes, it is true that once you assemble a convention that states have called, they can do anything they want."

(Column continues below)



Read more: A warning to states about a Con-Con http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=266665#ixzz1EtAJFk16

We Echo Letter Urging Rand Paul Recant Con-Con Call

News with follow-up letter

February 23, 2011

State lawmakers call for constitutional convention
By Ronnie Ellis
CNHI News Service The Richmond Register Wed Feb 23, 2011, 01:00 PM EST

FRANKFORT — With U.S. Sen. Rand Paul leading the cheers, the state Senate on Tuesday passed a resolution calling for a limited constitutional convention to pass a federal balanced budget amendment.

The vote was 22-16 — Republican Sen. Julie Denton of Louisville joined the 15 Democrats in opposing the measure — on the measure sponsored by Senate President and Republican candidate for governor David Williams. The vote followed Paul’s speech to the body and his earlier remarks to the Senate State Government Committee.

The resolution must be passed by the House to have the effect of law, but that’s
unlikely...

more on site the following is clipped

Sen. Robin Webb, D-Grayson, called the amendment “playing chicken with Congress,” and Paul and Williams didn’t entirely dispute that notion. Both told the committee Tuesday they don’t think such a convention will ever be called —– that fear of such a convention will force Congress to act on the idea.

But Paul said in the absence of Congressional action, he supports the convention option.

http://richmondregister.com/localnews/x1348433843/State-lawmakers-call-for-constitutional-convention

Can you believe Rand Paul says what he does after well Kentucky state legislators take some action?

Sen. Robin Webb, D-Grayson, called the amendment “playing chicken with Congress,” and Paul and Williams didn’t entirely dispute that notion. Both told the committee Tuesday they don’t think such a convention will ever be called —– that fear of such a convention will force Congress to act on the idea.

But Paul said in the absence of Congressional action, he supports the convention option.

A call to convene a convention is no small matter and it certainly is no such threat to Congress to act or else what - the states will call for an actual convention to propose the 'limited' convention?

We think Rand Paul should be seriously considered for more letters than his inbox can hold. What is really troubling - he obviously has not read much about how the 1787 delegates went far beyond the convention's stated mission and crafted a new Constitution.

Net the Truth Online

Rand Paul Urges Kentucky to Call for Constitutional Convention
Submitted by SteveMT on Tue, 02/22/2011 - 16:06
in Rand Paul
7
votes Rand Paul urges state lawmakers to call for constitutional convention
By Jack Brammer
Posted: 1:20pm on Feb 22, 2011; Modified: 2:07pm on Feb 22, 2011

FRANKFORT — At the urging of U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, a state Senate committee approved a measure Tuesday urging Congress to convene a constitutional convention that would consider a balanced budget amendment.

Critics of Senate Concurrent Resolution 134 said the state legislature should not meddle in federal policy and expressed fear that a constitutional convention would lead to other unwanted changes.

Read more: http://www.kentucky.com/2011/02/22/1644712/rand-paul-urges-s...

http://dailypaul.com/157929/rand-paul-urges-kentucky-to-call-for-constitutional-convention

Net the Truth Online has covered the dangers of a federal Constitutional Convention for several years now. We emphatically agree with the following letter and all of the negative comments regarding Rand Paul and his push for Kentucky to call for a Con-Con for any reason, including balanced budget. Also we've posted material about Judge Andrew Napolitano, who has urged the Tea Party brigade to also push for state legislatures to initiate a convention call. All of the comments are extremely important, don't miss a one.

Some selections

Submitted by Jive_Dadson on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 13:50.
http://paul.senate.gov/contact_form.cfm

Dear Dr. Paul:

As a friend of Liberty, I urge you to recant the call for a constitutional convention.

The only time a constitutional convention met previously, the limited purpose was to provide means for funding of the union. Instead of keeping to that task, the convention scrapped the existing organic laws, the Articles of Confederation, and wrote an entirely new and different constitution.

Although it is flawed, that document does contain elements that are essential for Liberty, most importantly the Bill of Rights. A constitutional convention would put the the Bill of Rights in grave danger. Know that few if any State representatives who would vote in the convention would share our ideals!

There is no provision in the present organic laws to limit the scope of a constitutional convention. Any words to that effect in a resolution for a convention could simply be voted away at the convention.

Our problem is not the Constitution; It is the failure of federal government to abide by it. If changes to the constitution are warranted, the only prudent way to effect them is through amendment, not a constitutional convention.

I beg you not to open that Pandora's box.

Yours for Liberty,

http://dailypaul.com/157929/rand-paul-urges-kentucky-to-call-for-constitutional-convention

next comment

Say it ain't so!
Submitted by spacehabitats on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 13:36.
As much as I admire and support Rand Paul, this is a HUGE mistake.

Every fiber of my body screams that this nuclear option to balancing the budget is the LAST thing we need right now.

Once convened, a Constitutional Convention would have as much authority as the original convention; passing or abolishing ANY amendment or even scrapping and replacing the entire document!
A Con-Con can NOT be limited to a specific topic or amendment, and anyone stating that it can be is guilty of naivete, deception, or wishful thinking.

When it comes to this issue, Rand needs to put the gun down and back away... slowly.

http://dailypaul.com/157929/rand-paul-urges-kentucky-to-call-for-constitutional-convention

so bad
Submitted by NJforRP on Tue, 02/22/2011 - 20:45.
Rand Rand Rand....

A ConCon is dangerous, and balanced budget amendments mean they are forced to raise taxes.

http://www.libertynewsnetwork.tv/?p=685

Once the Article V can is opened, the Constitution is gone.
The delegates can declare that ratification is optional by states is not necessary.
There is no limit to what they can do.

WATCH THIS VIDEO please!

http://dailypaul.com/157929/rand-paul-urges-kentucky-to-call-for-constitutional-convention

States Warned of Dangers of Con-Con
Submitted by robbjerk on Tue, 02/22/2011 - 17:24.
Here is a good article on the dangers of a Constitutional Convention. I agree that Rand Paul needs to reconsider this issue.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=266665

http://dailypaul.com/157929/rand-paul-urges-kentucky-to-call-for-constitutional-convention?page=1

More please review as much as possible and write or email your objections to Senator Rand Paul today.

Danger: Rand Paul to Push for Constitutional Convention
Has the sellout of the Republican Majority begun?


http://www.mediacontrol.org/2011/02/danger-rand-paul-to-push-for.html

Also see

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

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

PA: Will Commonsense Reform Pass Now?

Very interesting topic debated on the PCN Channel between Gene Barr VP Government and Public Affirs for PA Chamber of Business and Industry and Scott Cooper PA Association for Justice, VP.

http://www.pcntv.com/schedule_daily.php

Below are links to basically the positions taken while on the PCN TV program.

Now if the B and I group would please look into the wholly unconstitutional Keystone Opportunity Zones,

Right, talk about unfairness hasn't happened during the entire run of the Pennsylvania tax-abatement/exemption program since 1999. Hasn't happened for over 10 years of the documented as failed state program. Doubtful such will happen now.

How in reality is it fair that a select group of residents/homeowners and business owners whose property is authorized to be designated a KOZ (3-taxing bodies meet and forgive, annually) get local and state taxes waived for some amount of years - possibly 20 years - and yet the governments waiving these taxes don't cut expenses even a smattering thus other residents/homeowners and business landowners not in a KOZ must fork over not only their own tax bill payment but share the burden of the tax-free KOZers?

Yet not a peep from the PA Chamber of Business and Industry on that unfairness.

Guess there aren't enough disgruntled PA taxpayers not in KOZs to get the attention of that organization.

Sickening isn't it? See our long-standing coverage of PA Keystone Opportunity Zones found with a search of the site or in the sidebar links.

Net the Truth Online

Links some clips

Fair Share Act Pennsylvania state legislature

Schedule PCN TV call-in programming and guests

http://www.pcntv.com/shows_callin.html

Pennsylvania Considers Tort Reform
By Kenneth J. St. Onge | February 18, 2011
Pennsylvania lawmakers are once again eyeing a tort reform package — a resurrection of the “Fair Share” act — that many in the insurance industry say would help put downward pressure on premiums and rein in what critics say is a legal system abused by plaintiffs’ lawyers in the state.

The tort reform package — which is similar to others previously proposed in Pennsylvania — would alter the mechanics of civil liability; that is, how the courts and juries assign a dollar value to judgments rendered against defendants.

Pennsylvania works differently from most other states, where guilty parties typically can be apportioned liability in civil cases. In other states, typically, a party that was found 50 percent at fault for causing $100 worth of damage would be responsible for paying $50. But in Pennsylvania, that same person could be held responsible for $100, under the legal theory joint and several liability. In a nutshell: one party can be forced to pay for the misdeeds of another.

The peculiar quirk is sometimes referred to as the “1 percent rule” since it’s conceivable — but unlikely — that a party in a lawsuit can be found 1 percent liable for causing an injury, but be forced to pay 100 percent of any monetary damages. In states where it’s allowed, it’s extremely rare, although it can happen. It’s also called the “deep pocket” rule by critics, who say it encourages lawsuits against companies with substantial assets.

Pennsylvania tort reformers, chiefly Republicans, say the measures — which would change rules regarding comparative and contributory negligence — are long overdue, benefit businesses in a struggling economy and would ultimately help drive down insurance costs. But plaintiffs’ attorneys counter that the measures would actually drive up legal costs — and could even open a slew of potential new lawsuits and claims against insurance agents.

It’s a huge concern for insurers, who often front the legal bills and pay the judgments against guilty defendants in the state, said Kari Kissinger, government affairs director for the Insurance Agents and Brokers (IA&B) group in Pennsylvania. “Those damages can sometimes be very, very high, so it really puts the cost burden on those that are perceived to have these deep pockets.” In other words: insurers.

But those concerns can have a real impact on other businesses, particularly when owners worry they will be sued for someone else’s mistakes. That type of tort climate brings higher insurance premiums and dissuades new businesses from opening, Kissinger said. “It’s well understood that businesses are hesitant to come to Pennsylvania, simply because they look at the Tort climate, number one being that we do not have an enactment of the Fair Share Act and are hesitant to come into the state… it creates that fearful and defensive environment.”...

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2011/02/18/186942.htm

Scott Cooper PA Association for Justice

http://www.pajustice.org/pa/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=TodaysNews

Push is on for commonsense lawsuit abuse reform

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re-enactment of Fair Share Act is PA Chamber members' top priority
The PA Chamber is fully engaged with the General Assembly to secure enactment of a number of its members’ lawsuit abuse reform priorities. They include: ensuring that defendants in civil liability cases are responsible only for their fair share of damages; preventing plaintiffs’ attorneys from shopping for favorable court venues; protecting innocent sellers of products who had nothing to do with the product’s manufacture; and enacting other reasonable protections for manufacturers.

These improvements will help create a legal system that is fair for all Pennsylvanians.

The debate over lawsuit abuse reform, or tort reform, is about restoring common sense, fairness and personal responsibility to the Commonwealth’s legal system. This is important because a state’s legal system has a direct bearing on the cost and quality of health care; the cost of consumer goods and services; new product research and development; business investments and job creation. Pennsylvania has one of the worst legal climates in the nation, which threatens all of these.

One of the PA Chamber’s first orders of business is re-enactment of the Fair Share Act – or joint and several liability reform.

Under the Fair Share Act, damage awards in civil liability cases would be proportional to responsibility for an injury or loss except in cases in which a defendant is: (1) found liable for intentional fraud or tort; (2) held liable for environmental hazards; (3) held civilly liable as a result of drunk driving; or (4) held more than 60 percent liable for the injury or loss. However, a defendant who is found more than 60 percent, but less than 100 percent, liable would still maintain the right to take action against other defendants seeking compensation for contributory damages.

Under the current system of joint and several liability, a defendant found only 1 percent responsible can be held liable for 100 percent of the damages. Trial lawyers take advantage of the unfair legal doctrine in order to go after “deep pockets.” The reasonable changes contained in the proposed Fair Share Act restore balance, while maintaining extra protections for victims in the egregious situations outlined above.

http://www.pachamber.org/www/news/headlines/2011/whatsnew/Push%20is%20on%20for%20commonsense%20lawsuit%20abuse%20reform.php